I\'dl like to generate some alphanumeric passwords in python. Some possible ways are:
import string
from random import sample, choice
chars = string.letters
Two recipes using the builtin secrets (python 3.6+)
This is much faster than the accepted answer. (see timings below)
import secrets
password = secrets.token_urlsafe(32)
Example output:
4EPn9Z7RE3l6jtCxEy7CPhia2EnYDEkE6N1O3-WnntU
The argument for token_urlsafe
is number of bytes. On average, one byte is 1.3 characters (base64 encoded).
This is slighly modified copy from the docs of secrets. With this you have more fine grained control on how to generated passwords have to look. Of course, this is not fast option if you need to generate a lot of passwords.
alphabet
. In this example, there are just -
and _
added.import string
import secrets
alphabet = string.ascii_letters + string.digits + '-_'
while True:
password = ''.join(secrets.choice(alphabet) for i in range(20))
if (sum(c.islower() for c in password) >=4
and sum(c.isupper() for c in password) >=4
and sum(c.isdigit() for c in password) >=4):
break
Example output:
HlxTm2fcFE54JA1I_Yp5
If considered speed, you can also drop the while-loop. In this case, it actually simplifies to gerrit's answer (but then you loose the finer-grained control):
import string
import secrets
alphabet = string.ascii_letters + string.digits + '-_'
password = ''.join(secrets.choice(alphabet) for i in range(20))
1. secrets.token_urlsafe
1.62 µs ± 96.6 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
2. Enforce amount of digits/upper characters etc
107 µs ± 11.9 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
3. "I don't need the finer-grained control"
77.2 µs ± 9.31 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
Speed comparison setup: python 3.8.5 64-bit on Win10, 43 characters in each password (=32 bytes for token_urlsafe).
WARNING this answer should be ignored due to critical security issues!
Option #2 seems quite reasonable except you could add a couple of improvements:
''.join(choice(chars) for _ in range(length)) # in py2k use xrange
_
is a conventional "I don't care what is in there" variable. And you don't need list comprehension there, generator expression works just fine for str.join
. It is also not clear what "slow" means, if it is the only correct way.
I think this'll do the trick. random.SystemRandom
uses the same underlying crypto random function as os.urandom
but it uses the familiar random
interface. This function won't be subject to the weird 128 byte thing as in Ben's answer.
import random
import string
def gen_random_string(char_set, length):
if not hasattr(gen_random_string, "rng"):
gen_random_string.rng = random.SystemRandom() # Create a static variable
return ''.join([ gen_random_string.rng.choice(char_set) for _ in xrange(length) ])
password_charset = string.ascii_letters + string.digits
gen_random_string(password_charset, 32)
For the crypto-PRNG folks out there:
def generate_temp_password(length):
if not isinstance(length, int) or length < 8:
raise ValueError("temp password must have positive length")
chars = "ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ23456789"
from os import urandom
return "".join(chars[ord(c) % len(chars)] for c in urandom(length))
Note that for an even distribution, the chars
string length ought to be an integral divisor of 128; otherwise, you'll need a different way to choose uniformly from the space.
You should use the secrets module to generate cryptographically safe passwords, which is available starting in Python 3.6. Adapted from the documentation:
import secrets
import string
alphabet = string.ascii_letters + string.digits
password = ''.join(secrets.choice(alphabet) for i in range(20)) # for a 20-character password
For more information on recipes and best practices, see this section on recipes in the Python documentation. You can also consider adding string.punctuation or even just using string.printable for a wider set of characters.
I suggest the following for those stuck on python <3.6:
import os, math, string, struct
def generate_password(pass_len):
symbols = string.printable.strip()
return ''.join([symbols[x * len(symbols) / 256] for x in struct.unpack('%dB' % (pass_len,), os.urandom(pass_len))])
This has the advantage over Ben Mosher's solution that the each symbol from symbols has an equal change of occurring whereas using modulus slightly favors the first symbols in the alpabet. The alphabet of symbols is also larger in this suggestion.