Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > after I pointed it out), that calling realloc() in the code will leave lots of
> > copies of private keys and other sensitive data lying around in memory. The
> > bignum code should never call the libc realloc(), but should instead use a safe
> > realloc which does a malloc(), a memcpy(), a memset() to zero of the original
> > data, and then a free().
>
> Is this really something that OpenSSL should be concerned about? I mean, is
> it really trying to make itself safe from someone reading /dev/mem, /dev/swap,
> or the random swap blocks on the C: drive?
Quite simply, yes. There's no need to introduce a new weakness
simply because others exist. And it makes sense to put the sanitation
code in the free()/realloc()/etc. methods, because it ensures
that they'll be called. This doesn't solve the problem of losing
references because of exiting scope (secure compiler, anyone?),
but yields a reduction in risk nonetheless.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
