From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5d21a8f52bbf39cdb10ddabc8d5c4bd6a42b17397ee9816f2ba409f30f91f3e6
Message ID: <199311051714.JAA21715@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-05 17:17:45 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 09:17:45 PST
From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 09:17:45 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: trusting software
Message-ID: <199311051714.JAA21715@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles) said:
>It's not clear to me how you can trust systems not under your control to
>report on themselves or local conditions accurately. As your program gets
>more complex, aren't you going to run into an analog of the Turing
>machine/halting problem?
The idea is to encode the important-to-be-trusted features of the software
and the inter-machine protocol handshake together into the equivalent
of a Goedel number which acts as a public key during the protocol handshake,
so that any change to that core encoding of the functionality would have
the side effect that it was no longer able to communicate.
>It's an intriguing idea, but it's still very unclear to me how it might
>work on software of any real complexity.
Yeah...I'm having strong difficulties with doing it in a way that is
computationally feasible as well as theoretically sound. Several times
I thought I'd found the right approach but then found holes in it. So
I lied in implying that I really did have a final algorithm....I *thought*
I did, but I was wrong.
Doug
Return to November 1993
Return to “doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)”
1993-11-05 (Fri, 5 Nov 93 09:17:45 PST) - Re: trusting software - doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)