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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4126B93C.8040204@brvenik.com>
From: security at brvenik.com (Jason)
Subject: Electronic Voting Machines - WinVote by Adv
 anced Voting Solutions

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.
>>>