Re: Signatures (was: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode)

From: Vitaly Lugovsky (vsl@ontil.ihep.su)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2000 - 23:56:07 MET DST

  • Next message: Vitaly Lugovsky: "Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml"

    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)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 16:04:41 MET DST