The following issue has been SUBMITTED. ====================================================================== http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1284 ====================================================================== Reported By: dannyniu Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1284 Category: System Interfaces Type: Enhancement Request Severity: Comment Priority: normal Status: New Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section: exec Page Number: Reading online version Line Number: Reading online version Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2019-09-05 08:33 UTC Last Modified: 2019-09-05 08:33 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: The sense of "checksum" test is too narrow. Description: In the APPLICATION USAGE section of exec* functions, there's a few mention of the "checksum" test.
In cryptography, checksum test refers specifically using a hash function that may or may not be of cryptographic grade to generate a digest and performs a comparison. A better alternative for "checksum test" would be "integrity test" which can potentially include tests involving digital signature public-key verification, thus providing authenticity and non-repudiation. Desired Action: Change all instances of "checksum test(s)" to "integrity test(s)". ====================================================================== Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2019-09-05 08:33 dannyniu New Issue 2019-09-05 08:33 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2019-09-05 08:33 dannyniu Section => exec 2019-09-05 08:33 dannyniu Page Number => Reading online version 2019-09-05 08:33 dannyniu Line Number => Reading online version ======================================================================
