bugtraq - RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Acc ount Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409280721290.9678@gandalf.hugo.vanderkooij.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:32:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Hugo van der Kooij <hvdkooij@...derkooij.org>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Acc
 ount    Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes


On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, David Brodbeck wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Claudius Li [mailto:aprentic@...tae.net]
>
> > So my question is, given that this seems to be a solved
> > problem why is there so much debate on finding the solution?
> > Surely I am missing something obvious.
>
> You're missing the social dynamics around it.  There are several parties
> involved:
>
> - State officials who actually pick the voting equipment.  They generally
> are politicians, with a background in law or business.  They don't
> understand the complicated technical issues behind electronic voting.
>
> - Companies who build the voting equipment.  Their motive is profit.  They
> want to get a marketable product out quickly and cheaply.  They perceive
> (correctly) that the audience they're selling to does not understand or care
> about complicated security issues, and can be easily impressed by trivial
> but sophisticated-looking features.
>
> - The public.  They don't understand these issues either, and they have a
> short attention span.
>
> - The news media.  They don't push security issues because they lack good
> visuals and don't fit into a 15-second news spot.  Anything longer and
> they'll lose their audience (see above.)
>
> - Computer scientists and voting activists.  They *do* understand the
> issues, but are unable to explain them in a way the news media, the public,
> and state officials find compelling and understandable.  The companies who
> build the equipment can easily label them as alarmists or conspiracy
> theorists.

Any country where the average attention span is only 15 seconds is not fit
to be a democracy. So who cares wether or not elections are fake or
staged for them?

But beyond that sad observation I think we can discuss this issue here
untill untill the end of times but it will have very little impact.

If you care about it go about and find where the decision makers are and
point it out to them in a way they understand. If a device can be made to
work in their favor it may just as well be used to remove them if the
minds of those who control it are changing opinions. (Provided that is the
case.)

I guess we should return to the more technical stuff here and let the
political debate be held on more public places.

Hugo.

-- 
 All email sent to me is bound to the rules described on my homepage.
    hvdkooij@...derkooij.org		http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
	    Don't meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
	    for they are subtle and quick to anger.