Reply #21: I can't agree more [View All]

[GregD]

They have one company making a commitment to do something that should have been a fundamental requirement in the first place...

<<<"Nobody in the industry would argue that security is not a primary objective.... It's not just the right thing to do, it's also increasingly a market imperative.">>>

First-year programmers understand the need to develop secure applications that can be tested and audited for accuracy. If you are a developer in the banking industry (Diebold ATMs) you don't even get the job if you don't have demonstrable experience in planning/implementing systems with such transparent and auditable schemes. And the QA process in the banking and other industries would not tolerate the sort of stuff that reviews of Diebold's code has revealed.

The notion that these people even approached such critically important applications without the basic considerations being "assumed as mandatory" speaks volumes toward the industries approach toward these products.

BTW, Kim Zetter was at the Sec of State meeting in Sacramento a couple weeks ago, and is very well informed on this stuff. She served as a poll-worker in Alameda County for the Recall election. Much more material was included in the original article that she presented to her editor, then actually wound up in the finished product. I believe that if folks have specific questions, that she is willing to answer those.

Peace...