Subject: Re: what's in a name? fingerprinted exec
To: None <tech-security@NetBSD.ORG>
From: MLH <MLH@goathill.org>
Date: 10/17/2002 18:57:10
On 15 Oct 2002 08:05:01 -0500, Brett Lymn wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 06:10:44PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> Yes.. I agree with all the above but I thought "fingerprinted exec"
> too cumbersome myself, some other thoughts for names I just had were:
> 1) secure exec
> 2) trusted exec
> 3) verified exec
> At the moment I think 2 conveys what I am on about best...(but 1 means
> less changes for me ;-)
Maybe check the definitions. What it appears you are attempting to
do is provide a mechanism for authentication by marking with a
Can you 'secure' for someone else?
Can you provide 'trust' for someone else?
Can you 'verify'? - very likely not
OTOH, if you claim that you are verifying something by authetication,
you're back in the box again.
Authentication simply means that the signature on the item to be
authenticated was correct... You can't really do more than that.