<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Daniel B</title>
      <link>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/beave033/beave033/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:10:52 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.25</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

      
      <item>
	
         <title>Digital signing</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>This is in response to the NY Times article about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27arch.html">  archiving and crypto hashes</a>:</p>

<p>The article presents this as being â€œnewâ€? technology, when in fact it is very mature technology. Hashing is a wonderful tool for digital signing. It is in extensive use by many software distributors as a sure-fire way of verifying that a piece of software is not corrupt or tampered with. As a core technology, hashes and crypto are bulletproof. The trouble lies in the implementation.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/beave033/beave033/2009/01/digital_signing.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.lib.umn.edu/beave033/beave033/2009/01/digital_signing.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:10:52 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
