On 4/26/16, 14:20 , "openssl-dev on behalf of Salz, Rich" <openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org on behalf of rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
>> Look. If Doug noticed this, programmers less intimate with this API are >>much >> more likely to get stung by it. The protection against such a >>misunderstanding >> is cheap. > >Is it? I think it is. See Doug’s post. >And what is that protection? Checking whether (n, e) passed are pointing at rsa’s own, and not freeing them if they do. See Doug’s posting for the details. > Without introducing memory leaks. It certainly does not look like this check would introduce any memory leaks, while on the other hand it would prevent a few crashes. If you think otherwise - would you care to illustrate?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
