in reply to Re^3: 5.18.0 is available NOW!
in thread 5.18.0 is available NOW!
That is not the problem; the response to that is.
When considering a breaking change, I was taught to ask three questions:
Is the thing being 'fixed' actually manifesting itself in production code.
Has any real-world occurrence of the ACA actually been witnessed or reported?
Either by limiting the total breakage; or by selectively applying the breaking fix only when required.
Could the 'fix' have been limited to (say) only when taint was enabled?
Not the first. Not the best. Not the least effort or least worst; but the ONLY?
Is it necessary to randomise all hashes differently?
Wouldn't picking the same random hash initialisation, for all hashes for any given run, have been just as effective at stopping real-world exploits in the wild?
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
PERL_PERTURB_KEYS
by dolmen (Beadle) on May 20, 2013 at 14:31 UTC | |
|
Re^5: 5.18.0 is available NOW!
by Anonymous Monk on May 20, 2013 at 20:36 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 21, 2013 at 06:21 UTC | |
by Anonymous Monk on May 22, 2013 at 06:41 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 22, 2013 at 07:15 UTC | |
by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 22, 2013 at 10:13 UTC | |
| |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 20, 2013 at 21:53 UTC |