[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:22:18 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Matt.Carpenter@...icor.com
Cc: jei@...hut.fi, Bugtraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>,
full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com, "Jay D. Dyson" <jdyson@...achery.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Evidence Mounts that the Vote Was Hacked
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:37:28 EST, Matt.Carpenter@...icor.com said:
> todays hacker community. But the realities are that we are paranoid enough
> to watch access to said systems to avoid at least 99% of local hacking,
> eliminating that from feasibility.
We are?
At least some of the machines used had active wireless on them - and I'm
pretty sure that they were *not* on the lookout for somebody out in the
parking lot (or *inside* the next building over) with a laptop and
a Pringle's can.
And how, pray tell, do you get "paranoid enough to watch access" to mean
*anything* when we allow the hacker *physical* *access* *AND* be unsupervised
due to the design of the polling booth?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists