On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:16:50PM +0200, Max wrote:
I'm somewhat confused with the implementation
details: placing fallback into library
would mean we effectively duplicate the fallback logic: the library might or might
not fallback and than the application will have to decide if it's ok with the
fallback.
I'd prefer to use secure only random in the library code and make insecure fallback
a
compile-time option in the application code. That way we can manage it on application
or even case-by-case basis later on if we decide to drop it altogether.
I think we should have the related code only once, and that means it should
be in the library. I don't want per-application specific fallback.
In any case, to conserve our limited development resources, let's not have
any fallback for the time being and wait if it ever turns out to be an issue
for any of our users.
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org>
http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)