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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: da.m0nk3y at gmail.com (da m0nk3y)
Subject: Electronic Voting Machines - WinVote by Adv anced Voting Solutions

Dewd,

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:11:21 -0700, David L. Dill
<elections@...cory.stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> So far as I know, no one denies that denial of service attacks against
> wireless are basically unstoppable.  However, wireless interfaces in
> touch-screen machines are not intended for use during actual voting.
> They are for downloading ballots before the election, and, sometimes,
> uploading results after the election.

Yes plus me adds the sentence 'This is a good security tekneeq.'.

> The primary concerns about wireless are computer security concerns.
> I am personally VERY concerned.  It's very hard to make sure that
> wireless connections are turned off during the election, and wireless
> opens lots of security threats that wouldn't be serious otherwise.
> 

First in thing important I will introduce you to will fallow in the
next sentence. It is possible depending on the network device used to
determine if it is active or not or if it is and is disabled or not.

Second thing to say, Murphy is a whitehat.

We beleive electronic voting is the future voting system do not think
too much about security or you will loose track of your ideas.
Instead make it simple wireless. Mistakes will happen. You know you
are right even if you thought about this. Overall these are good
reflections.

> 
> > 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.
> > >>>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 
pwnd


Powered by blists - more mailing lists