Ed Felten has responded to Diebold’s criticism of his paper. Felten emphasizes that the most interesting thing about Diebold’s response is what they don’t say. They cite a lot of supposed security measures–tamper-evident seals, encryption, digital signatures, etc–but at no point in the response does Diebold specifically claim that any of those measures actually would have prevented the attacks Felten describes in his paper. Diebold waves their arms a lot in the hope you won’t notice this. But the bottom line is that Diebold has given us no reason to believe that the vulnerabilities documented in the paper have been corrected.