NODE 00bdabbeRe: Definition of "Zero Knowledge" (fwd)
frc%bwnmr4@harvard.harvard.edu (Fred Cooper)Sun, 19 Sep 93 17:36:57 PDT
Forwarded message:
> From frc Sun Sep 19 20:22:47 1993
> Subject: Re: Definition of "Zero Knowledge"
> To: erc@apple.com
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 20:22:47 EDT
> In-Reply-To: <m0oeGCo-00021LC@khijol>; from "Ed Carp" at Sep 18, 93 9:16 pm
> > Thanks for the definition (but I knew that, anyway). Sorru I wasn't clear -
> > what I was looking for was examples of how zero-knowledge proof techniques
> > could make source code impenetrable.
> > Source would be nice, too... ;)
> Check out a product called C-Shroud by ??Gimpel Software...
> I think it does this.. or at least tries....
> FRC
I meant to send this across the list, and not just to erc. Here's it is
for everyone else.
FRC
NODE a5460b27Re: Definition of "Zero Knowledge" (fwd)
Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>Sun, 19 Sep 93 22:55:59 PDT
> Check out a product called C-Shroud by ??Gimpel Software...
> I think it does this.. or at least tries....
C-Shroud does nothing with zero-knowledge proofs, or anything nearly
that sophisticated. It simply mungs identifiers, strips comments and
whitespace, and things of that sort. The idea is to get the machine
independence (heh) of C, with the unreadability (heh) of object code.
It can't really be that hard to read -- after all, most of the
human-work in disassembly is precisely the job of analyzing an
uncommented HLL program with meaningless identifiers.
Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu