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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <OF08AA30F4.7383ECAD-ON85256F49.006F24A5-85256F4A.001170A1@mailrouter.net> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:48:05 -0500 From: Matt.Carpenter@...icor.com To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu Cc: Bugtraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com, "Jay D. Dyson" <jdyson@...achery.net>, jei@...hut.fi Subject: Re: Re: Evidence Mounts that the Vote Was Hacked The counting systems mentioned in the article (where the votes from different counties are tabulated) have nothing to do with direct-user-contact. Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote on 11/11/2004 02:22:18 PM: > 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? > > > > > > [attachment "attk5prp.dat" deleted by Matt Carpenter/IT/Alticor] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists