Polazzo Justin wrote:
If we don't have any data, then we are making decisions based on propaganda, no matter what side you listen to.
Of course California suing then does raise questions :) Any state that implements voting technology that has not been verified by independent means needs rethink their approach. Any state could use the resources at their disposal to evaluate these systems independently at a very low cost, if any at all. (preferably by some local Tech school :)
Either way, without POC, how can we discuss this on bugtraq?
-JP
P.s.:
Even though MS sux out of box, you can turn off the netlogon process on any windows client, voiding any authentication to the local workstation. The only authentication that can take place is server based, which can then be further be restricted through policies and reghacks to kerberos only. If you then delete the domain accounts as the card is used fears of locally compromising the systems would be a non issue.
While I am pretty sure this has not been done, it illustrates why we need to evaluate the code.
http://www.why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
My question is, why would Diebold attempt to enact the DMCA if they didn't have something to hide? I completely agree that propaganda should not be listened to from either side, something smells very fishy here.
Also agreed on the server authentication, but what happens if I happen to get a copy of that Access DB and throw it on another computer? If an electronic trail isn't there, a paper trail should be.
For a more mainstream article on this subject, you can also check out the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/politics/campaign/19vote.html?pagewanted=print&position=
As far as a POC and a local tech school auditing the code, I'm all for it, but the campaign contributions aren't.
-- Gene Cronk - ISSAP,CISSP,NSA-IAM (gcronk@xxxxxxxx) The Robin Shepherd Group -- Systems Administrator Office: (904)-359-0981 Ext. 36 Cell: (386)-795-3081 Web: http://www.trsg.net
