Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!metro!pta!teti!teslab!andrew
From: andrew@teslab.lab.OZ (Andrew Phillips  289 8712)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: WB 1.3.2
Summary: Public-key encryption is the ideal solution
Keywords: encrypt workbench release
Message-ID: <193@teslab.lab.OZ>
Date: 27 Sep 89 07:54:02 GMT
References: <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> <7850@cbmvax.UUCP> <6097@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> <226@estinc.UUCP>
Reply-To: andrew@teslab.lab.OZ
Organization: Technology Evaluation Section, L.A.B., Sydney
Lines: 20

In article <226@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes:
>There are a lot of very clever people out there writing viruses.  However,
>I think you could make it hard enough to infect a distribution that they
>would probably not bother with it.

Using a public-key encryption system could ensure that any release you
got was the real thing.  Commodore would encrypt the software using their
secret key.  If you can decrypt it correctly using their public key then
you can be certain that it hasn't been tampered with.

Does anyone know if there is any source available for public-key
encryption around.  I know that certain security agencies have tried
to inhibit the adoption of such systems.  Personally, I think that
the benefits (as shown above) to society of totally secure public-key
encryption would far outway any disadvantages.

Andrew.
-- 
-- 
Andrew Phillips (andrew@teslab.lab.oz{.au}) Ph. +61 (Aust) 2 (Sydney) 289 8712