From: Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net>
Subject: Re: Time Stamping Again.
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:15:02 +0200
Date: 2012-09-15T12:15:02+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50545526$0$21224$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dd8b7720-d1d5-4f9e-860a-bb4e82d1c313@googlegroups.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-21 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-14 8:39 Time Stamping Again Austin Obyrne
2012-09-14 18:58 ` Simon Wright
2012-09-14 20:11 ` Austin Obyrne
2012-09-14 21:10 ` björn lundin
2012-09-15 7:25 ` Austin Obyrne
2012-09-15 16:15 ` Dirk Heinrichs
2012-09-15 17:25 ` Austin Obyrne
2012-09-14 21:09 ` Austin Obyrne
2012-09-15 10:15 ` Pascal Obry [this message]
2012-09-15 11:38 ` Austin Obyrne
2012-09-15 16:12 ` Dirk Heinrichs
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox