Browse thread
Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml
-
Michael Donat
-
Thorsten Ohl
- Vitaly Lugovsky
-
Thorsten Ohl
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Vitaly Lugovsky <vsl@o...> |
| Subject: | Re: Signatures (was: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode) |
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Thorsten Ohl wrote: > > I don't see a benefit in having an OCaml module encryption system. > > But a cryptographic O'Caml module _signature_ system could be useful > for checking the integrity of applications. I always distribute my > work as source, but it would be useful if there was a way to check > that the sources have not been modified if someone sends in a bug > report. > > Even better would be a fixed point condition that would allow to print > a warning message: ``The sources have been modified, you can do > anything you want, but don't blame me or the results.'' But it don't need a core support from OCaml - you just can use MD5 checksum or something like this.... -- V.S.Lugovsky aka Mauhuur (http://ontil.ihep.su/~vsl) (UIN=45482254)