News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ask HN: We just had an actual UUID v4 collision.... Parent comment

Re:Ask HN: We just had an actual UUID v4 collision... by jubilanti on Friday May 08, 2026 @03:48PM (#48067841)
Yes, because UUIDv7 gives up some random bits in order to include the timestamp, which is done in a way that makes UUIDv7s quick to sort by timestamp.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: We just had an actual UUID v4 collision... by ai_slop_hater on Friday May 08, 2026 @05:53PM (#48069246)
How does including the timestamp expose me to adversarial exploitation?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: We just had an actual UUID v4 collision... by goalieca on Friday May 08, 2026 @08:10PM (#48070331)
I’ve not come across any.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: We just had an actual UUID v4 collision... by danpalmer on Friday May 08, 2026 @07:56PM (#48070240)
It reveals the time you created the UUID, for one. That can lead to a bunch of problems.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: We just had an actual UUID v4 collision... by devmor on Saturday May 09, 2026 @09:16AM (#48074747)
The same way using an auto increment integer ID does, but imagine that integer also leaked your created timestamp column too.
[ Parent | on HN ]