EAC website is down. Did anyone save a copy of

[garybeck]

hopefully this is just a burp on their server.

but as many have been coming to realize, a key document for us is -->

2002 Voting Systems Standards
(as developed by the Federal Election Commission):
http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html

Volume 1, section 4.2.2
http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/v1/v1s4.doc



this document has specific text that clearly identifies the diebold opscan memory cards as non-compliant with the standards.

hopefully it is just a burp and it will be back up tomorrow. just in case, did anyone save that document? I could use a copy of it.

thanks
gary

[balzac]

1. Did you try the Google cache?

[garybeck]

2. cool, that worked! thanks. for those who

live in diebold opscan country, send a copy of this to your SoS and ask them if your state is in compliance:

2002 Voting Systems Standards
(as developed by the Federal Election Commission):
http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html

The specific rule in question:
Volume 1, section 4.2.2
http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/v1/v1s4.doc

here is the text:
Volume I, Performance Standards
Section 4 - Software
2.Software Design and Coding Standards
2.Software Integrity:
Self-modifying, dynamically loaded, or interpreted code is prohibited, except under the security provisions outlined in section 6.4.e. This prohibition is to ensure that the software tested and approved during the qualification process remains unchanged and retains its integrity. External modification of code during execution shall be prohibited. Where the development environment (programming language and development tools) includes the following features, the software shall provide controls to prevent accidental or deliberate attempts to replace executable code:

Unbounded arrays or strings (includes buffers used to move data);
Pointer variables; and
Dynamic memory allocation and management.

[Nictuku]

4. section 6.4.e

I thought I heard that section 6.4.e didn't exist in the document?

[Bill Bored]

3. Those standards are in effect for another 2 years.

There's no way they would be deleted.

However, you do realize that there is a typo in the section that bans the interpreted code, right?

It could be that someone is trying to fix that. Should be interesting to see what they do to it. As the document stands now, there are NO exceptions, but it's likely they are correcting that. The question is whether they will also change the text of the exception, and whether the exception applies to the Hursti discovery.

[garybeck]

5. that would be incredible if they change the regulation to suit

the concern over the hack. what's next, when Lynn Landes proves electronic voting is unconstitutional, they grab the whiteout?

[Bill Bored]

6. Well, now that you mention it...

...go to pg. 91 and pg. 113 to see how they changed it in the new version scheduled to go into effect in 2007
http://www.eac.gov/VVSG%20Volume_I.pdf