Re: Wyle report

From: <SomeThoughts_at_aol_dot_com>
Date: Fri Jun 16 2006 - 16:31:09 CDT

Jim

This needs more broadcasting. I suggest you pass it
on to Brad Friedman, or, with your permission,
I will post it on CEPN.

Jim Soper

==================

jmarch@prodigy.net writes:

> While we're at it...Black Box Voting obtained the Wyle report for the
> TSx version 4.6.4 (latest rev):
>
> http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/2197/32746.html
>
> There's two noteworthy things in it:
>
> 1) The "ABinterp" files were analysed. That's the Accubasic
> interpreter. The interpreter is banned, but they examined it and passed
> it. In the Bowen hearing of 3-29-06 the Wyle reps denied this - they
> claimed that Accubasic had mistakenly been declared "COTS". Why did
> they lie to Bowen? My guess is, they didn't want to admit to having
> examined Accubasic and not spotting it as illegal. I think rather than
> doing source code review with human eyeballs they threw automated code
> review tools at it that were OK at checking some basic syntax issues but
> blew it completely when looking at the "big picture". I think they
> ended up declaring the structure of the code legal but missed that the
> whole thing was top-to-bottom illegal. Which means they had no clue how
> ANY of this stuff really worked.
>
> 2) What's not in there is any mention of examining customized Windows CE
> code. Bev Harris, myself and Doug Jones and God knows how many others
> have been screaming about Windows CE since 2003...yet here it is late
> 2005 and Wyle isn't checking CE? In the Bowen hearing Wyle said they
> rely on the vendor to declare items "COTS" and once they do, the labs
> don't check them at all. The FEC2002 specs says the ITA checks to see
> what is COTS and whether or not the COTS is unmodified.
>
> At the Bowen hearings Wyle and Systest reps claimed there was no way to
> make sure COTS files are actually unmodified. They've never heard of
> file compares? Load the same alleged "commercial off the shelf" program
> from a trusted source other than the vendor on the same box, see if the
> files are the same as the vendor's. They're not doing it.
>
> According to the Wyle people at the Bowen hearing, the CE files were
> withheld from scrutiny by Diebold. That's fraud.
>
> What the hell kind of bad joke is this?
>
> If custom code in the TSx hasn't been examined by anybody outside
> Diebold, the entire certification system at the state and fed levels has
> broken. If the certification system was defrauded by Diebold, their
> "NASED number" isn't legally worth a rusted dime.
>
> This is top to bottom sick, twisted, diseased.
>

510 258 4857
OpenVoting.Us

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Jun 30 23:17:07 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 23:17:12 CDT