Re: Time Stamping Again.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:15:44 AM UTC+1, Pascal Obry wrote:
> I've not followed all the discussion and I don't have time to track all this tread, sorry. It just looks like time-stamp is not what you want to me. If you want to ensure that the source code used to compile such or such .o has not been changed and is properly identified why not use a proper signature (MD5 or even better SHA-1)? Will this fulfill your needs? Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net - http://v2p.fr.eu.org --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B

This is not so much solving a problem per se as using a handy resource that is going begging in every compiler - a solution waiting for a problem.

There are lots more conditions in a non-repudiation scheme that do what you say  adequately when met.

To me this is more a passing curio that seems to be going unnoticed by many users of language compilers. 

It has been put there for a purpose no doubt and I speculate on at least one good use to which it may be put !

Cheers - adacrypt