"Citibank debit card fraud highlights ATM vulnerabilities"

Computerworld Management ^ | Monday, 7 July 2008 | Jaikumar Vijayan

[lifelong_republican]

"Malicious ATM intrusions, such as the late-winter breach that resulted in the compromise of Citibank debit card data, are not at all surprising given the vulnerable state of many of the servers and other components involved in processing such transactions, according to some industry representatives.

In fact, such incidents happen more often than generally perceived, though very few of them get the same kind of public attention that the Citibank breach attracted..."

[lifelong_republican]

There goes the claim that ATMs would be secure.

Electronic 'voting' systems are far less secure.

"So the real question raised by allegations against three people filed in a New York court that hackers infiltrated Citibank's network of ATMs inside 7-Eleven stores isn't how they could do it, but why we should be surprised."

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/OPINION01/807090301/1014/OPINION

Also of interest:

"ATM-Owner Cardtronics Issues Non-Denial Denial in Citibank Breach"

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/atm-owner-cardt.html

The bottom line is that Americans need to do their voting for themselves, not let anyone else do it for them in some unknowable way via computers.

[driftdiver]

Linking ATMs to voting machines is very very very tenuous. It shows an obvious agenda which is not based on facts.

ALL of your banking information is handled by computer at one point or another. If computers scare you that much you should move back to the dark ages.

[lifelong_republican]

driftdiver I totally agree with you that it’s been inappropriate for anyone to suggest that electronic ‘voting’ equipment should be compared to ATM equipment, but it has definitely happened. It has been done by those attempting to assert that the blackboxes would somehow be secure, when they are definitely not. At least with banking there is a complete, openly verifiable paper record of all transactions, which record is viewed by the user of the equipment. That’s not true for the ‘voting’ systems at all, where errors and other problems can be undetectable.

It isn’t those who fear computers who point out that the electronic ‘voting’ equipment is unsuitable for use in elections, though. It’s computer scientists and computer security experts who do so (even the GAO reported as much), and there’s no reason to believe they’d fear computers at all, obviously.

The only ones who put faith in the electronic ‘voting’ systems are those who doesn’t know enough about computers, yet, in fact.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=electronic+voting+comp.risks

[driftdiver]

“At least with banking there is a complete, openly verifiable paper record of all transactions, which record is viewed by the user of the equipment.”

Not even close is there a paper record of all transactions in banking.

Computers are computers. They are all hackable to some extent. Paper voting doesn’t guarantee no mistakes and it sure doesn’t guarantee people won’t cheat.

Properly designed and maintained electronic voting machines are fine and will reduce voter fraud.

[lifelong_republican]

Please name any transaction you’d do at a bank for which you could not get the paper record.

The electronics make election fraud easier to do and easier to hide. Past (lesser) problems with election fraud do not and can not justify making such fraud more possible and more undetectable.

The machines in use are neither properly designed nor properly maintained.

[driftdiver]

“Please name any transaction you’d do at a bank for which you could not get the paper record.”

Trillions of dollars a day are processed with ONLY electronic records.

You hand Walmart a check, they do give you a receipt. Your check does not go to the bank. Walmart processes the check electronically. The only records are electronic. This capability is open to nearly all businesses.

“The electronics make election fraud easier to do and easier to hide. Past (lesser) problems with election fraud do not and can not justify making such fraud more possible and more undetectable.”

Nope, they only make it faster. Paper voting has been used to manipulate elections for decades. Its actually harder to find voter fraud with paper ballots than with electronic voting machines. Thats simply due to the mass of documentation that has to be handled.

“The machines in use are neither properly designed nor properly maintained.”

Proper design and maintenance is required of any system including paper. The current electronic systems design has a few minor flaws but nothing that cannot be dealt with. All the stories we hear of them being insecure requires physical access not available to unauthorized people.

If someone working for the voting commission is going to commit fraud they will do it regardless of the voting machine used.

[lifelong_republican]

You can’t name any bank transaction not backed by paper and fully verifiable at all points by the user.

The electronic ‘voting’ systems aren’t reliable, aren’t secure, and make massive vote fraud easy to do and to hide.

That’s what the computer scientists and computer security experts say.

They’re right. If you don’t want to handle voting on your own, you don’t have to do so, but handing it off to others you can’t even identify isn’t a responsible thing to do.

