you are correct. What's most important here is the ability for people to track and verify what has been voted. If we want computers to speed up the counting of votes then we should also have printed verification for the voters as reassurance and redundancy if needed. Most people like to look at this issue from several soapbox point-of-views, but the real reason this is a problem is because it makes the process less transparent and more suspicious than it needs to in order to accomplish the small benefits realized from using it.
Solution??? Electronic voting with two printed receipts. One for voter reassurance and one for paper ballot counting verification.
Checks and balances... checks and balances...
Telecomms provide most of the interconnection lines used by Internet users... They may have to decide who and where they will start making their money, which may move from subscribers to the Service providers (i.e. ISPs, VoIP-to-POTS providers, Wireless MAN-to-Wireless MAN connectivity). basically anyone who needs to travel long distances will need to traverse their networks and you can believe that if they are losing end-user subscribers they will begin to collect closer to the network core.
true... but...
the problem is physical location. Basically it boils down to connection oriented networks vs. connectionless networks. sure someone can tap a traditional pots line, but they had to be physically "on the line". with VoIP and programs like http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/ this physical domain it extended making it possible for someone to access the path of communications from almost anywhere in the network. I'm not saying that traditional phone security was any better, but VoIP not only suffers from those security issues (DoS, toll fraud, invalid subscribers...), but also from IP inherent problems too (DoS, man-in-the-middle, packet sniffing...)
ps. if you want secure voice and you secure it at the handset.
It seems to me that we have heard about converged services and handhelds that allow us to do everything from one device and technically this has been possible for years... so what is the hold up? I was thinking that it's possibly the business model and that maybe we should spend less time working on how technology is going to solve a problem that doesn't really exist and more on how are these companies going to make their money? traditionally it is made by selling "unique features", but no-one today wants to be tied down to one manufactures devices for everything. (when is the last time one company does everything good?) so why not use open standards you might say... and that works for the most part, but really what we need is open services and I don't see large companies providing this anytime soon. Just something to think about... Hopefully I'm wrong.
Connection vs. Connection-less
on
VoIP Security
·
· Score: 1
The key difference between traditional telephony and VoIP is the way the calls are handled across the network. Traditional POTS telephony uses circuit switched connections, meaning that an attacker needed physical access to some piece of copper along the called path to perform a man-in-the-middle attack. With IP communications it is possible for attackers to "touch" the path of the call from a remote location. http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/
Both methods are insecure and suffer from physical security issues. It's just that without proper network security the physical area of an IP network is easily extended and therefore susceptible to more attackers.
Currently almost all military satellite communications are point-to-point in nature. most of the time this is done by converting IP traffic to serial data before sending over the modems and satellite. this causes ip traffic to be routed back to a core facility before heading on to its final destination. being able to route IP in the sky would provide better mobile-to-mobile communications with less overhead and more dynamic in nature... both reducing delay and bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
you are correct. What's most important here is the ability for people to track and verify what has been voted. If we want computers to speed up the counting of votes then we should also have printed verification for the voters as reassurance and redundancy if needed. Most people like to look at this issue from several soapbox point-of-views, but the real reason this is a problem is because it makes the process less transparent and more suspicious than it needs to in order to accomplish the small benefits realized from using it. Solution??? Electronic voting with two printed receipts. One for voter reassurance and one for paper ballot counting verification. Checks and balances... checks and balances...
Telecomms provide most of the interconnection lines used by Internet users... They may have to decide who and where they will start making their money, which may move from subscribers to the Service providers (i.e. ISPs, VoIP-to-POTS providers, Wireless MAN-to-Wireless MAN connectivity). basically anyone who needs to travel long distances will need to traverse their networks and you can believe that if they are losing end-user subscribers they will begin to collect closer to the network core.
pps. should read "if you want secure voice then secure it at the handset"
true... but... the problem is physical location. Basically it boils down to connection oriented networks vs. connectionless networks. sure someone can tap a traditional pots line, but they had to be physically "on the line". with VoIP and programs like http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/ this physical domain it extended making it possible for someone to access the path of communications from almost anywhere in the network. I'm not saying that traditional phone security was any better, but VoIP not only suffers from those security issues (DoS, toll fraud, invalid subscribers...), but also from IP inherent problems too (DoS, man-in-the-middle, packet sniffing...) ps. if you want secure voice and you secure it at the handset.
It seems to me that we have heard about converged services and handhelds that allow us to do everything from one device and technically this has been possible for years... so what is the hold up? I was thinking that it's possibly the business model and that maybe we should spend less time working on how technology is going to solve a problem that doesn't really exist and more on how are these companies going to make their money? traditionally it is made by selling "unique features", but no-one today wants to be tied down to one manufactures devices for everything. (when is the last time one company does everything good?) so why not use open standards you might say... and that works for the most part, but really what we need is open services and I don't see large companies providing this anytime soon. Just something to think about... Hopefully I'm wrong.
The key difference between traditional telephony and VoIP is the way the calls are handled across the network. Traditional POTS telephony uses circuit switched connections, meaning that an attacker needed physical access to some piece of copper along the called path to perform a man-in-the-middle attack. With IP communications it is possible for attackers to "touch" the path of the call from a remote location. http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/ Both methods are insecure and suffer from physical security issues. It's just that without proper network security the physical area of an IP network is easily extended and therefore susceptible to more attackers.
Currently almost all military satellite communications are point-to-point in nature. most of the time this is done by converting IP traffic to serial data before sending over the modems and satellite. this causes ip traffic to be routed back to a core facility before heading on to its final destination. being able to route IP in the sky would provide better mobile-to-mobile communications with less overhead and more dynamic in nature... both reducing delay and bandwidth.