Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Uuid and header-only support
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-05 13:00:38
James E. King, III wrote:
> In other words, the existing implementation may be optimal using a PRNG.
This depends on your definition of optimality. If speed is more important
than not having UUID collisions, sure, it's optimal.
> I have not tried RtlGenRandom yet, but I am worried about removing
> Wincrypt in favor of that because it will break any implementation that
> uses its own entropy provider, for example a wincrypt driver that hooks up
> to a hardware entropy generator based on project requirements (government,
What definition of "break" do you use here? I can't imagine that seeding a
Mersenne twister with whatever hardware source of entropy can meet any
government requirements, or that such a project will not generate its UUIDs
directly from the entropy source, instead of going through a third-party
library that needs to be audited and re-audited if upgraded.
Plus, the entropy provider is hardcoded at present.
What specific scenario will "break"?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk