home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19970104-19970326
/
000271_news@columbia.edu _Mon Feb 17 14:09:19 1997.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
2KB
Return-Path: <news@columbia.edu>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20938
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:09:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA22107
for kermit.misc@watsun; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:09:18 -0500 (EST)
Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!news.apfel.de!news.radio.cz!CESspool!news.uoregon.edu!xmission!news.cc.utah.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jrd
From: jrd@cc.usu.edu (Joe Doupnik)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: Binary script files?
Message-ID: <1997Feb16.155829.93967@cc.usu.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 97 15:58:29 MDT
References: <5e1no6$1rb@i386.jordan.org>
Organization: Utah State University
Lines: 26
Xref: news.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:6610
In article <5e1no6$1rb@i386.jordan.org>, mjordan@i386.jordan.org (Mark J. Jordan) writes:
> I have experienced other comm programs in the past, most notably
> Procomm Plus, that will allow script files to be translated into a
> binary file. This presented two, if not other, benefits: security of
> the script code and faster execution.
>
> I am interested to know if binary scripts are/will be a possibility
> for Kermit... I am curious mostly for the former capability of hiding
> the code.
>
> Thanks in advance for the comments.
-----------
No, it is slower. Slower because it must be encoded, and then it
must be decoded. The assumption you probably have is that reading a script
file takes a measurable amount of time compared to performing the actions
it states, but that's not true. Programs doing encoding and decoding are also
larger than without such a "feature."
Security is more subtle than simple encryption, a lot more subtle.
Further, encryption is strongly constrained by rules of the US government
as well as comprehensive patents on techniques. As a general rule, never
trust a piece of equipment to be equivalent of the human user; anyone can
operate the equipment. DOS/Windows desktop machines are totally insecure
so don't put sensitive material on them unless both physical access to
the machine as well as network access to it are secure. Your comms wiring
is subject to eavesdropping, not to mention the openness of the remote host.
Joe D.