View Single Post
Unread 11 Jan 2009, 14:10   #25
Phil^
Insomniac
 
Phil^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
Phil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Change to Scan IDs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless View Post
You might want to read Knuth and then reconsider whether a "random" number is simple or not.
Im assuming they are using perls rand() funct , which seeds on first use if not done already. Its hard to mess up if you are using a single function call without deliberately sabotaging your own efforts by reseeding
http://perl.active-venture.com/pod/func/srand.html
Quote:
Most programs won't even call srand() at all, except those that need a cryptographically-strong starting point rather than the generally acceptable default, which is based on time of day, process ID, and memory allocation, or the /dev/urandom device, if available.
On the servers, /dev/urandom should be available - plus the process id and memory allocation states should not be externally available to compromise the entropy pool
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote