|
Viewing Issue Simple Details
[ Jump to Notes ]
|
[ Issue History ]
[ Print ]
|
|
ID |
Category |
Severity |
Type |
Date Submitted |
Last Update |
|
0001284 |
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2] System Interfaces |
Comment |
Enhancement Request |
2019-09-05 08:33 |
2024-06-11 09:08 |
|
|
Reporter |
dannyniu |
View Status |
public |
|
|
Assigned To |
|
|
Priority |
normal |
Resolution |
Accepted |
|
|
Status |
Closed |
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
DannyNiu/NJF |
|
Organization |
|
|
User Reference |
|
|
Section |
exec |
|
Page Number |
790-791 |
|
Line Number |
26830-1, 26836 |
|
Interp Status |
--- |
|
Final Accepted Text |
|
|
|
Summary |
0001284: The sense of "checksum" test is too narrow. |
|
Description |
In the APPLICATION USAGE section of exec* functions, there's a few mention of the "checksum" test.
In cryptography, checksum test refers specifically using a hash function that may or may not be of cryptographic grade to generate a digest and performs a comparison. A better alternative for "checksum test" would be "integrity test" which can potentially include tests involving digital signature public-key verification, thus providing authenticity and non-repudiation. |
|
Desired Action |
Change all instances of "checksum test(s)" to "integrity test(s)". |
| Tags |
tc3-2008 |
|
|
Attached Files |
|
|
|
Relationships 
