Re: Potent new evidence completing the Windows CEfraud picture

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Mon Aug 07 2006 - 17:09:12 CDT


First, I believe that stripping IE out of Win95 is a far less severe
modification than creating a CE build. You're right, both make a
mockery of the term "COTS".

When we get to Accubasic, things get really crazy.

Wyle and Cyber have both stated publicly that ABasic was treated as
COTS. But the Wyle report for the TSx v.4.6.4 (and others) show that
source code files with the name "abasic.*" involved WERE examined as
"fully" as they do any source code.

I'm not certain of course, but I think what is happening is that Wyle
and possibly all the labs are using automated code review tools to
satisfy the "source code review" process...contrary to what they told
the Calif. Sen. Elections Committee on 3/27/06 where they claim "human
eyeball review".

The automated code review "robots" are OK at finding some things but
weren't able to spot that the core functionality of ABasic was illegal
on it's face (interpreter). So in a truly pathetic attempt at cover-up,
they claimed to have treated ABasic as "COTS" and didn't do code review
at all rather than admit they did laughably bad code review on ALL THE
FREAKIN' CODE top to bottom.


Doug, somebody should have blown the whistle on this "certification"
mess a very long time ago.


Douglas W. Jones wrote:

>On Aug 4, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Jim March wrote:
>>OK, but...there is a very similar evidence trail (as Joe Hall points
>>out) for Accubasic having been treated as COTS too. Is this Diebold
>>hiding customized code from ITA scrutiny to save money, or is this the
>>ITAs garbling things beyond belief?
>The first hint I had of this issue was in the 1997 Board of Examiners
>meeting in Iowa. At the time, Microsoft was saying, very firmly, to
>the Justice Department, that Microsoft Internet Explorer was an integral
>part of Windows '95 and could not be stripped out of windows without
>breaking it. So, when I discovered that the Global AccuTouch (which
>became the Diebold AccuVote TS) was based on Windows '95, I asked
>it contained Internet Explorer. Bob Urosevitch said no, they had
>that out. I then asked whether this meant that their version of Windows
>was no longer unmodified COTS software, but rather, specifically
>for the voting environment. He said, firmly, no, Microsoft is wrong,
>you can strip out IE without breaking anything, and this does not
>constitute a modification. Sadly, I let this go back then, although
>our certification of the Global AccuTouch was conditional and we later
>rescended that certification when Global failed to follow through.
>(I am not responsible for what happened in the Board of Examiners after
>I left it.)
>Urosevitch was wrong, and so was Microsoft's antitrust testimony. In
>case of the AccuTouch and its successors, it is plain and obvious that
>the ITA needed to examine the modifications Global and later Diebold
>to the configurations of COTS software they used. Indeed, this may not
>require examination of the source code for the configured components,
>the nature of the changes to the configuration, which components are
>which are absent, and what custom bits of glue were created to hold them
>together, absolutely must be examined.
> Doug Jones
>OVC-discuss mailing list

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Aug 31 23:17:05 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CDT