RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Tuesday 27 May 2025 Volume 34 : Issue 65

ACM FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) Peter G. Neumann, founder and still moderator

***** See last item for further information, disclaimers, caveats, etc. ***** This issue is archived at <http://www.risks.org> as
<http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/34.65>
The current issue can also be found at
<http://www.csl.sri.com/users/risko/risks.txt>

Contents:
Airport weather systems, runway lights were out during deadly Cessna crash
in San Diego (LA Times)
New NY voting machines face intense skepticism (Albany State Union)
Sad News About Ronnie Dugger (Rebecca Mercuri)
Who's to Blame When AI Agents Screw Up? (WiReD)
BMW remote software update issues spurious warnings (Diomidis Spinellis)
Re: Why We're Unlikely to Get Artificial General Intelligence, Anytime Soon
(Amos Shapir, Jurek Kirakowski)
Re: Lufthansa plane flew for 10 minutes without ANY Pilot ...
(Martin Ward, Steve Bacher, Gene Spafford)
Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 18:52:04 -0700
From: Steve Bacher <sebmb1@verizon.net>
Subject: Airport weather systems, runway lights were out during deadly
Cessna crash in San Diego (LA Times)

Runway lights and an automated system that provides weather conditions were
out of operation at Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport before a Cessna
crashed into a San Diego neighborhood amid foggy conditions, killing all its passengers, investigators revealed [on 23 May 2025].

As a result, the pilot did not have up-to-date weather information for the airport where he was intending to land. Dense fog blanketed the area just before the crash, according to the National Weather Service in San Diego.
Six people were killed in the crash, authorities said. [...]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-05-23/what-we-know-about-the-san-diego-plane-crash

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 17:52:37 PDT
From: Peter Neumann <neumann@csl.sri.com>
Subject: New NY voting machines face intense skepticism (Albany State Union)

[This is just one more example of the RISKS lessons we should be learning,
but the problems of unknown assurance keep re-emerging. PGN]

ExpressVote XL system gaining use in New York, along with opposition
Emilie Munson, Albany Times Union, 25 May 2025

https://eedition.timesunion.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=7895e962-a03d-42f2-90d5-a37b9335ec75&share=true

ALBANY -— Last week, roughly 32,000 people cast their ballots in school
board elections in Monroe County using a controversial voting machine that’s been a source of controversy in New York for years.

It was the largest number of votes cast on an ExpressVote XL machine in New York to date. And in Monroe and other counties, the device is gaining a
growing foothold in the state, even as a movement to stop its use is
brewing.

The ExpressVote XL is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit seeking to block its use in New York. A group of Democrats in the Legislature are also trying to pass a bill to prevent the devices from being used in elections. An
executive order by President Donald J. Trump opposing voting systems like
the ExpressVote XL also looms.

Those developments could imperil millions of dollars in deals between the makers of ExpressVote XL and counties around the state.

The strife boils down to whether a touch-screen machine with a barcode
system can be trusted to document votes as accurately as a person with a
paper ballot and pen in their hand. If something went wrong, would voters
know? Would votes be lost?

Proponents say ExpressVote XL machines are reliable and can be used by all voters, including those with disabilities. They included high-profile names like former New York Gov. David Paterson and the late Hazel Dukes, former president of the NAACP.

In opposition is a coalition of lawmakers, activists, political groups and unions, including actor Mark Ruffalo, who allege the machines make votes unverifiable and violate state Election Law. They claim the machines are too expensive and they’ve had serious problems elsewhere.

At the center of the turmoil is the vendor, a Nebraska company called
Elections Systems and Software LLC, which supplies voting machines used by
more Americans than any other company. The company has contracted a stable
of lobbyists and spent nearly $1.5 million in six years to influence
lawmakers and officials in Albany and New York City on this and related
issues, lobbying disclosures reveal.

Launched in 2019, the ExpressVote XL is primarily used on the East Coast, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, according to the company.

Now, it's breaking into a giant new market: New York.

Counties buying ExpressVote XLs

The ExpressVote XL was approved for use in New York in August 2023 when the state Board of Elections voted to certify the machines after testing
them. The decision came after hours of debate. It was also certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Monroe County is the first county in New York to buy ExpressVote XL machines and use them in an election. It spent about $12 million on 1,000 machines
and will purchase about 170 more before the November general election.

Democratic Board of Elections Commissioner Jackie Ortiz said Monroe County
did not make the choice to switch to ExpressVote XL machines “lightly.”

``We had demonstrations from each of the vendors. We also did public demonstrations ourselves to see what the reaction would be from the public,
and last but not least, we went out to both New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
that also have these machines, to see them in action ourselves. All of the feedback we received was very positive.''

Republican Board of Elections Commissioner Peter Elder said county officials like ExpressVote XL equipment because one type of machine can be used for
all voters, including those with disabilities; they eliminate the
possibility of someone accidentally making a second selection when voting in one race, and they come with a big privacy curtain.

The county first used the machines in March during village elections when
about 2,000 voters went to the polls, Elder said. During that election, the contest for mayor of Pittsford was decided by one vote, prompting a recount
to check the machine’s results.

“We conducted that recount, and it was flawless,” Elder said.

Last week’s school board elections were an even bigger test and a
positive experience, Elder said. The county will use the machines
again in about two weeks during the June primary when even more voters
are expected.

Suffolk County rented 120 ExpressVote XL machines to use in a March special election for Town Council.

``We received nothing but positive feedback from voters about the
machines' performance'', county Board of Elections commissioners John
Alberts and Betty Manzella said in a joint statement. The county is
now weighing whether to buy the machines.

Erie County bought 40 ExpressVote XL machines for nearly $500,000 but
currently has no plans to use them, said Robin Sion, Republican deputy commissioner at the county Board of Elections. Most of the county's voting machines are another model made by the Nebraska company. The county learned after buying the ExpressVote XLs that all the voting machines at a given polling place must be the same type. It hopes to use the ExpressVote XLs in small elections where one machine can serve a polling place, but so far it
has not arranged to do so, Scion said.

In Orange County, officials purchased one ExpressVote XL machine two years
ago, but they also haven’t used it in an election yet, said Democratic Board of Elections Commissioner Louise Vandemark. When voters come to their office seeking an absentee ballot during the June primary, they plan to direct
people to cast a vote on the machine. It’s a test to see how voters like the machine and whether the county may want to buy more, she said.

In Nassau County, the Board of Elections is considering spending $38 million
to buy ExpressVote XL machines next year, said James Scheuerman, the
Democratic Board of Elections commissioner. As they explore their options, they’re watching the rollout of ExpressVote XLs in other counties. So far, they like what they’re seeing , he said.

Other counties have considered the ExpressVote XL and passed on it.

Albany County explored the machine when it was buying equipment last year,
said Rachel Bledi, the county’s Republican Board of Elections
commissioner. The biggest factor in their decision was cost. ExpressVote XLs were twice the cost of the voting machines the county decided to buy, she
said.

Also, if the county bought ExpressVote XLs, it would need more of them than other voting machines, Bledi said. That's because with the ExpressVote XL, voters use the machine to mark their ballot one at a time. With other
machines, many voters can complete paper ballots simultaneously in private booths and then feed them into one machine when they are finished.

``In order for it to work on a practical level, you would need triple the machines,'' Bledi said. She also worries that voters unfamiliar with touchscreen technology would slow voting and create long lines.

*What happened in Pennsylvania*

When voters use the ExpressVote XL, they select candidates on a
touchscreen. Then, the machine prints a paper form with their choices
displayed in readable text and captured in a barcode. Voters can review the form before casting the ballot. The machine reads the barcode to tally
votes.

In 2024, almost 70% of all registered U.S. voters lived in counties where
they marked a paper ballot with a pen to cast their vote, according to
Verified Voting, a national foundation that studies election technology and tracks voting systems. Only a small portion of U.S. voters use the
ExpressVote XL or a similar voting system.

The ExpressVote XL has been used in Philadelphia, Cumberland and Northampton counties in Pennsylvania since before the 2020 presidential election.

The people most worried about the ExpressVote XL in New York point to what happened in Northampton County.

In 2019, voters there said the machine’s touchscreens were either too sensitive or not sensitive enough, so some candidates were hard to select, while in other cases, the wrong candidate was selected. Also, in the local judge’s race, an instructional box on the machine’s screen was read as a candidate in the system, so some votes went to the box instead of an actual person, according to Spotlight PA. Then, in 2023, the machine printed the
wrong information on the paper ballot when people voted for a judicial candidate, though officials said the votes were correctly stored in the barcode.

In Philadelphia in 2020, poll staffers reported issues with the machines at more than 40% of polling locations, including hypersensitive touchscreens
and printer jams, Reuters found.

In 2019, a coalition of election security groups filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania to decertify the use of the machines there. Four years later,
the lawsuit settled with an agreement that counties using the machines would upgrade the software, the state would publish reports about malfunctions,
and the public would get more opportunities to witness the state’s examination of voting systems.

David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said lawsuits have failed to demonstrate that ExpressVote XLs and similar machines are not secure. Meanwhile, there is `a
ton of evidence' that the machines tally votes correctly thanks to audits
and recounts that compare the paper ballot printed with the voter's choices
to the results generated from barcodes, he said. They also allow faster vote counting and less work examining bubbles colored with a pen to interpret a voter’s intent.

An appeal

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, and many others strongly dispute that ExpressVote XLs are secure. Her organization is the
lead plaintiff in a case opposing the use of the machines in New York. The
case is pending in state Supreme Court in Albany and the Nebraska maker of
the machines, along with the state attorney general’s office, have opposed Lerner’s efforts to have them decertified.

``We know for a fact that the most secure way to vote is through a paper
ballot which the voter directly marks with a pen or with the assistance of a marking machine, but it should be under the voter's control not the
machine’s control to decide how to fill in the ballot,'' she said.

State law requires a voter to have the ability to check their ballot before submission to know it is accurate. Lerner and others argue there’s no way
for voters to verify that the barcode information matches their
selections. They also have argued the state Board of Elections can only
approve voting machines that comply with Election Law and should have never approved the devices.

The company filed a motion calling those claims *baseless*

``To the contrary, the ExpressVote XL provides voters the opportunity to
review their selections twice before tabulation, first on the summary screen and next on the printed card,'' the firm’s attorneys wrote.

Last year, the judge in the case dismissed Lerner's arguments because the plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit before the machines were in use in New
York.

The alleged harm was *too speculative*” acting state Supreme Court
Justice Kimberly A. O'Connor wrote. But, O'Connor noted,
``Petitioners' allegation that the ExpressVote XL machine will not
permit voters to privately and independently change their votes or
correct any error before a ballot is cast and counted remains a
possibility if those machines were purchased for use in New York
state.''

Lerner has appealed the ruling and oral arguments are scheduled to take
place later this week before an appellate court in Albany. The fact that
voters are now casting ballots on ExpressVote XLs in New York *should be* a part of their argument going forward, she said. Legislation

A group of New York Democrats have been working with advocates for years to
try to pass bills that would effectively ban ExpressVote XL machines and similar equipment in New York.

One bill would mandate that voters can vote on paper ballots and would
forbid machines that encode votes in a barcode on the ballot. The bill
passed the Senate in 2021 and 2022, but the Assembly did not approve it.

Another bill, nicknamed VIVA NY, would also require polling places to give voters a readable paper ballot that they can mark by hand, if they wish. It passed the Senate in 2023, but did not clear the Assembly.

A paper ballot, that leaves a paper trail and that can be touched and
examined by the voter is not only the safest and most incorruptible option,
but the one that voters trust the most,'' said state Sen. Cordell Cleare, a Democrat from New York City, who sponsors the legislation.

Assemblyman Brian Cunningham, a Brooklyn Democrat and another bill sponsor, said the legislation has competed for time and attention among many
political priorities in the past and with three weeks left in the session
this year, it’s facing long odds.

The legislation has also come up against robust lobbying efforts by
the Nebraska-based manufacturer of the machines.

Advocates against the ExpressVote XL also tried to convince Democratic
leaders to tuck the legislation into the state budget this year, but did not succeed.

Executive order

Trump, nearly six months into his second term, has also taken a stance in
favor of voter-verifiable paper ballots and against barcoding votes.

Trump, who his critics allege has made numerous false statements about
election fraud, signed an executive order in March that, among many other actions, directed the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to decertify
voting systems that record a vote within a barcode in the counting process, except where necessary to accommodate people with disabilities. Systems certified by the commission or recommended in its guidance should include a “voter-verifiable paper record to prevent fraud or mistake,” Trump
ordered. The order does not allocate any money for jurisdictions to pay for
new equipment.

States, not the federal government, administer elections, and the guidance
of the federal election commission is voluntary. New York’s certification of voting machines is not dependent on approval by that commission, according
to state Board of Elections spokeswoman Kathleen McGrath.

Many provisions in the wide-ranging executive order on voting are being challenged in court and are likely to be enjoined, said Gideon Cohn-Postar, senior advisor for Election Infrastructure at the Institute for Responsive Government, a national think-tank.

The Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency, has not taken
steps to advance Trump’s directive.

Counties in limbo

The Nebraska company provides various models of voting machines to a number
of New York counties. Since 2006, the company has had contracts worth over
$167 million to provide elections equipment, software and services to the state, records from the state comptroller's office show.

In court filings last year, the company noted the lawsuit has already hurt their business by creating ``sufficient uncertainty that county boards of elections have deferred or declined to purchase the ExpressVote XL voting machine.''

Monroe County delayed its purchase due to the lawsuit, the company said.
When it did buy 1,000 machines, it signed a warranty agreement with the
company stating that if a court decision results in the decertification of ExpressVote XL machines before July 2026, Monroe County could replace the machines with another voting device from the company that’s approved in New York. Or they could return the machines for a refund, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by the Times Union.

The agreement does not stipulate what would happen if new legislation
results in the decertification of the machines. Ortiz, the Monroe County elections commissioner, said she doesn't think a wholesale refund or
return is possible, but she’s confident the county could negotiate an agreement with the company if needed.

Sion, the deputy elections commissioner in Erie, said they're concerned
about the idea that their 40 machines could be decertified depending on the actions of the courts or the Legislature, but that they’d explore options to get money back or sell the machines.

Scheuerman, the Nassau County commissioner, said the state's lawsuit,
Trump’s executive order and proposed legislation all loom in the minds of elections officials looking to buy voting equipment. ``It definitely makes
the decision a little perilous,'' he said.

[This item strikes home with me, because Rebecca Mercuri and I testified
for Doug Kellner and the New York City Board of Elections in 1988, and
Ronnie Dugger wrote a wonderful article the first November 1988 issue of
*The New Yorker* (item is dated 30 October -- Annals of Democracy:
Counting Votes) quoting all three of us. This item seems highly relevant
and timely to run in its rather long entirety. Incidentally, I just
tried calling Ronnie while I was annotating this item, and the call failed
to go through, which was a harbinger of what has happened -- see the next
message from Rebecca. PGN]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 11:06:34 -0400
From: DrM <notable@mindspring.com>
Subject: Sad News About Ronnie Dugger

Dugger must have been calling out to you yesterday. I just did my own
search and found that he passed at 8:50AM CDT TODAY. Here's the
obituary: <https://www.texasobserver.org/ronnie-dugger-1930-2025/>.
Enormous article with many great photos. This must have been
pre-written and ready-to-go some while ago, no way could it have been
generated so quickly. Well-deserved. Great memories. Sorry for our
loss. Rest in peace, Ronnie.

[Ronnie was a pit-bull even before he founded the Texas Observer, and a
major contributor to reporting honestly on the electronic election machine
problems for the past 40 years.

David Burnham was another call-it-like-you-see-'em reporter whom we lost
in October 2024. His articles in The NY Times in 1984 triggered my
commitment to electronic election integrity. He was later widely known
for his reporting on Serpico. I think I did mention this previously.
PGN]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 18:57:07 -0400
From: Gabe Goldberg <gabe@gabegold.com>
Subject: Who's to Blame When AI Agents Screw Up? (WiReD)

As Google and Microsoft push agentic AI systems, the kinks are still being worked on how agents interact with each other—and intersect with the law.

https://www.wired.com/story/ai-agents-legal-liability-issues

[Long Live the Kinks! PGN]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 19:34:13 +0300
From: Diomidis Spinellis <dds@aueb.gr>
Subject: BMW remote software update issues spurious warnings

A colleague shared with me his experience with a BMW X1 plug-in hybrid
vehicle remote software upgrade. The upgrade started with the following lengthy wording, which most users are conditioned to click-through.
Emphasis added by me.

"This Remote Software Upgrade brings existing functions up to the latest technical standard. New functions depend on the equipment installed. You can find information on the equipment in your BMW Owner's Handbook, from your Service Partner or from the BMW ConnectedDrive hotline. As part of the
update, installed BMW ConnectedDrive apps and the Integrated Owner's
Handbook are automatically updated. *Due to the update and the restart of
some vehicle systems, control messages may appear, for example regarding malfunctions in the powertrain*. Please check whether these messages are
still displayed on subsequent trips. If this is the case, please contact
your Service Partner."

Indeed, after the upgrade the car displayed a "powertrain mulfunction"
message. As this happened on a holiday, he proceeded do drive by battery without knowing whether the petrol engine was actually working. He arrived
at his destination with only 2 km of remaining battery range. There are several things wrong with this situation.

- The software or the system architecture have a fault where upgrades can
issue spurious messages regarding serious malfunctions.

- Rather than fixing the fault, the company decided it was enough to
document it.

- The information regarding the fault was hidden at the end of a lengthy
message starting with uninformative boilerplate.

- The car's drivers are trained through this process to ignore messages
regarding potentially serious malfunctions.

Sadly, such a low level of software quality is not uncommon in popular
desktop applications and operating systems. However, I'm sure that before
cars became computers on wheels, BMW's mechanical engineers would never tolerate a randomly blinking "Engine Fault" indicator or patch the fault
with a footnote in the owner's manual.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 13:17:06 +0300
From: Amos Shapir <amos083@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why We're Unlikely to Get Artificial General Intelligence,
Anytime Soon (Ward, Risks 34.64)

That's because the definition of *human-like intelligence* is a moving
target. Until the 1960s, looking up a number in a phone book, sorting lists alphabetically, and summarizing prices at the grocery store, were all considered tasks which required human intelligence.

Until the 1990s, finding a route on a map given traffic conditions, and recognizing faces in a photo were all considered tasks which required human intelligence.

As we become more accustomed to machines performing certain tasks, these are being erased from the list of tasks which only humans can perform. On the
list remain only those tasks which will be accomplished by artificial intelligence within the next 20 years.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 14:20:10 +0100
From: Jurek Kirakowski <jzk@uxp.ie>
Subject: Re: Why We're Unlikely to Get Artificial General Intelligence,
Anytime Soon (RISKS-34.64)

In the Hebrew scriptures, Genesis 11 speaks of a people who wanted to build
"a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven." The rather defensive-minded God the Lord decided to "confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Or perhaps he just took pity on
their efforts. Anyways, as a result "they left off to build the city." At
least they had sense in those days.

Now, putting aside the notion that LLMs are all based on pretty much the
same algorithm (``the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech'')
and that the workings of LLMs are pretty much not understandable by anyone anyway, the moral of that little story seems to be that any attempt using ``bricks for stone, and ... slime ... for morter'' to reach heaven will fail because heaven is not reachable by material devices. Heaven is spiritual, outside of the Universe of Matter.

So with human intelligence. The time... (2023 -- oldies remember the 1.5
LISP interpreter???) has passed when Christof Koch, the neuroscientist, paid his due of a crate of wine to David Chalmers, the philosopher, for having failed to find *clear* evidence of the neural signature of consciousness.
The audience is said to have cheered and clapped.

The current status between these two is that Koch has set the deadline back another 20 years. *Ward's Law* states that this will then be met with
another extension taking us -- generously -- to 2050.

And human intelligence? How often have we heard this before.

