Subject: [Asrg] Code signing (was Re: DCC and IP checksums)

From: "David F. Skoll" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:57:19 -0500 (EST)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>

> The design of the code signing services was to ensure that code
> obtained through the web was at least as trustworthy as code bought
> in a shrinkwrap box in a store.

That's nice.

I do not use shrinkwrap Microsoft code on any computer I run, because
I don't trust it any more than I'd trust the handful of .exe's from
random people that my mail filter blocks each day.

> It was not to eliminate all possible risks.

Adding mobile code to SMTP servers or MUA's opens up a vast new area
of insecurity and potential exploits.

In 1980, who would ever have dreamed that e-mail viruses could exist?
E-mail was just a chunk of text sent from point A to point B.  Sorry,
but anyone proposing mobile code on the uncontrolled Internet either
has an incredible amount of hubris, or has failed to learn from
history.

I would actually support signed mobile code on one condition: The
authority that signs the code must agree to compensate everyone for
any loss caused by the signed code, or by an exploit of a weakness in
the signed code, for a period of 20 years from when the code is
signed.

Under these conditions, I doubt anyone would sign any code. :-)

--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: mathew <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:25:48 -0500

> random people that my mail filter blocks each day.

A wise move; see
<URL:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-017.asp>.

Now, anyone still want to trust code signing?

mathew