1993-12-14 - Re: Signing pictures – how hard, how long?

Header Data

From: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
To: cman@caffeine.io.com
Message Hash: ae3ecc7d0c4c23034885b1c810b027572f1435a967c0bd0ae837a6f81f536fbb
Message ID: <199312141803.AA28396@access.digex.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-12-14 18:03:52 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 10:03:52 PST

Raw message

From: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 10:03:52 PST
To: cman@caffeine.io.com
Subject: Re: Signing pictures -- how hard, how long?
Message-ID: <199312141803.AA28396@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I think signing photographs and movie images is a difficult
problem. Why? Because one flipped bit will completely screw
up the hash function. Errors on these tapes happen rarely,
but most video manufacturers aren't really going to bother
worrying about occasional bit errors because they're usually
invisible to the eye. Why waste all that extra effort on
error correction if it's not worth the trouble. So signed
photographs will also need to contain all of the error 
correction necessary and that will make them more expensive.
This isn't any real cost on a general purpose machine, but
it matters in some places.






Thread