[ale] Its over. Maybe (monopolies and Nevada)

[Bob Toxen]

Thanks for the scoop on Nevada.

Regarding "their encryption ... gpg", I'm pretty sure that Diebold uses
no cryptographic signatures nor any similar (reliable) technique to ensure
the integrity of the data.

Sigh,

Bob Toxen
bob at verysecurelinux.com               [Please use for email to me]
http://www.verysecurelinux.com        [Network&Linux/Unix security consulting]
http://www.realworldlinuxsecurity.com [My book:"Real World Linux Security 2/e"]
Quality Linux & UNIX security and SysAdmin & software consulting since 1990.

"Microsoft: Unsafe at any clock speed!"
   -- Bob Toxen 10/03/2002

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 03:55:47AM +0000, aaron wrote:
...
> Nevada used 3 different voting system venders when they became the Nation's 
> Second State-Wide implementation of electronic voting as of their 2004 
> primary and general elections.  The mandate for every DRE system used in 
> Nevada was that it had to provide a voter verified paper audit trail, since 
> the Nevada Gaming Commission tested every NASED certified paperless DRE 
> system available and declared all such un-auditable black boxes to be "a 
> threat to the legitimacy of our election process."
...
> I would assume that the three different competitive vendors simply had to
> meet a set of specs for their encryption and data formats to make all three 
> compatible... say maybe, pgp and an xml form. Kind of like the way SSH and 
> HTML work on the internet, you know??

> The benefits of DRE's voting with No monopoly, the security of diverse systems 
> and publically audited tabulation.  Nevada wins. California has mandated 
> VVPAT for all their DRE systems by 2006 as well. Maybe we dumb sotherners can 
> learn a few things from those western cowpokes.

> peace
> (because the only secure nation is a nation at peace)
> aaron