On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:17:39AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 11 November 2016 at 22:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:20:26PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > >> I can't think of a reason why we'd need a cryptographically secure > >> transformation just to generate a random hostname. > > > > We want it cryptographically secure to preserve the machine-id. It's > > probably not too important in itself, but it's a good idea to keep > > it hidden because other hashes might be generated from it. > > Which lies in the problem. If people are going to derive hashes from > it they will do so any way the want and most likely it will be leaked > out by someone doing a sum or just copying it etc. If there is > something 'unique' on a system, it will leak out eventually. All you > can do is try to design to drip out slowly or pour out all at once. > Trying to find some happy middle ground ends up usually with it > pouring out all at once when no one expected it. True. But one, it's not *that* important, it's not the root password or anything. But two, it'd say that we're designing it to drip out very very slowly. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
