Re: [pkcs11] Re: Proposal: New CKA_DESTROYABLE attribute

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

On 13/06/2013 6:35 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> (And, I presume, at least one large PKCS #11 vendor who currently uses
> a self- assigned range of values to support this). 

There are at least four variations on that define that I know about (and
don't assume a single vendor will have only one approach to this).
It has been one of the on-going issues with PKCS#11 in that the defines
for this were not allocated early on which left vendors to having to add
their own and unfortunately many vendors did not use the vendor
extension space for this and created a mess.

I've logged defect reports with most of those vendors on this item - and
a number have updated things in their more recent releases.

Tim.