Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator

[Greg Wooledge]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:31:18PM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> Luckily I did not just assume that Bash delivers high quality random
> numbers, but I read the source code, and then found that the quality
> was low. I do not think must users would do that.

You're correct.  Most users would not have to read the source code to
know that the built-in PRNG in bash (or in libc, or in basically ANY
other standard thing) is of lower than cryptographic quality.

Most users already KNOW this.