Quick question - who commissioned the Berkeley study?

about this report:

Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter
David Wagner David Jeerson Matt Bishop
Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB)
with the assistance of:
Chris Karlof Naveen Sastry
University of California, Berkeley

http://www.solarbus.org/election/docs/security_analysis_of_diebold.pdf



the intro to the report says:

The study was prompted by two issues: (1) the fact that AccuBasic scripts associated with the
AV-OS and AV-TSx had not been subjected to thorough testing and review by the Independent
Testing Authorities when they reviewed the rest of the code for those systems,...

but it does not say who commissioned the study.

did the secretary of state request this study, in conjuction with the ITA review? if not, who commissioned it?

thanks
gb

I don't have the link at my fingertips but I recall one of Bowen's missives attacking McPherson for using a report produced only by people on his payroll, rather than any independent authority.

it may be done by people on his payroll, but it is a VERY DAMNING report nonetheless. It confirms the code is not in compliance with 2002 standards and it confirms the Hursti Hack.

It is a confounding mystery how McP could take this report as justification for granting certification rather than denying it. Likewise, it makes no sense that registrars breathed sighs of relief and defend their decisions to proceed with Diebold purchases on the grounds that the report says appropriate use can mitigate risks. The same can be said about driving a car but if the brakes have been cut, the gas tank punctured, and the steering wheel removed, you wouldn't try to drive just because some crazy mechanic says you passed inspection. I have written previously (and spoken out here in my community) about calling for certain people to resign. I can't think of a better litmus than this. Anybody who defends these election conditions needs to go. "If you are resigned to the status quo, you should resign your office and make room for someone determined to improve election conditions." See The Resignation Frame.

And what Guv points out above goes for any jurisdiction in the country using this equipment.

closed.

I have done some programming and the logic for a voting machine would be so simple it's not even funny.

It's easy:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6

It's not rocket science.

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 _{- 2} + 1 + 1 = 4

Regarding rocket science, they hired NASA software contractors to write the vote-stealing prototype so even if counting votes isn't rocket science, apparently stealing votes is.