Make a unique filesystem path, without creating the file

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:32 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Under Linux, /dev/random is the way to go when strong security is
>> needed. Note that /dev/random is a scarce resource on ordinary
>> systems.
>
> That's actually incorrect, but you're not the only one to have been
> mislead by the man pages.
>
> http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2014/02/25/safely-generate-random-numbers/

Still, mostly hypnotic repetitions.

However, it admits:

   But /dev/random also tries to keep track of how much entropy remains
   in its kernel pool, and will occasionally go on strike if it decides
   not enough remains.

That's the whole point. /dev/random will rather block the program than
lower the quality of the random numbers below a threshold. /dev/urandom
has no such qualms.

   If you use /dev/random instead of urandom, your program will
   unpredictably (or, if you’re an attacker, very predictably) hang when
   Linux gets confused about how its own RNG works.

Yes, possibly indefinitely, too.

   Using /dev/random will make your programs less stable, but it won’t
   make them any more cryptographically safe.

It is correct that you shouldn't use /dev/random as a routine source of
bulk random numbers. It is also correct that /dev/urandom depletes the
entropy pool as effectively as /dev/random. However, when you are
generating signing or encryption keys, you should use /dev/random.

As stated in <URL: https://lwn.net/Articles/606141/>:

   /dev/urandom should be used for essentially all random numbers
   required, but /dev/random is sometimes used for things like extremely
   sensitive, long-lived keys (e.g. GPG) or one-time pads.

> See also:
>
> http://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/

Already addressed.


Marko