Extension talk:SecurePoll/Archive 1

Clarification of message sought
Can someone who knows how this extension works please explain the meaning of the word 'cryptographic' in the message 'Securepoll-urandom-not-supported'. It occurs in the sentence 'This server does not support cryptographic random number generation.' Does the word cryptographic describe the random numbers or the process of generation? The answer will help those of us translators who are not computer experts to translate this message on translatewiki.net. Lloffiwr 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification written up on translatewiki.net - matter closed. Lloffiwr 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How to create a survey
I'd like to use this extension to create a survey but I do not know how to do this. I can see that there are no polls created by looking at Special:SecurePoll, but I do not understand how to create one. Can someone help?

Thanks, Steven

Hello I have the same problem... SecurePoll is installed, it works, but I dont know how to add a poll... No README file in the archive, nothing on Internet (or i'm not a bad searcher...). Some Help or usefull link will be apreciate ! Thanks ! Lol313 09:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi, I'm joining the two guys above me. There's no README for this extension, but I would like to create a poll, and have no idea how to.

Can someone help?

Thanks, Karen

Sock detection
RE: Sock detection features. Without revealing what they are (I presume they are secret), are the sock detection features effective?

Are there independent and technically competent people who will say with confidence that the sock detection features cannot be avoided by technically advanced sock farm. --SmokeyJoe 10:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "technically advanced sock farm", but I checked the source out of curiosity. The IP address, the User-Agent string, and the X-Forwarded-For header (in case of a proxy, I presume) are recorded for every vote. There's also an attempt to catch people who somehow use the same web browser but with different headers and IP addresses by means of a cookie. If someone owns a botnet, none of this will stop them. But I don't see how you could make the system anymore fraud-proof than it is (short of transforming it in a real election where people show up with an id card). The real fraud mitigator is that few people would have the patience to create many accounts that would qualify in a typical election, and even fewer of these would be able to own (legally or otherwise) a significant number of geographically distributed machines. Last year, the ArbCom election required 150 edits it seems . If there are any additional statistical checks (for instance for many identical votes), they're not included in the code of the SecurePoll extension itself. Tijfo098 08:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)