PlayStation 3 predicts next US president

[William Allen Simpson]

James A. Donald wrote:
> A notary is a certifier.  Have you ever seen a notary
> read the stuff he notarizes, let alone generate it?
> 
Actually, I deal with notaries regularly.  I've always had to
physically sign while watched by the notary.  They always
read the stuff notarized, and my supporting identification,
because they are notarizing a signature (not a document).

And yes, they always generate the stamp or imprint they sign.
To do otherwise would be irresponsible (and illegal).


> Suppose you sign a contract - by signing the MD5 hash of
> the contract.  Unfortunately the guy who prepared the
> contract prepared two slightly different contracts, one
> of which is more favorable to him and less favorable to
> you than the one you actually signed.  Both contracts
> have the same MD5 hash.
> 
I've digitally signed contracts, that I prepared and verified,
on plaintext documents using PGP.  So far, I've seen no such
exploit described nor quantified.

There's this silly idea that's been floating around that a
digital signature is somehow equivalent to a human signature.
Or worse, somehow better?!?!  Heck, current U.S. law counts a
digitized sound as a signature!?!?

(Folks have lost money on this snake oil.  They deserved it.)

Anyway, this is irrelevant to the original topic.  That is:

   This implies a vulnerability in software integrity protection
   and code signing schemes that still use MD5.

Please quantify your spurious allegations (and stay on topic).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com