On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 10:05, pressinfo (at) diebold (dot) com [email concealed] wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <20040831203815.13871.qmail (at) www.securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]>
>
> Diebold strongly refutes the existence of any "back doors" or "hidden
> codes" in its GEMS software. These inaccurate allegations appear to
> stem from those not familiar with the product, misunderstanding the
> purpose of legitimate structures in the database. These structures
> are well documented and have been reviewed (including at a source code
> level) by independent testing authorities as required by federal
> election regulations.

And the reason that something this critical isn't open source so that
*everyone* that wants to audit it can is? There is no way I will use one
of those to process my vote till it has been proven to not have back
doors. Independent testers are nice, but not enough to prove beyond a
doubt that there are no hidden entries, and that 1 + 1 still = 2 in your
calculations. Especially with the way this election year is going, I
don't trust *anyone*. Just my 2 cents worth.

--
Homer Parker /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
BOFH for homershut.net \ / No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.homershut.net x No Word docs in email
telnet://bbs.homershut.net / \ Respect for open standards

"Bill Gates reports on security progress made and the challenges ahead."
-- Microsoft's Homepage, on the day an SQL Server bug crippled large
sections of the Internet.

[ reply ]