Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Your Rights Online

Sequoia Voting Systems Source Code Released 406

Posted by kdawson
from the redaction-fail dept.
Mokurai sends a heads-up about Sequoia Voting Systems, which seems to have inadvertently released the SQL code for its voting databases. The existence of such code appears to violate Federal voting law: "Sequoia blew it on a public records response. ... They appear... to have just vandalized the data as valid databases by stripping the MS-SQL header data off, assuming that would stop us cold. They were wrong. The Linux 'strings' command was able to peel it apart. Nedit was able to digest 800-MB text files. What was revealed was thousands of lines of MS-SQL source code that appears to control or at least influence the logical flow of the election, in violation of a bunch of clauses in the FEC voting system rulebook banning interpreted code, machine modified code and mandating hash checks of voting system code." The code is all available for study or download, "the first time the innards of a US voting system can be downloaded and discussed publicly with no NDAs or court-ordered secrecy," notes Jim March of the Election Defense Alliance. Dig in and analyze.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sequoia Voting Systems Source Code Released

Comments Filter:
  • What? (Score:3, Funny)

    by fyngyrz (762201) * on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:13PM (#29816231) Homepage Journal

    ...a portion of the voting process is corrupt? Who would have thought that!

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by buswolley (591500) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:21PM (#29816315) Journal
      To make light of this does not do justice. This is potentially huge news.
      • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:36PM (#29816457) Journal

        Anyone with half a brain realized converting from dumb paper ballots to "smart" electronic machines that could manipulate the votes was a Bad Idea (tm). Unfortunately that disqualifies most of our state politicians.

        • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stinerman (812158) <nathan...stine@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:40PM (#29816495) Homepage

          As my Software Engineering instructor said...

          Someone was thinking that voting was primarily a counting problem and had the idea that computers were excellent at counting, so computers would be excellent at registering votes.

          Of course, voting is minimally about counting, and from what we've seen even these clowns couldn't do that right.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Paper ballots. Counted by computer. That's what we do in my state. You mark the paper ballot, insert it into a mark-sense reader and it spits out the ballot of you've inadvertently spoiled it and you can get another one and do it again. And if there's a recount, the original votes are preserved on paper, a much more stable media than computer disks. Touch screens, for at least two or three reasons are a bad choice for voting.
        • by HiThere (15173)

          Bad idea? What, making it so that those who paid them money to vote the way they wanted could ensure that they continued to be elected was a bad idea?

          I haven't been able to make myself believe that this choice was made in innocence. Fixing elections has happened on a small scale for a long time. This is merely the modernizing of that "fine old tradition".

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        But the media will ignore it. Remember last year when voting machines were found to have *actually* lost votes in an Ohio election? No? That was an even bigger story, and the media ignored that as well...

        Never underestimate the ability of the media in this country to ignore important news in favor of the latest distraction.

        • Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by shentino (1139071) on Wednesday October 21, 2009 @12:00AM (#29819591)

          The reason voting irregularities mean diddly squat in a presidential election is due to the fact that Joe Citizen's votes don't matter directly.

          Thanks to the electoral college, any voting irregularities are overruled by the imprimatur elector fiat.

      • Not according to Mr. ' or '1'='1
    • Never ascribe to corruption what you can ascribe to malicious incompetence.
    • Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Idefix97 (725474) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:29PM (#29816377)
      I for one welcome our Afghan overlords!
    • Time to call on Article 3 if this really is an attempt to influence the vote?

      • "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

        How would you propose to twist this definition to fit your idea?

  • To be honest... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:14PM (#29816251)
    To be honest shouldn't -any- code used to tally votes be released in the public domain for any US citizen?
    • by selven (1556643) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:22PM (#29816317)

      No, we need to have security! How the heck can a system be secure if everyone can see how it works and therefore how to crack it?! This stuff is simply too important to be left in the hands of the average citizen.

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by sakdoctor (1087155)

        Is that a joke, a troll, or insurmountable ignorance? I really can't tell.

        Given the total incompetence to date, of any company implementing a voting system, I think open source is the only way it's going to get done right.
        If properly implemented, the voting system can be as secure as the crypto primitives it's built upon.

        • you're wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anne Honime (828246)
          crypto primitives relies on a strong link between 2 ends. voting explicitly implies discarding the identity of the voter, hence the whole link thing breaks. If you maintain the link, you know who voted for whom : that's not a good idea at all to preserve democracy. If you discard the link, you have *no way on earth* to actually prove something hasn't been rigged somewhere.
          • Re:you're wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by jonbryce (703250) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:41PM (#29816509) Homepage

            How about this?

            You select your candidate / party / referendum option on screen.
            The computer prints out a ballot paper and records your vote.
            You put the ballot paper in the ballot box.
            The returning officer selects a sample of ballot boxes at random and checks them to the computer.

            • Re:you're wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Anne Honime (828246) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:49PM (#29816601)
              Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I've never seen the necessity to complicate things any further than paper, pencil, double physical count. Cheap, no machines involved, fast. On a national election down here (about 15 million voters), voting booths close at 6pm and results are known nation wide right on time to open the 8pm evening news.
              • by jonbryce (703250)

                That's what we have in Britain, but the polls close at 10pm (or 9pm for local elections) and you generally don't know the result until early the following morning, unless you live in Sunderland South.

              • Our polls are typically open until 8 p.m. California time, which adjusting for time differences == 11 p.m. Washington D.C. time. So the results wouldn't be known until early morning (~1 a.m.) the next day.

                Americans won't stand for it. They want to know NOW damnit, not tomorrow.

                Of course in the old days, elections used to last much longer. In the 1800 election the result was not known until almost four months later (the Congress chose Jefferson(D) over Adams(F)). I think if our ancestors could wait that

                • Re:you're wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by Wyzard (110714) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @09:06PM (#29818147) Homepage

                  Americans won't stand for it. They want to know NOW damnit, not tomorrow.

                  I don't think the American public would really be all that upset if the election results didn't come in until the next morning. I suspect it's actually the news media that wants the results ASAP, in order to get everyone watching the election day evening news so that they can charge more for ad space.

              • by selven (1556643)

                Electronic voting has the (yet unrealized since it interferes with the corporate vision of electronic voting as a profit powerhouse) potential to be much cheaper and gives the results in 0 minutes rather than 120.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Idiomatick (976696)
                The US is spread across multiple time zones so it matters even less. Plus even if it was an hour faster God keep your pants on people. This is a big deal, I'd be fine with a day of wait if the results are accurate.
              • too much voting? (Score:5, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:49PM (#29817391)

                Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I've never seen the necessity to complicate things any further than paper, pencil, double physical count. Cheap, no machines involved, fast. On a national election down here (about 15 million voters), voting booths close at 6pm and results are known nation wide right on time to open the 8pm evening news.

                Except that Americans like to vote on everything.

                Not just politicians, but sherifs, judges, district attorneys (i.e., head government prosecutors), etc. Add this to the fact that most elections (municipal, county, state, federal) tend to happen on one day [wikipedia.org], so that when you walk into the booth, you don't just have a piece of paper, but a small booklet to go through. Then add propositions (i.e., referendums) that many states have if enough people sign a petition. If you want to be an educated voter on all the possible choices you have to do some serious studying.

                And then you have to count all of these 20+ separate run offs for the various levels of government.

          • And it's you!
            There are voting protocols that simultaneously allow:

            Verification of the voter by the voting authority
            Prevention of double (multiple) voting
            Anonymity for the voter to the voting authority
            Verification of the voters own vote

            Begin your research with David Chaum's blind signature.

            • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:56PM (#29817463) Homepage
              I shouldn't be able to verify my own vote. If I can verify my vote, I can prove to myself after the fact how I voted, and therefore I can prove it to somebody else. That somebody else might try to coherce me into voting a specific way. I much prefer paper, pen, and hand counted. That way, I can verify the box is empty before everyone puts their vote in. Verify that my vote went into the box, and verify that the box was opened and that all votes in the box were counted correctly. I wouldn't be able to identify my ballot apart from the other ballots in the box, but that would be good, because nobody would be able to coherce me to vote a particular way. Just knowing that my vote was an a box, and that the box was counted correctly is enough for me to know that my vote was counted correctly.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by tftp (111690)

                If I can verify my vote, I can prove to myself after the fact how I voted, and therefore I can prove it to somebody else.

                Not necessarily. If an essential part of the algorithm (a key) is only in your head you can prove the results to yourself, but not to anyone else - especially if a wrong key produces a proof that is just as valid as the one made with the correct key. A simple XOR would be sufficient. You can store and publish such encrypted vote results all you want, only the original voter can tell wh

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by cgenman (325138)

                Again, why not just use a printer? Select your votes, all of them get tallied and a printout with machine readable and human readable output. Put that in a box. If there is a question about the final tally, you can A: verify that the initial digital count matches a barcode-scanned recount, B: verify that all or some of the barcode-scanned votes match the written out votes, C: count all of the human readable output manually.

                The idea that we can't do industrial printers these days on the cheap and reliable

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by v1 (525388)

            I've actually put some thought into this and I think I have an idea that could work. It could provide accountability, although not necessarily in a provable form, but at least to let the individual voter know if their vote was lost or changed.

            When you vote, you can enter TWO votes. The first is your actual real it-counts vote. The second is a made up vote. It's totally optional, but lets you enter a second vote different than your first. One is vote A and one is vote B, and you pick which (A or B) is c

            • Re:you're wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by SydShamino (547793) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:15PM (#29817655)

              You are required to give your hash code to your boss. HE looks up your vote and picks A or B. 50-50 chance he picks the fake one and you live. 50-50 chance he picks the real one and you lose your job.

              • Re:you're wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)

                by v1 (525388) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @09:20PM (#29818301) Homepage Journal

                Good catch, that's the sort of thinking I was hoping to hear from.

                OK then one more tweak. The receipt you print in the booth can either be your real or your dummy vote. You pick just before you leave. So if you are being coerced, you can pick the dummy receipt but if you want to watch over your vote you pick the real receipt to take home.

                So in this case you don't get an A/B choice when you get home and punch in the URL. It immediately shows a vote, either the dummy or the real, whichever you elected to get the receipt for.

                Are we bulletproof yet? That doesn't look like it adds any real complexity to what I'm trying to keep to a bare minimum.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by qw0ntum (831414)
              This is a really interesting idea, and I can tell it is well thought out. However, I think it wouldn't work primarily because of its complexity. It's already bad enough for a lot of people to have to select multiple checkboxes in different categories for different elections ("do I select one for each council seat?" "can I vote for President and mayor?"). I think the act of voting can really be no more complicated than picking a box in order for people (even smart people) to not get confused.
        • by wampus (1932)

          Yeah, because open source software is always perfect.

          Flash forward 4 years and 3 forks later, gVote and kVote are largely complete with a few annoying bugs to work around. The two produce incompatible results due to differences in opinion, and the only guy with admin rights to the gVote svn repository had a shitfit and hasn't been reachable for a month.

          • by mftb (1522365)

            Develop it however the hell you like, pay people if necessary, just release the source code when you're done to prove you did it right.

          • Actually you'll find him "swimming with the fishes" at the bottom of New York Harbor. Gotta love that NYC political engine.

          • Wrong. Have companies fix it sure but with a few hundred thousand extra eyes on the code than problems intentional or accidental are much more likely to get picked up.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DarkOx (621550)

        Are you being sarcastic? A voting system takes a very finite set of possible inputs, it needs to only give some very specific outputs. I really think there are few excuses for not being able to develop a secure system, secure enough to be totally open despite the value of being able to crack it. Its not like our society can't afford to make the required investment in such a system given the other things our government is spending money doing.

        If it can't be done then electronic voting should not be used a

        • Have you looked around? Many state governments are on the verge of bankruptcy and don't have the funds necessary to spend on e-voting upgrades. IMHO they should just go back to paper ballots. The old 1990s-era scantron machines seemed to work quite well - rapid counting ability, plus having a physical record that could be counted by hand for later verification. Oh and cheap.

          Oh and before you say the Federal government should pay - (1) They don't have any money either; they just borrow it from China and

      • by mftb (1522365)

        It terrifies me that so many people are replying to this as if it's a serious comment.
        Slashdot, I am disappointed.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by w0mprat (1317953) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:15PM (#29816253)
    grep and find who should have won the election?
  • by RichardJenkins (1362463) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:17PM (#29816267)

    "Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
    Workin' in the dark against your fellow man
    But as sure as God made black and white
    What's down in the dark will be brought to the light"

        -Johnny Cash

    Quote taken from the index of http://studysequoia.wikispaces.com/ [wikispaces.com]. Wishful thinking, but how apt.

  • Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bl4nk (607569) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:17PM (#29816279)
    I really can't see why we can't have a government-commissioned open-source system developed and mandated for use for public voting functions.

    I absolutely hate the thought of my vote being inputted in to a closed magical-mystery box.
    • by Entropius (188861)

      ... because that would be socialistic.

      (or so sayeth the GOP)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Yeah but MY state is run by the Democrats (and has been for almost 60 years). What excuse do they have for not developing open-source voting for Maryland? Oh that's right... same as the GOP... holding onto the monopoly.

  • What machines & models does Sequoia sell?
  • ... to the point of vandalism is a petty crime for an already evil company, using SQL stored procedures to do the tally in a voting machine certainly reaches the 7th inner circle of hell.
  • Hyperbole much (Score:3, Interesting)

    by icebike (68054) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:34PM (#29816443)

    "code that appears to control or at least influence the logical flow of the election"

    Which means the uneducated inspecting strings saw things like:

    BAL_ID null
    -- 1 - show candidate on ballot (default)
    -- 0 - remove candidate from the ballot
    -- 2 - don't show candidate on the ballot, but reserve space for her on the layout

    All of which is perfectly benign when voters are not eligible to vote for certain candidates for any number of reasons.

    The more you read at the ultimate site more you realize the people digging thru this garbage know nothing about what they are reading, and not much about programming either.

    Just because you know how to run grep or strings does not mean you can use the data it reveals.

    • by Senjutsu (614542)
      I agree, the summary and quoted code don't shed any light on the issue, but the big, and possibly illegal, problem is that the databases are heavily self-modifying. Random example:

      /* Table : CONTEST */
      /* Description: Election specific contest. There could be multiple
      contests per office differentiated by party
      • I think that's part of the framework used to set up a given ballot, based on the way it looks. In other words - it's used to generate the tables for a specific election, and is not likely dynamically executing during the election itself.
      • by icebike (68054)

        That it creates table views on the fly does not make it un-audit-able.

        Table views on the fly will ALWAYS come out the same as long as the inputs are the same. All that is required is that the data that DRIVES the selection and the content of the tables be locked during the election, and till after audit.

        Note: For the record, I personally believe strongly in the paper ballot. But I also know paper ballot boxes get stuffed all the time. Karzi?

        But reading comments out of code (and what you have pasted is cl

    • by GryMor (88799)

      Yah, that looks like a normal domain table along with comments as to the meanings of field values... Since the ballot design is part of the database, I would be surprised not to see those.

      Of course, with 800mb to go through, it's possible something less normal is in there.

    • by MrMista_B (891430)

      Did you examine the code, or are you making things up?

    • Re:Hyperbole much (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:59PM (#29816741) Homepage

      The more you read at the ultimate site more you realize the people digging thru this garbage know nothing about what they are reading, and not much about programming either.

      You could have kept reading, you know.

      See also the 2002 edition of the "Voluntary Voting System Guide [eac.gov]" published by the Federal Election Commission especially this bit in Volume 1:

      Self-modifying, dynamically loaded, or interpreted code is prohibited [...]

      The FEC standards say "prohibited". They do not say "Any self-modifying, dynamically loaded or interpreted code is only okay if someone who is a really good programmer says it is" or "Interpreted code is okey dokey as long as it isn't called all that often". If the database itself contains application code which modifies the database, then that's a problem. It doesn't matter what kind of code it is or how benign you think it is, it should not be there at all.

      If you would like to share your educated opinion where it matters, feel free to comment in the wiki [wikispaces.com]. That's what it's there for.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They obviously don't understand much because this database is not corrupt. I just loaded it in a SQL Server database fine. SQL Server 2005.

      There are 88 tables in the database.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        From the site:

        UPDATE 10/20/09 5:45pm Pacific Time: It appears the files were NOT VANDALIZED and will open in MS-SQL Server 2005. It also appears they did redact "code" to some degree. I'm still not clear on why there are thousands of lines of source code still left in there. I'm working on scoring a copy of SQL Server 2005 ASAP so I can look for myself. Check the discussion areas to follow along in realtime.

        Interesting.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Leafheart (1120885)
        Why do you need 88 tables for one voting??
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by palegray.net (1195047)
      I've got a friend who agrees with you [jedsmith.org].
  • by SlidingGlassDoor (1660913) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:48PM (#29816587) Homepage
    They may have violated the regulations, but it is still not clear that anything they did would have had any real impact. Best to wait and see what the analysis reveals.
  • by Strider- (39683) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @06:53PM (#29816659)
    I'll stick to voting with pencil, paper, and hand counted ballots. Of course, we in Canada have the advantage that binding referendums are unconstitutional (It's violation of parliamentary supremacy). Thus all we vote for is our representative. Of course this seems to be happening every 18 months, but with four political parties, this tends to happen. :) Oh, and for those who are wondering, each ballot is hand counted, in triplicate, with scrutineers from each of the candidates on said ballot in attendance. It takes about 4 or 5 hours to count 10 000 000 ballots, and recounts rarely change the results by more than 1 or 2 votes per district.
    • by rueger (210566)
      Move to Canada: No DMCA (Yet), no software patents, no bullshit.

      That last one may be pushing things just a bit..

      FWIW, municipal elections seem to favour paper ballots followed by scanners for counting. To my mind that offers a nice balance of speed and accuracy in counting, with nice paper backups in case there are questions.
  • Wonder why this has not been released to Wikileaks yet?.

    This sort of stuff would go down well there...

    (evidence of possible vote tampering and all that jazz)

  • by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) <marc,paradise&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:03PM (#29816785) Homepage Journal
    ... This is cool and all but.. BAL_ID null -- 1 - show candidate on ballot (default) -- 0 - remove candidate from the ballot -- 2 - don't show candidate on the ballot, but reserve space for -- her on the layout , IS_ON_BALLOT T_P_BOOL null -- Code used by State reports , STATE_CODE char(7) null -- Reference to AUDIO; clip used to describe candidate header -- in English , AUDIO_ID T_GLOBAL_ID null -- For grid style: which slate the candidate goes into , SLATE int null , constraint PK_CANDIDATE primary key clustered (CANDIDATE_ID) -- create indexes on table CANDIDATE Exec(" create index FK_CANDIDATE_AUDIO_FK on CANDIDATE (AUDIO_ID) Exec(" create index FK_CANDIDATE_CONTEST_FK on CANDIDATE (CONTEST_ID) If this is the worst of the "business logic" that "controls or influences the flow" of elections, I think they're in for a disappointing read. Using a value in a database isn't considered "business logic" hte last I checked.

    * t violates the federal rulebook on voting systems on several levels: the rules require that code be hash-checked to prove authenticity in the field for obvious reasons. If the real working code is buried in with the data, no such hash-checks are possible.

    Except that so far, I'm seeing table construction and table layouts. I guess that's technically code - as any SQL technically is - but a good case can be made to say that it's just the database structure. Which can, of course, be subjected to a hash check.

    The federal rulebook is also clear that code can't be interpreted, apparently to avoid modification "in the field" (generally county or city election offices).

