On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 10:04 +0200, Niels Möller wrote: > Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > Yes. Although if this is only for the versions prior to using the > > prepare function, this is not a significant threat (the private key > > computations are typically done on trusted values by the server). > One scanario is a web hosting provider that handles private server > keys > provided by untrusted customers. No idea how common that is, but one > wouldn't want one customer to crash the webserver also used by > others.
right. > > What is more important for older versions of gnutls are the public > > key > > operations such as ecdsa_verify(), dsa_verify() and rsa_encrypt(). > > Now I'm confused, I hope I didn't introduce any mpz_powm_sec calls on > the code paths operating on public keys only? I don't think we have > to care too much about obscure use cases where the supposedly public > exponent actually needs to be well protected. Correct, it seems I replied prior to thinking. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
