Message162769
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
arigo, christian.heimes, fijall, hynek, pitrou |
| Date |
2012年06月14日.10:18:29 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1339668927.3355.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1339668828.26.0.333357632819.issue15061@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> Antoine, seriously? You want to explore a function that's called
> "secure" when the only thing you know about it is "probably secure"?
> This is extremely tricky business and I think it should be called
> secure only if you can prove it's secure. Otherwise it's plain
> insecure and should not be named that.
What's the methodology to "prove" that it's secure?
We could rename "secure" to "safe" to downtone it a bit, but it's still
an improvement on the nominal equality comparison. |
|