Cyber Security > Nova Content
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is still on the move across the globe. ACTA has a similar aim to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act... Read More »
At the 19th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium in San Diego, California, a research paper called “Location Leaks on the GSM Air... Read More »
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), A Xerox Company, today announced that it is currently helping the US government proactively identify internal threats... Read More »
Everyone knows that we live in an age of greater security threats and strange new crimes. Still, the media tends to concentrate on very obvious and tired examples... Read More »
Comments
Alvin SchaefferMakes me think twice about using my credit card at the NFC readers when I go shopping.
Feb 16, 2012
Norton by Symantec today announced several new security offerings. Norton One is a premium service that allows consumers to buy and manage their security software via ... Read More »
Xerox and McAfee are teaming up to design a security system to help companies protect against threats to confidential data. By integrating embedded McAfee... Read More »
Anonymous hacktivists, in their latest high-profile attack, have exposed backroom political dealings that sought to reduce the penalty for convicted staff sergeant... Read More »
Comments
Alvin SchaefferThese guys have become major players in the tech world.
Feb 8, 2012
Most of us spend our entire lives building our own personal brand.
We work long hours so to reflect our inner character and establish a reputation of worth. ... Read More »
Reveal Imaging, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), announced today that it has successfully passed laboratory testing ... Read More »
The day after the anti-SOPA/PIPA protests (the largest coordinated protest in the history of the Internet), the Department of Justice took down Megaupload. It would... Read More »
Comments
Robert PowersI agree with Alvin that some of their actions are a little over the top, but I believe some of their motives are for a good cause and shaping a new revolutionary movement.
Jan 27, 2012
Alvin SchaefferThank you for covering this. I believe Anonymous has gained sufficient notoriety to warrant serious consideration, especially in light of the recent internet censorship attempts. While I do not necessarily condone their actions, it is a very influential new form of activism with which I cannot entirely disagree.
Jan 27, 2012
Talks about universal patient identification (UPI) numbers have been gracing news headlines recently as the debate about privacy and health care continues... Read More »
Comments
Charlie BucknerNot to take the issue lightly, but it would be less of a hassle going to a new doctor, since you won't be filling out the long paper work that you get on your first visit.
Jan 27, 2012
Ann ConkleVery interesting thoughts on this. It's such an important issue.
Jan 27, 2012
18 minutes isn't a very long time for most of us who operate in the civilian world. However, in April of 2010, the Chinese government took control of 15% of the... Read More »
Mikko Hypponen, a cybercrime expert, examines three kinds of cyber attackers in the world -- criminals, hacker activists ('hacktivists') and governments. ... Read More »
Anonymous, a group of hacker activists commonly referred to as 'hacktivists,' has gained notoriety over the past several years for threatening and then... Read More »
General Dynamics opened its new Cyber and Intelligence Solutions Center in Annapolis Junction today. The 28,000 square foot facility can house... Read More »
The last 20 years have seen unprecedented advances in the realm of computer science and engineering. One area that remains remarkably traditional, however, is voting.
... Read More »
Comments
Nicholas PellI'm sort of confused by this response. My intention in writing this piece was to present a balanced account of the issues surrounding electronic vs. paper ballots. To that end, I even included innovations suggested by Dr. Mercuri regarding how to improve paper balloting. I further drew attention to present challenges in the field.
While I wholeheartedly agree that there are difficult challenges ensuring both transparency and accountability with regard to electronic voting, I find it hard to believe that such challenges are insurmountable. In fairness, Dr. Mercuri knows more about this than I do, but then again, so does Mr. Wallach.
As I expressed privately in an email, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would come out of this thinking electronic voting is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Little content seems to indicate that present technologies are up to the task. Indeed, if anything, I think this article presents electronic voting as a sort of boondoggle -- taxpayers are overcharged for ineffective services that don't deliver what they promise.
I am, of course, always unhappy when an interview subject is displeased with an article. In this case, however, I'm not clear on what I could have done to please Dr. Mercuri, short of trashing the entire concept of electronic voting in toto.
While I wholeheartedly agree that there are difficult challenges ensuring both transparency and accountability with regard to electronic voting, I find it hard to believe that such challenges are insurmountable. In fairness, Dr. Mercuri knows more about this than I do, but then again, so does Mr. Wallach.
As I expressed privately in an email, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would come out of this thinking electronic voting is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Little content seems to indicate that present technologies are up to the task. Indeed, if anything, I think this article presents electronic voting as a sort of boondoggle -- taxpayers are overcharged for ineffective services that don't deliver what they promise.
I am, of course, always unhappy when an interview subject is displeased with an article. In this case, however, I'm not clear on what I could have done to please Dr. Mercuri, short of trashing the entire concept of electronic voting in toto.
Jan 10, 2012
RT MercuriWow, what an amazingly incorrect piece!
Electronic voting machines are considerably MORE difficult to audit than traditional methods, since they can be programmed to delete their own code so that it is very hard (if not impossible) to catch if they are cheating.
There is absolutely nothing simple in the design of a microprocessor-based system with millions of transistors. Dan's example of the older microprocessors as somehow obsolete is incorrect -- the less complicated devices have stood the test of time (we call it "debugged") and offer FEWER features that can be exploited to insert back-door attacks into the system.
Larger ballots INCREASE both programming, setup, and pre-election testing costs on computers, as well as increase complexity in checking for correctness.
It has been proven that ballot tracking using computers can be thwarted and spoofed -- what does it mater if the ballot is tracked if it is recorded incorrectly by the computer to begin with? -- so this is a false assurance.
The same is true about multiple voting machines keeping copies -- computer scientists call this GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out -- if the ballot is incorrectly recorded on one machine it will be replicated with the same incorrectness on multiple others.
What is actually obsolete, is the idea that self-auditing electronic voting systems are somehow secure or an improvement over paper-based methods. Heck, even Homer Simpson experienced a "vote flip" -- press for one candidate, the machine records your vote for someone else. This is no joke, it does happen. We even have a video showing machines being tested in a Pennsylvania certification where the vote flipped right before the eyes of the examiner -- guess what, the machines were passed and allowed to be purchased!
And as for those talking voting machines -- well we've seen those do an audio vote flip too -- say one thing, record another (happens for the foreign language ballots as well). Unfortunately, the voter doesn't know it's happening.
I continue to fail to understand how presumably intelligent people are able to convince themselves that somehow the computer, with all of its known complexity and flaws and viruses and glitches, is in any way capable of providing the transparency and independent auditability that is required for government elections. Perhaps it is because voting is really a religion, so faith-based electronic solutions will continue to be promoted, and writers will be hypnotized into spreading the fantasy that a new crop of devices, just around the corner, somehow will really will work as advertised. Dream on.
I'm looking forward to reading Nicholas Pell's article on global warming.
R. Mercuri
Electronic voting machines are considerably MORE difficult to audit than traditional methods, since they can be programmed to delete their own code so that it is very hard (if not impossible) to catch if they are cheating.
There is absolutely nothing simple in the design of a microprocessor-based system with millions of transistors. Dan's example of the older microprocessors as somehow obsolete is incorrect -- the less complicated devices have stood the test of time (we call it "debugged") and offer FEWER features that can be exploited to insert back-door attacks into the system.
Larger ballots INCREASE both programming, setup, and pre-election testing costs on computers, as well as increase complexity in checking for correctness.
It has been proven that ballot tracking using computers can be thwarted and spoofed -- what does it mater if the ballot is tracked if it is recorded incorrectly by the computer to begin with? -- so this is a false assurance.
The same is true about multiple voting machines keeping copies -- computer scientists call this GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out -- if the ballot is incorrectly recorded on one machine it will be replicated with the same incorrectness on multiple others.
What is actually obsolete, is the idea that self-auditing electronic voting systems are somehow secure or an improvement over paper-based methods. Heck, even Homer Simpson experienced a "vote flip" -- press for one candidate, the machine records your vote for someone else. This is no joke, it does happen. We even have a video showing machines being tested in a Pennsylvania certification where the vote flipped right before the eyes of the examiner -- guess what, the machines were passed and allowed to be purchased!
And as for those talking voting machines -- well we've seen those do an audio vote flip too -- say one thing, record another (happens for the foreign language ballots as well). Unfortunately, the voter doesn't know it's happening.
I continue to fail to understand how presumably intelligent people are able to convince themselves that somehow the computer, with all of its known complexity and flaws and viruses and glitches, is in any way capable of providing the transparency and independent auditability that is required for government elections. Perhaps it is because voting is really a religion, so faith-based electronic solutions will continue to be promoted, and writers will be hypnotized into spreading the fantasy that a new crop of devices, just around the corner, somehow will really will work as advertised. Dream on.
I'm looking forward to reading Nicholas Pell's article on global warming.
R. Mercuri
Jan 10, 2012
The Chinese government has clandestinely supported the largest theft of intellectual property in the history of the United States. U.S. cybersecurity... Read More »
For those who curse the tightly wrapped plastic packaging that seems to surround every piece of food or medication today, think back to why these packaging rules were ... Read More »
As the U.S. considers its cyber offense options in the wake of charges that Russia and China have hacked and stolen data from U.S. companies and institutions, an... Read More »
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should be more open about its development of offensive cyber weapons and spell out when it will use them as it... Read More »