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 QAA31848 for caml-red; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:00:03 +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 UAA16375 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:13:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ontil.ihep.su (ontil.ihep.su [194.190.161.63]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e59IDer16611 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (vsl@localhost) by ontil.ihep.su (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA26638; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:56:11 +0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:56:07 +0400 (MSD) From: Vitaly Lugovsky To: Thorsten Ohl cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Signatures (was: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode) In-Reply-To: <14657.9878.935831.924470@heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: weis 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)