Am Mi, den 02.03.2005 schrieb Dale Sykora um 18:40: > Alexander Dalloz wrote: > > The problem with your idea about tagging mail as clean is that "the bad > > side" will fake such signatures. So in general it is no good idea to > > trust mail header tags in general like mail body signature strings. > > Alex, > Thanks for the reply. In your opinion, is it cryptologically feasable > to generate a signature system that cannot be easily faked? It seems > that if rpms can be verified against GPG keys, then the same could be > applied to email. Would this be sufficient security? I do not know, > but I believe it is worth discussion. > Dale Dale, I didn't want to state that a secure signature is impossible, just that it is not simple to do it safe. If you look around what spammers implement to get their messages through the walls it is obvious that a solution must be fake protected. Maybe something like "pgpcontrol" from ISC could be adopted for mail systems: ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/pgpcontrol/ The question is then: is such a solution less resources consuming like doing the virus testing your own? A different aspect is that anti-virus scanners are not perfect. So there is the chance that a new or mutated virus / worm can slip through on the central checking side while it would be detected by the individual mail recipient, running a different virus scanner. Alexander -- Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773 legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.10-1.14_FC2smp Serendipity 19:01:06 up 9 days, 6:09, load average: 0.82, 0.50, 0.39
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