    Well shit, in that case, they can't use SQL at all. Since a database is a fairly reasonable way to track the candidate data, display strings, etc... I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the intent of the law. (No, IANAL, just applying common sense).

    I do think it's great and long overdue that this information is now available. But I also think they'll want to finish the analysis and get some people who understand what they're looking at, before they start making claims. There may be validity to them - but so far it's tenuous if there at all. (Full disclosure: I'd love to electronic voting either a) shut down or preferably b) administered in a 100% transparent fashion... so I'm not making this post in anybody's defense)

    • by Senjutsu (614542) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:08PM (#29816873)

      Except that so far, I'm seeing table construction and table layouts. I guess that's technically code - as any SQL technically is - but a good case can be made to say that it's just the database structure. Which can, of course, be subjected to a hash check.

      Except that the DDL isn't in a bunch of scripts that are building the schema, the schema exists in a bunch of strings that are concatenated together in stored procedures with some arguments to the procs munged in, and passed to Exec statements when the stored procedures are run.

      That's not normal table building, that's an unabashedly self-modifying database.

  • here in connecticut we simply check off our choice(s) on a paper ballot and insert them for machine scans which tally the votes electronically for rapid post election reporting. since the voter actually voted on paper, and since the paper record remains in the machine magazine until opened under multi-party supervision, it's at least as safe as regular ballots while satisfying legal requirements under the voting act. i miss the hulking and heavy curtain lever machines i grew with (and now own for posterity)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:30PM (#29817155)

    The file they have is simply a SQL Server backup.
    It takes a few minutes to restore using SQL 2005 Express + SSMSE
    Nothing has been destroyed or sabotaged.

    but...

    When the database is restored you get the tables with the data in.
    All the stored procedures have been deleted. Or so Seqoia thought :)

    As the use of strings on the backup file demonstrates, the text of the sp's are still there.
    There are various database tools (Lumigent was one from memory) that allow looking back through the database log and, I expect, returning the database to a previous state.

    Just when companies had got the hang of cleaning up after track changes they move on to SQL database backups :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:19PM (#29817689)

    How to restore the .bak file using Microsoft SQL Server Express 2008:

    Step 1. Go download SQL Server Express 2008 (This is trivial, left up to the reader. You might have to go to a microsoft webpage) and install.

    Step 2. Go download SQL Tools for SQL Server (Trivial) and install.

    Step 3. Go download the .bak.zip file from the above wiki. Save it to 'C:\foofoo\'. Unzip the .bak file within it to 'C:\foofoo\'. You should now have: 'C:\foofoo\RIV_20081104_Canvass_Final_dbset_E.bak'

    Step 4. Start up SQL Server Express

    Step 5. Open SQL Management Studio and connect to your local SQLEXPRESS instance.

    Step 6. Click on the top most node in (Should be your machine's name\SQLEXPRESS). Click "New Query".

    Step 7. Run the following query:

    RESTORE DATABASE RIV_20081104_E FROM disk='C:\foofoo\RIV_20081104_Canvass_Final_dbset_E.bak'
    WITH MOVE 'RIV_20081104_Esys' TO 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\RIV_20081104_Esys.mdf',
              MOVE 'RIV_20081104_Edat' TO 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\RIV_20081104_Edat.mdf',
              MOVE 'RIV_20081104_Elog' TO 'C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\RIV_20081104_Elog.ldf',
              REPLACE
    go

    Step 8. Wait.

    Step 9. This should create a database called RIV_20081104_E.

    Have fun.

  • by davidmwilliams (1117749) on Wednesday October 21, 2009 @08:48AM (#29822715) Homepage
    There are many good reasons for open source voting system but this story by the Daily Kos is a beat up, and is based solely on the lack of technical ability by the person making the claims. I've actually downloaded the database, restored it successfully in SQL Server 2008 and examined it and there really is no basis to this story. That doesn't mean I support Sequoia, that doesn't mean I support closed voting systems, just merely in this particular instance the story is not based on fact. Here's how to restore it and what you'll find: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/28715/1141/ [itwire.com]

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...