Diebold's audit in 24 hours???

[helderheid]

Please note the following forwarded message - There is NO WAY a source code
audit of Diebold's machines was conducted within a 24 hour period, as
claimed by the North Carolina SBOE. Someone was probably paid off to make
this claim. A true source code audit of such a magnitude would require
multiple programmer inspectors or very high caliber working continuously for
at least a week, probably two. You cannot audit code without running it - or
simulating the operations encoded in the multiple linked programs, branches,
and subroutines.

Another sad sham in the obvious, corrupt collusion of Republican voting
machine manufacturers and the network of unelected pseudo-bureaucracies at
the state levels throughout the country. The audacity is truly dizzying.

Peter Jones



Begin forwarded message:

From: Jim Warren
Date: December 1, 2005 4:36:08 PM EST
To: Dave Farber , Declan McCullagh
Subject: review of elections-computers' source-code completed in 24 hours!

Sheesh! Hope EVERY computer-literate citizen of North Carolina
learns about this -- and screams bloody-hell to their legislators.
What a amazing SHAM!

--jim

From: Justin Moore
Organization: Duke University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:31:05 -0500
Subject: Diebold back in NC

It seems that Diebold didn't cut and run from North Carolina after all. Less
than 24 hours after Diebold finally placed all of their source code into
escrow -- OS and all, they claim -- the State Board claims that their source
code audit confirms that Diebold system meets necessary security and
reliability standards.

The portion of relevant state law is

===
c) Prior to certifying a voting system, the State Board of
Elections shall review, or designate an independent expert to review, all
source code made available by the vendor pursuant to this section and
certify only those voting systems compliant with State and federal law. At a
minimum, the State Board's review shall include a review of security,
application vulnerability, application code, wireless security, security
policy and processes, security/privacy program management, technology
infrastructure and security controls, security organization and governance,
and operational effectiveness, as applicable to that voting system. ===

By certifying Diebold's system, the SBOE claims (implicitly) that they have
conducted this review within the last 24 hours on all code placed in escrow.

Perhaps the NC SBOE could publish their audit methods in the next top- tier
software engineering conference. This is the most amazing code audit -- in
terms of speed, breadth, and depth -- that I have ever seen.

-jdm
--

[electropop]

1. You can't audit major software in a week, even with a big team.

That's at least a 6-month task. I've written and read a lot of software, and it's just a big job, period.

[helderheid]

2. wonder who got paid off

[thecrow]

3. Oh damn.

Just yesterday my cousin and I were very glad that Diebold had apparently packed up and left NC instead of revealing their source code. We were hoping that other states would require them to show it also, leading to Diebold's downfall.
This is just amazing.
DAMN!

[EFerrari]

4. Good! They lied their @sses off in plublic!

Okay. Who can you call about this obvious LIE?

[helderheid]

6. Good question!!

[EFerrari]

8. This is now their pattern! They're doing our work for us.

Now, we have to feed the media and demand oversight. From the State Dem Party? From the Greens -- we're already involved?

Who?

Let's not let this GFO expire. :)

[hunter]

5. Sure, you could do it...

...if there was a hooker under the desk and a gun pointed at your head.

[loudsue]

7. At least SOMEONE in this economy is making $$. Whoever is paid-off

by Diebold, for starters.

I HATE THIS for North Carolina. There needs to be a huge stink made over this!

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[helderheid]

9. let's make it.

[helderheid]

10. kick