[vox-tech] Linux's Vulnerability to E-mail Viruses

[Peter Jay Salzman]

begin Chris McKenzie <cjmckenzie@ucdavis.edu> 
> Sure, I wasn't trying to intend a pun, I just mispelled.
> 
> Modern encryption, assymetric processes.
> 
> Alright, say I had a very rare piece of software, OpenStep 4.2/i386 and I
> wanted to send it to you.  However, you live in some remote jungle where
> you can't copy a key.  But I don't want the item to be stolen along the
> way.  So I put a lock on the box and send it to you.  You can't open that
> lock so in a ridiculous notion, you put another lock on it, one that you
> have the key for and send the doubly locked box back to me.  I unlock my
> lock but the box is still locked by you.  I send it back, and you unlock
> your lock and have the software.

hi chris,

cool post.

this isn't how modern crypto systems work, is it?   this assumes that
the "locks" commute.   that for a given message A, a chris lock C and
peter lock P:

chris CA --> peter PCA --> chris C^(-1)PCA --> peter P^(-1)C^(-1)PCA

but i can't actually unlock the software unless

P^(-1)C^(-1) = C^(-1)P^(-1)

i don't know much about modern crypto systems other than RSA type
things.  is this how they work?  or am i reading too much into an
analogy?


also, i could be totally way off base here, but i think you and mike
were talking about different types of "processes".  i'm pretty sure mike
is familiar with reversible processes.  i'm guessing he thought you meant
something that goes into a process table.   (?)

pete