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]

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