Re: Re: hash_pbkdf2 vs openssl_pbkdf2

On 23 May 2013 14:11, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > If a bug is found we fix it. Proving several implementations of the same > thing to account for potential bugs isn't a good idea imho. It's not a very good example, I admit, but my point is that it's not as though they're actually the same code underneath. > If two functions for the same thing exist people need to wonder about which > one of them should be used, and in the worst case decide to use a pattern > like "if function1 exists call function1, if function2 exists call > function2, etc". Just like nowadays to generate a random string you usually > check something like four of five different functions. I think it's > preferable to have one and only one function in a default-enabled extension. I think that horse bolted about a decade ago. Assuming the OpenSSL version does actually work properly, I don't see why it's an issue. Adam