| ??? 11/09/06 07:23 Read: times |
#127628 - Backwards Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
I, of course, have to agree that to do a relevant audit you need the source. But were I one of the idiots that think it is fun to tamper I would find it much easier to tamper with something where I knew the source than something where I did not. Then why is it that all the script kiddies target Windows? (Don't tell me that it's because there's more Windows machines out there--that myth has been demolished many times.) However much the source is known and audited, with a known source it will be easier to sneak 'additional records' in or even to modify records. The evidence indicates that it's much harder to crack open source code than proprietary code. It has nothing to do with being able to examine the source, and has everything to do with designed in security, or lack thereof. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| automated voting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think you fell off the rocker | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Huh? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| tamper and audit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Backwards | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| lack of relevance | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not a problem for the real "bad guys" ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| reversed argtument | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| electronic voting, a very very very bad idea. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you can read Schneier on security here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Automated voting - a good idea. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a paper trail and lots of sunlight ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Did you accidentally vote for Pat Buchannan? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If that were the case ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Cute! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Often thought that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sadly, there's ample reason to agree ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think you are entirely missing the point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I don't think that's necessary | 01/01/70 00:00 |