Message158745
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
Jon.Oberheide, neologix, pitrou, r.david.murray, sbt, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年04月19日.20:49:15 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAH_1eM1VMDTers=NkcRmGO4tOwbrG8NVQioSDtLrZXyzhyNcfg@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1334780538.29.0.212998514403.issue14532@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> v3 patch, based on feedback from the review here: http://bugs.python.org/review/14532/show
Looks good to me.
One last thing (sorry for not bringing this up earlier): I don't like
bikeshedding, but at least to me, `time_independent_equals` is a bit
too long to type, and sounds reductive (we don't want to specifically
avoid only timing attacks, but provide a way to compare digests
securely).
What do you (all) think of something shorter, like `secure_compare`,
`secure_equals`, or something along those lines?
Note that I'm not good at finding names, so if others are fine with
the current one, I won't object ;-) |
|