Hi,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:08 AM Benjamin Morel wrote:
>
> Seeds could even be dangerous here, as these numbers are supposed to be
> cryptographically secure. If you need a seedable PRNG for testing, just use
> rand().
>
Not only it could be dangerous, it would beat the entire purpose of
rand
Seeds could even be dangerous here, as these numbers are supposed to be
cryptographically secure. If you need a seedable PRNG for testing, just use
rand().
Ben
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 09:57, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> fully correct. Seeds are not needed anymore.
>
>
> best,
>
> On
Good afternoon,
fully correct. Seeds are not needed anymore.
best,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 12:44 PM Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 05:52 David Rodrigues wrote:
>
> > Just to know, can we have a random_seed() for random_int()/random_bytes()
> > like we have mt_srand() to mt_rand()
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 05:52 David Rodrigues wrote:
> Just to know, can we have a random_seed() for random_int()/random_bytes()
> like we have mt_srand() to mt_rand()?
>
> I don't know if random_int() is more "random" than mt_rand(), but if it is,
> so maybe is valid a random_seed() function.
>
> -
Just to know, can we have a random_seed() for random_int()/random_bytes()
like we have mt_srand() to mt_rand()?
I don't know if random_int() is more "random" than mt_rand(), but if it is,
so maybe is valid a random_seed() function.
--
David Rodrigues
