in reply to Re^2: 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?
Where is the proof of concept code? (Without it, this is nothing more that idle speculation that has cost a lot of people a lot of time and effort.)
Wrong on every count. And posting anonymously proves it.
Once (shame on you!)
Twice (shame on me!)
More often than I'd like to be
All the time
Just when answering stupid polls
Who you callin' a fool?
I refuse to vote in this ridiculous poll
Results (486 votes). Check out past polls.