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

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 3rd, 2026 04:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios