full-disclosure - Electronic Voting Machines - WinVote by Adv anced Voting Solutions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: live4java at stormcenter.net (Mister Coffee)
Subject: Electronic Voting Machines - WinVote by Adv anced Voting Solutions

Actually, no it's not illegal, and no, it's not especially dangerous.  While FCC regs require Ham operators to use the "lowest practical power" in their communications, that is something that's open to interpretation.  Hams on some freqs crank out 1500 watts quite readily - and safely.  We're not talking about a WiFi card in your laptop, or a cell phone next to your head - there are safety considerations and limits of exposure and such.  But your statement that it's illegal and dangerous is patently untrue for the amature radio crowd.

Hams are, incidently, the Primary Users for the lower 6 channels (US spec) used by WiFi.

Cheers,
L4J

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:50:43AM -0300, James Tucker wrote:
> Of course the power ranges you quote are also illegal, not to mention
> extremely dangerous.
> 
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:21:49 -0500, Michael Williamson
> <michael@...fin.tamucc.edu> wrote:
> > Using 802.11 for anything remotely critical is outright STUPID.
> > 
> > FCC regulations are such that these part 15 devices (802.11, cordless
> > phones, baby monitors) have no legal protection from interference from
> > licensed services (amateur radio, TV stations, etc).  If I'm running a
> > high powered (10-100 watt) maybe signal at 2.4 ghz for amateur radio TV
> > and happen to be living across the street from an election center,
> > they're basically screwed.  As a matter a fact, if their 802.11 is
> > interfering with my licensed operation, it is they who must shut down.
> > 
> > -Michael
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Without even commenting on the "security" of WEP, it seems to me that a
> > > massive DDOS attack against the voting machines could prevent vote tallies
> > > from being counted in a timely manner.
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html