BugTraq
RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Sep 23 2004 10:21AM
Jeremy Epstein (jeremy epstein webmethods com) (7 replies)
RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Sep 27 2004 11:25AM
Paul Wouters (paul xtdnet nl) (2 replies)
Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Sep 28 2004 12:08AM
Adam Shostack (adam homeport org)
Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Sep 28 2004 12:00AM
Crispin Cowan (crispin immunix com) (1 replies)
RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Sep 29 2004 08:05AM
David Schwartz (davids webmaster com)
Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Sep 26 2004 05:31PM
Mike Healan (mike spywareinfo com) (2 replies)
Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Sep 28 2004 03:41PM
Tracy Bost (tbost appraisalforum com) (1 replies)
Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Sep 28 2004 07:15PM
Casper Dik (casper holland sun com)

>Running voting machines on OSS software seems obvious its the only way
>to do it correctly, since its true noone trusts each other.

It is not sufficient; there really is no other way
than a paper trail.

Currently, many voting systems operate by storing the
vote in memory of some kind and it is really hard
to verify that this is done correctly; more importantly,
it is *not* possible to verify the voting was done
correctly after the fact.

It's not just a simple matter of verifying the software;
you do need to verify:

System's BIOS
Keyboard
Display hardware
OS
Window system
Voting software.

The vote tabulation process
(communication, more computer systems)

That's just too much to verify correct. Seems the
readers here are thinking of just voting software.

But there is a solution which does not require any
verified software at all: a paper trail verified by the
voter self.

After each vote, the voting machine prints a receipt;
the voter verifies the receipt and then deposits it in
a ballot box.

When there's a dispute; the paper trail which was verified
by each individual voter can then be counted.

Note that the paper ballots can be machine readable for
quite counting but they should not contain barcodes; the
human readable bits must be the "legal" bits.

Open source, closed source; it's all really moot.
Voter verification is what counts.

They don't do it correctly in my country; but they apparently
did it correctly in Venezuela where voter confidence is always
very low.

Casper

[ reply ]


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus