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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

From: elections at chicory.Stanford.EDU (David L. Dill)
Subject: Electronic Voting Machines - WinVote by Adv anced Voting Solutions 

So far as I know, no one denies that denial of service attacks against
wireless are basically unstoppable.  However, wireless interfaces in
touch-screen machines are not intended for use during actual voting.
They are for downloading ballots before the election, and, sometimes,
uploading results after the election.

The primary concerns about wireless are computer security concerns.
I am personally VERY concerned.  It's very hard to make sure that
wireless connections are turned off during the election, and wireless
opens lots of security threats that wouldn't be serious otherwise.


> Not long ago I sent out a mail regarding electronic voting, it was 
> related to a politically motivated thread though so many likely filtered 
> it. I suggest anyone interested take a tour of the verified voting 
> website. They have fairly in depth coverage and information you may find 
> useful. I also suggest you take the time to get involved and have an impact.
> 
> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
> 
> It is a US based site and debate however there is plenty of information 
> on worldwide usage of paperless voting systems for others that may be 
> interested.
> 
> 
> Mister Coffee wrote:
> > 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.
> >>> 
>