From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA20816 for caml-red; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:51:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA06459 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:21:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de (heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de [130.83.24.139]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e59HL0r16058 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:21:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ohl@localhost) by heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19964; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:17:10 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de: ohl set sender to ohl@heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de using -f From: Thorsten Ohl Message-ID: <14657.9878.935831.924470@heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:17:10 +0200 (CEST) To: Subject: Signatures (was: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode) In-Reply-To: <003a01bfd0c9$9f1d1370$67adc2cf@machiavelli> References: <003a01bfd0c9$9f1d1370$67adc2cf@machiavelli> X-Mailer: VM 6.74 under Emacs 20.3.1 Reply-To: ohl@hep.tu-darmstadt.de Sender: weis Michael Donat writes: > 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.'' Cheers, -Thorsten -- Thorsten Ohl, Physics Department, TU Darmstadt -- ohl@hep.tu-darmstadt.de http://heplix.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ohl/ [<=== PGP public key here]