Chris Calabrese wrote:
> OK, so you're assuming this is on top of syslog-auth.
> I have no problem with that, but just wanted to be
> sure.
Actually, I was hoping that syslog-sign could be something compatible with
syslog-reliable but not relying on syslog-auth. I.e., it would give the
end-to-end integrity guarantee that syslog-reliable currently lacks.
That's one of the reasons syslog-reliable requires the content of the
messages not be changed.
--
Darren New / Senior MTS & Free Radical / Invisible Worlds Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
Personal malapropism generator free with purchase!
Steganography: The manual is hidden in the source code.
