Re: Manually Signed Digest as an XML signature type

tgindin@us.ibm.com writes:
>      First, your last statement that if there is no strong binding to the
> document no electronic signature mechanism is useful is valid and, I hope,
> not even controversial.  If great ease of forgery (much easier than that
> for conventional signatures, for example) can be demonstrated for a
> signature technique it is good for nothing at all.
>      I ordinarily understand the term "biometric mechanisms" to refer to
> measurements of non-voluntary characteristics (including voice prints)
> rather than to speech recordings or handwriting, and I think most people do
> as well.
>      The essential question about the mechanisms suggested here is "how
> easy and undetectable is a forgery in this case"?  Your statement that "if
> I have even one sample of handwriting I can produce forgeries" is true to
> some extent, but if taken as an absolute it would render any handwritten
> signature on a document (probably on a handwritten document, but certainly
> on a typed one) completely untrustworthy.  However, such signatures are
> routinely accepted for many purposes.
Such signatures are accepted, but not on the basis of there being
a strong binding. Otherwise, making your mark in the form of
an X wouldn't be allowed.

-Ekr

Received on Friday, 9 June 2000 19:56:52 UTC