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