This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Digital signature:
|
Shorter:
A crypto signature decrypts to a document hash under the given user's public key, thus proving that the document was signed by the user's private key. Connelly 05:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Update Needed. More about DKIM please.195.38.17.129 (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
NEW COMMENT: I've seen this recent attack: http://www.mirlabs.org/jias/buccafurri.pdf Anybody think that it could considered in the section about Drawbacks of digital signatures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.56.88.81 (talk)
yes..I think so, it's interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.115.233 (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
NEW COMMENT for the DEFINITION section regarding DIGITAL SIGNATURES:
EXISTING: It is formed by taking the hash of the message and encrypting the message with the creator's private key.
PROPOSED: It is formed by taking the hash of the message and encrypting the hash with the creator's private key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.180.202 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
--102.220.105.40 (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).==Analogy to traditional signature: meaning and wording==
Matt,
The analogy of digital signatures to paper ones is, subtly, not very close. That's why I used the construction 'in a sense'. It wasn't quite weasel wording. The problem is that is messy and not quite on point. I'm open to an alternative phrasing, in fact, I'd welcome one, but as it stands it's too easy to misconstrue the degree of analogy. Needs to be changed somehow.
This is a real nuisance. Most of the legal beagles in the legislatures, at least on this side of the pond, have demonstrated some inability to get the distinction. And the legal beagles putting together position papers for the American Bar Association also failed to get it. There is an English soliciter/barrister (I'm almost colorblind on that one) named Nicholas Bohm who was (and may still be for all I know for I haven't been following this closely for a couple of years) one of the very few of these beagles who had the right scent. But he was advised closely by Brian Gladman (?) who did several reference algorithm implementations about the time of the AES break off. So there may have been reason why Bohm was better at this than most of the others.
ww 17:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
geyer7 20 Dec 2005