Diebold Brushes Off Yet Another Damning Security Report

from the accountability? dept

Just a day after Avi Rubin discussed many of the real world problems of some Diebold e-voting machines in action, Ed Felten has come out with his quite damning independent review of the machines -- noting just how problematic the security is and how easy it was to upload malicious programs (including a virus that could spread dangerous software from machine to machine). This is hardly the first time we've seen such a report, but it seems like each report is progressively worse. By this point, you'd have to have lived in a hole to believe e-voting machines are secure. Diebold, in typical fashion, has responded not by admitting to any problems, but by attacking Felten's report -- claiming that his test (done on a machine acquired just a few months ago) was based on older software. Still, given the sheer number of reports of security problems with Diebold machines over the years, it's quite difficult to believe that between a couple months ago and now, they've solved all the security issues. In fact, given Rubin's report from yesterday -- it sounds like their "security measures" are so weak as to be a joke. What's most amazing of all is that Diebold continues to act defiantly about this, despite overwhelming proof that their machines have tremendous fundamental problems. Given the importance of secure and accurate elections, Diebold's continued denial of problems and attitude that there's no problem at all should concern just about everyone. Yet, it seems like they're being used almost everywhere.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    cycle003, 14 Sep 2006 @ 9:06am

    Real world exploits?--How would we know?

    Show me just one case where there has been a real world exploit of any of an electronic voting machine.

    One of the major problems with the lack of security and accountability of electronic voting machines is that we may never know if tampering occurred. People such as this Anonymous Coward (#21) allow companies like Diebold to continue pushing the "security through obscurity" scam. For the most part, advocates for secure voting machines are not doing so out of some political agenda, but statements made by Diebold executives guaranteeing certain election results certainly provoke partisan mudslinging. We only ask that the system has accountability, which a thorough paper backup system should offer. Elections will always be subject to tampering, but every reasonable effort should me made to secure fair elections.

    Finally, Republican-bashing does nothing to help the cause of securing voting equipment. In fact, the name-calling-blame-game only weakens the credibility of those who truly want to see fair elections.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.