[driftdiver]

“You can’t name any bank transaction not backed by paper and fully verifiable at all points by the user.”

Most transactions are not fully backed by paper. Nearly ALL financial transactions involve a computer at some point.

All computer do is automate a process. If the manual process is not properly controlled then the automated process will not be properly controlled.

Your fear of computers is irrational.

[lifelong_republican]

You don’t know enough about computers, yet, driftdiver. The fact also remains that you can’t name a single bank transaction for which you wouldn’t have a paper record.

Those who point out computer vulnerabilities don’t fear them, they have the courage to make sure they know whereof they speak.

I hope you someday develop that courage, and use it to gain the knowledge you don’t have at this time. It’s what will be best for you, of course.

Here is a “National Geographic” article on the findings of computer scientists who know what you should learn:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html

[driftdiver]

“The fact also remains that you can’t name a single bank transaction for which you wouldn’t have a paper record.”

I’ve named several but you continue to lie to further your agenda.

“Those who point out computer vulnerabilities don’t fear them, they have the courage to make sure they know whereof they speak.”

You fear them, you ignore that manual processes have the same problems without the efficiencies. People have been cheating on elections since elections were invented.

“I hope you someday develop that courage, and use it to gain the knowledge you don’t have at this time. It’s what will be best for you, of course.”

You’re just funny.

“Here is a “National Geographic” article on the findings of computer scientists who know what you should learn:”

Ahh I see your taking your technology advice from a group called National Geographic. Why am I not surprised.

So how many paper ballots have you forged? There has to be a rational reason why you hate progress.

[lifelong_republican]

You still haven’t named a single transaction you’d have with a bank that you couldn’t confirm via a paper record.

Your assertion that computer scientists and computer security experts would somehow fear computers is entirely unwarranted and not based on reality.

If you could read the “National Geographic” article, you’d realize that those quoted therein are computer scientists with vastly more information available to them than you have. Were you honest, you’d admit that you don’t know why you have faith in electronic blackboxes a lot more openly.

[driftdiver]

yeah whatever, if I wanna see pictures of natives or pretty trees I’ll open that mag. If I wanna learn something about computer technology I’ll go elsewhere.

You have no idea what you’re talking about and lack any coherent argument. Have a nice life.

[lifelong_republican]

You disagree with the experts because you don’t have the knowledge that they have. You seem afraid to learn about this subject, but computer scientists have presented very thorough and detailed information about it:

http://www.electronic-vote.org/

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148112/study_electronic_voting_increased_counting_errors_in_france.html

http://www.computer.org/portal/site/security/menuitem.6f7b2414551cb84651286b108bcd45f3/index.jsp?&pName=security_level1_article&TheCat=1015&path=security/2008/n3&file=gei.xml&;

[driftdiver]

“You disagree with the experts because you don’t have the knowledge that they have. “

Actaully I do have the knowledge and know they have an agenda, just like you.

“You seem afraid to learn about this subject, but computer scientists have presented very thorough and detailed information about it:”

Computer security is easy for anyone willing to take the time. My favorite story about how insecure the voting machines are is when some folks were allowed board level access and were then surprised when they could hack the machine. Your ignorance of computers and the banking industry is laughable.

[lifelong_republican]

You really need to learn more about the subject of computer security, driftdiver.

You claim it’d be easy, but you don’t seem to know as much as you should about the subject.

Here’s something from someone with a PhD in the subject, so you shouldn’t attempt to pretend you’d know more than this individual knows:

http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html

[driftdiver]

It took you that long? Good grief man at least learn the basics. The ATM insecurity was caused by the failure to encrypt the PIN code during transmission. It wasn’t the Operating System or anything else except failure to take basic precautions.

Electronic voting machines are plenty secure as long as you take the basic precautions. That includes limiting people from opening them up and attaching their laptops or installing their own chips.

Nice try, but once again you failed to reach home.

[lifelong_republican]

I already knew that the electronics for elections weren’t secure, but apparently you still don’t know that.

Did you read the link I provided to you from the PhD?

You have no basis for any belief that the electronic ‘voting’ systems would be secure, and there is already ample proof that they are not only not secure, but not reliable. They even have wireless connectivity, so it isn’t necessary to touch them at all to crack them.

Do you know what an MTBF is?