Premiere/Diebold: You're Doing It Wrong

from the a-little-Friday-humor dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about Ohio's lawsuit against Premiere Elections Systems -- better known by its previous name, Diebold -- where we noted Premiere's claim that the problems were the fault of antivirus software. That didn't make much sense, as we noted, but Randall Munroe has explained just how ridiculous this is (in a way that only he can) with his latest xkcd comic:
Voting Machines
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: e-voting, ohio
Companies: diebold, premiere voting


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    mightymaz, 16 Aug 2008 @ 3:32am

    AV isn't security

    I'm surprised that you all seem to accept that a/v is some kind of security technology when it plainly isn't.

    Genuine security would be a sincere attempt to stop all virus infections, conventional a/v can't do that and doesn't pretend to, the best commitment I've seen for an a/v vendor responding to a new threat is to have a new signature out within 3 hours of getting the data on the virus, but then of course you still need to distribute the new signature to all the vulnerable computers, so these computers need to be updated very regularly.

    With most popular a/v systems you don't get to authenticate the server you download the signatures from, and there is no recognized standard for what constitutes an a/v signature : the signature files could literally contain executable code if the a/v vendor (or some interfering malicious party) wanted it that way.

    Then you have all the potential problems with false positives and negatives.... a/v presents more security problems than it solves.

    I think we must conclude that a/v is not a security technology in the proper sense and should not be deployed on a sensitive system such as a voting machine (any voting machines whose "security" is enhanced by a/v is clearly not fit for purpose.

Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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