At 5:51 PM -0400 8/8/08, Tony Capel wrote:
1) I would prefer the security consideration apply to encryption as well as
signature checking. Although less likely, it could be a sending
agent who uses
an intended receiver's unvalidated encryption certificate to get the
"big" key.
Someone who is encrypting blindly has many problems that just key
size. We could add a warning about this as well, but it is should be
a separate warning.
I would not want the text to imply that this is ONLY a receiver
signature issue.
It is far easier to get someone to try to validate a signature than
it is to get them to encrypt a message.
2) The swamping is specifically related to the crypto element not necessarily
the CPU (i.e. it may be the h/w token that is swamped).
Good point. I would be happy with "CPU or other resources".