On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao <mba...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a >> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G >> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some >> incorrect assumptions and hard-coded length values in the code before. >> Please note that, for example, the tuple (2048, 256) for DSA is valid >> according to FIPS PUB 186-4. >> >> Beyond the specific issues in signatures, I decided to provide a broader >> solution and enable key parameter retrieval for other key types (EC, DH) >> when possible. This is, when the key is not sensitive. One thing that I >> should note here is that token keys (those that have the CKA_TOKEN attribute >> equal to 'true') are considered sensitive in this regard, at least by the >> NSS Software Token implementation. I don't have access to other vendor >> implementations but if there is any concern, we can adjust the constraint to >> NSS-only. However, I'm not sure which use-case would require to get private >> keys out of a real token, weakening its security. I'd be more conservative >> here and not query the values if not sure that it will succeed. >> >> No regressions found in jdk/sun/security/pkcs11. A new test added: >> LargerDSAKey. >> >> -- >> [1] - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8271566 > > Martin Balao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > P11Key static inner classes refactorings. Hmm, thinking more about "internal"/"opaque", given this is naming for the parent, maybe "internal" is more correct. The non-sensitive keys are encapsulated by the children classes and is still an instance of the parent. If you name the parent class w/ "opaque" suffix, it looks misleading/confusing. The opaqueness is implied by the implementation instead of the properties of the objects. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4961
