Hi Angus, I can see I must have offended you. I'm sorry for that. Honestly, it wasn't my intention, but sometimes I can be pretty stupid in my human relations. So often I say the wrong thing; use the wrong words. I'm better with computers than with people. In real life, my wife helps out. She's very extroverted and friendly. She does most of the talking. I just smile, but damn, I sometimes forget that too!
My statement regarding PGP being a better choice than AuthentiCode, was uninformed. However, I continue to believe strongly in the PGP signature for authenticating open-source applications. I see nothing changing in that regard. I hope this post will not offend you further, but I'm feeling a little ticked, myself, by your disdain for open-source developers. On 11/01/16 12:27 PM, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote: >>> One thing that could be done with a new command batch file is to >>> digitally sign the OpenSSL DLLs, which you can already do for >>> your own customers. >> >> You're right. All that's required is a batch file. I PGP sign all >> my source and binaries. It's required. > > Required by whom? Your end users? Other developers? I'm involved in a specialized high-security linux project that requires my work be open-source and PGP signed. I've been with the project since 2000. > No-one else has asked about PGP or signing source or libraries in the > last six years of mailing archives. I can see that this has just never occurred to you before. That's not a crime. > And none of us here takes any > notice of hashes or PGP for source code, we download from trusted > servers. Interesting view of security...ignore it :) Very cavalier though. Even trusted servers can be hacked and/or otherwise compromised. You know that. > Sorry if that breaks your chain of trust, but as Rui says, you really > need to build your own OpenSSL DLLs if you want full traceability, > otherwise we all need to trust him since he kindly builds the DLLs. I can do that. > When I refer to signing, I'm talking about embedding a signature into > that application, to stop the application being modified or corrupted > and prove it's origin, and the application itself should be able to do > that, as should the OS. > > Hashes and PGP are separate to the file, so need to be distributed > separately, not sure how any of that checking can be automated, don't > recall it ever being discussed in any Delphi component forums. > >> I'm not sure about your authenticode cert and how the user tests >> it. I've seen them available and I know they're expensive. I'm >> guessing this is for your commercial software. It's probably not >> the best choice for this application. > > Authenticode is the bedrock of Windows application security, almost > every executable file in the OS is authenticode digitally signed, as > are most of the main executables in Delphi itself. Every serious > application developer has their own authenticode code signing > certificate, and digitally signs their applications, so their customers > can be assured of their origin and integrity. Your statement, that every 'serious' application developer has an AuthentiCode cert, is kinda prejudiced. My work is very serious. I've never ever had a single complaint regarding the authenticity of my work and not a single complaint regarding it generating warnings. Your programs must provide significant income. Congratulations on that. > Modern versions of Windows expect executables to be signed, and display > warnings if not. > > Many application developers also include self checks to ensure their > applications are correctly signed and not corrupted by third parties, I > have a free Delphi component that does this: > > https://www.magsys.co.uk/delphi/magtrustchk.asp > > Ideally, all DLLs the application loads should also be checked, this > checking is one of the reasons for the slow start up of recent releases > of RAD Studio. But my own applications don't currently check the > OpenSSL DLLs I use, so I'm breaking my own integrity rules (I also sign > the setup application, but files can be changed after install). > > So we do need the OpenSSL DLLs to be digitally authenticode signed, > which will either be with my certificate and/or an open source Overbyte > certificate Francois is looking to acquire. I'll then add a demo or > something showing how to check the DLLs before loading with my > component, could even be built into ICS if others believe it's a step > towards better security. > > OpenSSL functions can also be used to check and create authenticode > digital signatures, but it's not really safe to check itself. You lecture me regarding security that you have never even implemented. I've signed my work for 16 years! But really, on the other hand, I'm very happy you've decided you need to take action. I know you guys want to provide the best possible software and service possible. You always have. This is good. I'll watch for it. For my purposes, I have no problems with AuthentiCode verification. My users need not do that. I will. Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be