thewayne: (Default)
[personal profile] thewayne
His premise is that they (California) have security backwards and are arguing that the machines are secure until they're proven not to be, then a patch makes them all better until they are once-again compromised. The full story is that the Californian In Charge of Voting Machine Stuff, after having a hasty report published proving that the machines tested were riddled with bad security, decided that once the uncovered vulnerabilities are patched that the machines can once again be used.

Schneier's point is that security must be built from the ground up, not added on later. Some excellent examples from the NSA.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/08/securitymatters_0809?currentPage=all
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

April 2026

S M T W T F S
   1234
56 7891011
1213 1415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 15th, 2026 08:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios