bugtraq - Re: Re: Evidence Mounts that the Vote Was Hacked

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: <200411111922.iABJMJbu011563@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:22:18 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Matt.Carpenter@...icor.com
Cc: jei@...hut.fi, Bugtraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>,
   full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com, "Jay D. Dyson" <jdyson@...achery.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Evidence Mounts that the Vote Was Hacked

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:37:28 EST, Matt.Carpenter@...icor.com said:

> todays hacker community.  But the realities are that we are paranoid enough
> to watch access to said systems to avoid at least 99% of local hacking,
> eliminating that from feasibility.

We are?

At least some of the machines used had active wireless on them - and I'm
pretty sure that they were *not* on the lookout for somebody out in the
parking lot (or *inside* the next building over) with a laptop and
a Pringle's can.

And how, pray tell, do you get "paranoid enough to watch access" to mean
*anything* when we allow the hacker *physical* *access* *AND* be unsupervised
due to the design of the polling booth?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped