Re: Transparent Tabulator (take 2)

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Tue Dec 12 2006 - 17:35:48 CST

Yikes! do you really want to put WiFi capability in this?

Even if you did do something that scarey and were careful to keep the monitor inputs one-way (data diodes) you don't say how you would anominze the signal reporting so that it does not reveal the voter's ballot. You also don't discuss the signal condition needed to assure that the summary the mointor reports is also what the other elements on the buss responded to. Without that kind of conditioning the sampling rate of the monitor needs to be VASTLY far in excess of the buss bandwidth otherwise covert communication delays between subunits by edge delays on the buss or even gnarly ideas like Tempest are not actually being monitored.

On the face of it, judging from the slides without the benefit of a dialogue, my imperssion is it seems like it's guarding against a few assumed attack vectors, ignoring others, and introducing so much complexity it might very well create new attack vectors.

Lastly, who is watching the watcher? The level of complexity of the watcher would seem to make it's operation obscure and thus untrusted woudl it not?

-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Donner <>
>Sent: Dec 12, 2006 5:47 PM
>Subject: [OVC-discuss] Transparent Tabulator (take 2)
>Hi All,
>I have generated a brief (7 slides) PDF outlining the basic concepts of
>the Transparent Tabulator I am proposing for use as a central tabulator.
>I appreciate people taking the time to read the proposal and giving me
>any feedback, comments or questions.
>Best Regards,
>Bob Donner
>Link to Transparent Tabulator Outline:
>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 Sun Dec 31 23:17:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST