Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!mitchell From: mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Mitchell - QA) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: "xeno" virus Message-ID: <7739@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 23 Aug 89 18:17:43 GMT References: <21fB02Wm49np01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <3633@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1332@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> <1989Aug21.151623.26054@ziebmef.mef.org> Reply-To: mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Mitchell - QA) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 25 In article <1989Aug21.151623.26054@ziebmef.mef.org> mcp@ziebmef.mef.org (Marc Plumb) writes: >one-way encryption algorithm similar to the Unix password algorithm, except >much simpler, as no brute-force search of *any* size is practicable by a >virus. If you want the programs to be self-validating, there is a >"cryptographic checksum" algorithm available (there is a research system >called Strongbox that uses it, developed at CMU I believe) which appends >a checksum to a file which can be checked by anyone, but without a special >key value (not needed for checking) you cannot compute a correct checksum >for an arbitrary file. >-- > -Colin Plumb There's a Public Key Encryption algorithm, which might be adaptable to do fool-proof 'checksummung'. I'll have to dig that article up- or I will create one myself, when I have time (Yeah, Uh-Huh!). It would be impossible to fool without copious amounts of cpu time and crypto-analytic skill. -- |*******************************************| -Compliments of /// |* All thoughts and comments are soley *| Fred Mitchell \\\/// |* thoses of The Author and has nothing to *| \XX/ |* do with Commodore-Amiga. *| Software QA - Commodore-Amiga |*******************************************|