Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On May 21, Robin Cook [rcook AT wyrms.net] wrote:
> Your explanation make sense but I don't see from the probst function how
> I can verify the hash for myself.  

Pipe the message with your vote(s) through that function and it will spit
out the hash.  This is the same hash the PL will list your vote(s) with.
If you have mutliple votes in one email, call the function with an integer
argument for the number of votes you have, and it will spit out that many
hashes so you have one per vote.

This works because pgpdump -i will use the content of the signature in the
mssage and nothing else.  And the signature is known to be the same on both
ends, because otherwise it wouldn't be a verifiable signature in the first
place.  Since the input is the same, the hashes are the same.

> CuZnDragon
> Robin Cook
> 
> On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:31 -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > On May 21, Robin Cook [rcook AT wyrms.net] wrote:
> > > This seems to make voting more difficult and too many steps to me.
> > 
> > If you take a look at my clarification mail it hopefully explains that 
> > this
> > doesn't require you to do anything different from what you're doing now.
> > IFF you want to verify that the vote counter isn't trying to steal the
> > election using faked receipts you can do that, but you don't have to do
> > that, and you had no option to do that before.
> > 
> > This primarily requires that the vote counter do something different, but
> > even that is just s/pwgen/probst/.
> > 
> > If you don't agree, can you elaborate?
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Discuss mailing list
> > SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss



> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

Attachment: pgpM0QQAHB7st.pgp
Description: PGP signature