Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 02:45 PM, Dar Scott wrote: The biggest part of that is not the method or the speed, but the logistics of keeping up with signatures and the like to allow users to verify the integrity of the module. Users will need to depend on the integrity of signers and eit

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 09:18 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Mark has done a truly amazing job and deserves many kudos and at least a six-pack of his favorite beverage in recognition of what he's accomplished. Thanks, I'll drink to that... ___ u

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Rob Cozens wrote: Mark has contributed Rev_Blowfish to the revolution_ipc group's stack library as a starting point for incorporating support for Blowfish encryption/decryption into the collection of IPC commands that will be released (most likely)

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Rob Cozens wrote: > I considered qualifying the remark with an analogy; but I believe > there is a demonstrable difference between the concept of two > handlers in a library and an encryption "product"...along the same > lines as the difference between the collection of Rev socket commands > and a

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

One might use "product" in the sense of that which is produced Ah Dar, I knew someone would challenge that.:{`) I considered qualifying the remark with an analogy; but I believe there is a demonstrable difference between the concept of two handlers in a library and an encryption "product"..

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 12:29 PM, Rob Cozens wrote: Anyone who would like to help turn our examples into produ... oops!, make that "tools" :{`), is welcome to join our group. One might use "product" in the sense of that which is produced. Though that produced by the group may be broa

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Richard, et al: ... for Blowfish to become a practical option for general use it would require revisions; like Mark pointed out, its currently more an example than a product. As are libIPC, SDB, and possibly even Dar's contributions to the revolution_ipc stack library; but given the group is less

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Rob Cozens wrote: >> What if externals were simplified to be as easy to use as native calls? > > Richard, et al: > > I guess I would find it difficult to complain too loudly IF that were > the case AND the externals provided noticeable performance > enhancements. > > In general, my vision for l

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

What if externals were simplified to be as easy to use as native calls? Richard, et al: I guess I would find it difficult to complain too loudly IF that were the case AND the externals provided noticeable performance enhancements. In general, my vision for libIPC, revBlowfish, SDB, & other outp

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 08:16 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Mark Brownell wrote: There are export restriction laws in place by different countries that need to be followed when implementing it. This becomes the responsibility and liability of the developer using it in their apps. Wouldn't

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Alex Rice wrote: #723 "improved stack encryption capability" The entry #577, "put stack into variable", might be generalized to allow 'save', 'open', and 'start using' to refer to variables. Perhaps with that encrypted stacks could then be saved in cus

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 09:17 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Alex Rice wrote: I would like to see a stack protection feature that does encryption- through and through. In order to open, run, read, edit, *do anything* no matter if via engine or via IDE, first one would first have to authenti

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Rob Cozens wrote: >> For speed it would seem optimal to have it implemented in an external, or in >> the engine itself. > > Richard, Mark, et al: > > No eternals, please! > > libIPC is 100% Transcript, revBlowfish is 100% Transcript. > > Let's keep it that way or embed it in the engine. What

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

For speed it would seem optimal to have it implemented in an external, or in the engine itself. Richard, Mark, et al: No eternals, please! libIPC is 100% Transcript, revBlowfish is 100% Transcript. Let's keep it that way or embed it in the engine. Rob Cozens Co Moderator, revolution_ipc group.

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Mark Brownell wrote: > On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 10:59 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > >> What terms is it available under? Is the final version not being >> posted to the Revolution_IPC group at Yahoo? > > It's available there under basic CUA principles. I don't want to > explain it here

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Alex Rice wrote: > I would like to see a stack protection feature that does encryption- > through and through. In order to open, run, read, edit, *do anything* > no matter if via engine or via IDE, first one would first have to > authenticate. It could be password authentication or public key > au

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 10:59 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: What terms is it available under? Is the final version not being posted to the Revolution_IPC group at Yahoo? Hi Richard It's available there under basic CUA principles. I don't want to explain it here. I'm concerned that som

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Mark Brownell wrote: > Contact me off list if you are interested in getting > Transcript/Blowfish. What terms is it available under? Is the final version not being posted to the Revolution_IPC group at Yahoo? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish a

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 09:51 AM, Alex Rice wrote: * Mark Brownell has written a Blowfish encryption engine in transcript. You could use blowfish to encrypt the entire data stack, instead of using Rev's password scheme. I'm working on a method to encapsulate complete data chunks as i

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Weird perhaps, but functional and available now. Thanks for the clarification Richard. For the future it seems useful to have another level of protection fo

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Alex Rice wrote: > The only custom property requiring a password in the IDE is > the script property. Therefore the weird workarounds that were posted > about base64encoding custom properties and putting them into the script > property of a control. Weird perhaps, but functional and available now

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 02:26 PM, Robert Hyde wrote: All this speedy input is great! Unfortunately, I have not been able to test any of this out this afternoon. And I am not familiar with Emacs, is it associated with Rev? No it's just a text editor that happily works with binary fil

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Alex Rice wrote: > I read somewhere that the Rev password mechanism uses an encryption > scheme that only works with text. I wonder why? Anyways I guess that's > why it skips custom properties but encrypts scripts. I think the bigger reason is that a good scheme to prevent accessing custom props

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

Robert Hyde wrote: > So does anyone know of a good way to save custompropertyset information in a > data file separate from the app itself in such a way that it would require > something akin to a password to get to it even within Rev? It's not custom props per se, but might tide you over until a

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 10:10 AM, Robert Hyde wrote: So does anyone know of a good way to save custompropertyset information in a data file separate from the app itself in such a way that it would require something akin to a password to get to it even within Rev? I may be overlooking

Re: Saving encrypted customProperties outside the app?

On 9/26/03 9:10 AM, "Robert Hyde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So does anyone know of a good way to save custompropertyset information in a > data file separate from the app itself in such a way that it would require > something akin to a password to get to it even within Rev? Would it be possibl