[plug] Was bun fight about "bad" words.

[Paul Wilson]

Christian wrote :
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:08:58PM +0800, Paul Wilson wrote:
> > I understand that, and agree. With one caveat however. The digital
signature
> > demonstrates that it was *your computer* which originated the message,
not
> > you. In most cases there's not much difference (maybe none at all), but
it
> > *is* important. If I went to a party at your place, I could concievably
send
> > emails from your machine which would be digitally signed in the same way
> > that those written by you would be. It's the weakness not so much of
digital
> > signatures, but of the assumption that the signature proves your
presence.
> > It doesn't.  Of course, your comment about convincing evidence is still
> > completely true.
>
> Minor (but important) corrction:  the digital signature shows that it
> was extremely likely that your *key* signed the message (not the
> computer).  But, as you're pointing out, it doesn't necesarily show that
> you intended to sign the message.

You're right of course. Usually your key is exclusive to a single machine,
but there's no reason why it must be so.

The Hooker