(All quotations from King James' "Authorised" version.)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 10:22:24 +0100
From: Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Lufthansa plane flew for 10 minutes without ANY Pilot as
COVID-19, Vaccinated first officer lost consciousness and captain was in
the washroom! (RISKS-34.65)

An investigation determined that the copilot's incapacitation was the
symptom of a pre-existing neurological condition that he did not know he had and that had not been picked up during his aeronautical medical examination, the report said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/19/travel/lufthansa-flight-spain-no-pilot-report-intl-hnk

The co-pilot had a seizure related to an undiagnosed neurological
condition... His condition would have been detectable during a
medical examination only if he had been having symptoms during the
exam

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/19/lufthansa-plane-pilot-seizure/

So: nothing to do with any COVID-19 vaccination.
In fact, COVID vaccination is not mentioned in the official
incident report:

https://www.transportes.gob.es/recursos_mfom/comodin/recursos/in-001-2024_informe-final_nm.pdf

Where did the suggestion that COVID-19 vaccination had anything to do with
this incident originate?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 16:19:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: Steve Bacher <sebmb1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Lufthansa plane flew for 10 minutes without ANY Pilot as
COVID-19 Vaccinated first officer lost consciousness and captain was in the
washroom!

You posted this article summation from geoff goodfellow with only a link to
a posting on X which contains the full article text with no attestation but
an appended comment by the social media poster associating the incident with Covid-19 vaccination. The source of the original article could be anything
at all, with out implication. In any case the inclusion of the vaccination comment in the RISKS heading was regrettable, in my opinion, and the actual source of the item sans commentary should have been determined and linked
to.'

[I don't have time to track every item back to its true source. Sorry.
PGN]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 11:38:05 -0400
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cerias.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Lufthansa plane flew for 10 minutes without ANY Pilot
(RISKS-34.64)

This piece included nonsense about vaccinations.

[Spaf, See previous message. To which nonsense are you referring?
Mention of it was only a throw-away line in what I ran here. Besides, as
we have seen in RISKS, some of the alleged nonsense relating to vaccines
seems to have been true (e.g., RISKS-34.25,26,40). PGN]

The risk? People add false information to actual news stories, which others then retell or link to, spreading the misinformation further.

[Wow, are we ever seeing more of that. PGN]

BTW, two of my most recent Ph.D. students have looked at issues of
information propagation online, if anyone is interested:

Master, Alexander (2023). Modeling and Characterization of Internet
Censorship Technologies. Purdue University Graduate School. Thesis. https://doi.org/10.25394/PGS.23666784.v1

Harrell, Nicholas (2025). The Mechanisms of Virality in Online Public Discourse. Purdue University Graduate School. Thesis. https://doi.org/10.25394/PGS.28856012.v1

[Spaf, Thanks for these citations. I am delighted to see them. PGN]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:11:11 -0800
From: RISKS-request@csl.sri.com
Subject: Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks)

The ACM RISKS Forum is a MODERATED digest. Its Usenet manifestation is
comp.risks, the feed for which is donated by panix.com as of June 2011.

SUBSCRIPTIONS: The mailman Web interface can be used directly to

subscribe and unsubscribe:
http://mls.csl.sri.com/mailman/listinfo/risks

SUBMISSIONS: to risks@CSL.sri.com with meaningful SUBJECT: line that

includes the string `notsp'. Otherwise your message may not be read.
*** This attention-string has never changed, but might if spammers use it.

SPAM challenge-responses will not be honored. Instead, use an alternative

address from which you never send mail where the address becomes public!

The complete INFO file (submissions, default disclaimers, archive sites,

copyright policy, etc.) has moved to the ftp.sri.com site:
<risksinfo.html>.
*** Contributors are assumed to have read the full info file for guidelines!

OFFICIAL ARCHIVES: http://www.risks.org takes you to Lindsay Marshall's

delightfully searchable html archive at newcastle:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/VL.IS --> VoLume, ISsue.
Also, ftp://ftp.sri.com/risks for the current volume/previous directories
or ftp://ftp.sri.com/VL/risks-VL.IS for previous VoLume
If none of those work for you, the most recent issue is always at
http://www.csl.sri.com/users/risko/risks.txt, and index at /risks-34.00
ALTERNATIVE ARCHIVES: http://seclists.org/risks/ (only since mid-2001)
*** NOTE: If a cited URL fails, we do not try to update them. Try
browsing on the keywords in the subject line or cited article leads.
Apologies for what Office365 and SafeLinks may have done to URLs.

Special Offer to Join ACM for readers of the ACM RISKS Forum:

<http://www.acm.org/joinacm1>

------------------------------

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 34.65
************************

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)