Hacker News Reader

sane defaults is always the goal. The only problem is people can't seem to agree on what behaviour is "sane".

So don't have a default. Have securerandom() and insecurerandom() and make the programmer choose.

That has the advantage of avoiding problems in a generation's time: if most platforms moved to random() being secure, it would be excusable if young programmers started assuming that would be the case on older platform too.

It’s already implied by the presence of secure_random and it isn’t insecure when it’s being used for the appropriate use case.

It's only implied by secure_random if you know secure_random exists. This is a very very very well known thing. The default MUST be secure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com