On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 08:23:06 -0700, Juan Lang wrote:
> > Just thought I'd give it a heads-up, maybe this is still an issue
> > that should at least be marked in the comments?
>
> I removed that comment because it's too strong. We have no idea what
> guarantees of randomness RtlGenRandom provi
> Thanks for the quick response! Actually it seems that rand_s()
> uses RtlGenRandom[2], and MSDN claims the function can be used for
> cryptographically secure random numbers[1].
I don't see anything on that page that says that it can be used for
cryptographically secure random numbers, not that
> Just thought I'd give it a heads-up, maybe this is still an issue
> that should at least be marked in the comments?
I removed that comment because it's too strong. We have no idea what
guarantees of randomness RtlGenRandom provides, so it's not clear
there's anything to fix.
Feel free to send
Hello, I just randomly stumbled upon this old mail
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-May/017718.html
and I found the FIXME comment about (lack of) cryptographic quality
slightly worrying, so I had a quick look at the gitweb to see
what the implementation would look like these days
