Voting Machine Attacks Proven To Be Practical 225
An anonymous reader writes "Every time a bunch of academics show vulnerabilities in electronic voting machines, critics complain that the attacks aren't realistic, that attackers won't have access to source code, or design documents, or be able to manipulate the hardware, etc. So this time a bunch of computer scientists from UCSD, Michigan, and Princeton offered a rebuttal. They completely own the AVC Advantage using no access to source code or design documents (PDF), and deliver a complete working attack in a plug-in cartridge that could be used by anyone with a few private minutes with the machine. Moreover, they came up with some cool tricks to do this on a machine protected against traditional code injection attacks (the AVC processor will only execute instructions from ROM). The research was presented at this week's USENIX EVT."
If they own it, whats the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
They completely own the AVC Advantage using no access to source code or design documents
What do Source Code and Design Documents have to do with purchasing something?
Re:If they own it, whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is our elections are supposed to be transparent by law.
The problem is our elections are supposed to have public oversight.
The problem is a private company can not provide public oversight.
The problem is electronic vote tabulation devices use invisible signals which no human (especially a poll watcher) can see.
The problem is China or North Korea could decide our elections and we wouldn't know.
The problem is there is no electronic vote tabulation device (or electronic vote registration poll book device) which can be validated with public oversight.
The problem is without public oversight, no election can be validated.
The problem is if our elections can not be validated, we can not hold our representatives responsible.
The problem is if our representatives can not be held responsible, they tend to ignore the rule of law.
The problem is if our representatives ignore the rule of law, they tend to ignore protecting the US Constitution against all enemies.
The problem is when the US Constitution is ignored, we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic.
The problem is when we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, we slip into fascism.
The problem is we have slipped into fascism.
The problem is ignorance is no longer an excuse for corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is if our representatives can not be held responsible, they tend to ignore the rule of law.
We've already got that without everything that you listed before.
The problem is there is no paper trail (Score:2, Insightful)
Best quote from the paper:
The absence of a paper audit trail means that the vote modification will not be detected.
... much less corrected.
You can have a very hackable machine with an immutable, hand-countable, voter-verified paper trail (i.e. printed ballots) and you'll be okay*, assuming multiple mutually-hostile parties are keeping an eye on the paper trail.
You can have a very difficult to compromise machine without a paper trail and you'll never know with certainty your results are accurate.
*There may
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop and get something to eat first? I'm hungry. Dave says he needs to get some sun-block.
Re: (Score:2)
Then put in place people who actually want to serve the public ...
And just how do you propose to discern between those people who desire to serve the public and those people who say they desire to serve the public but are really more interested in power?
Instead of calling for executions, you ought to execute calls. Public pressure is the only way to keep politicians working for the public, and the telephone is the most powerful way to communicate with them. It's more important than voting and makes more of a difference.
Hasn't worked all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a several trillion bucks and counting glaring example about how most reps and senators give not crap one what their constituents want: Public opposition including phone calls, faxes, emails, snail mails and buttonholing was running well over 90% against the casino bankers bailouts. Yet it passed, both under the shrub admin and continues today under the yomama admin. People just wanted normal bankruptcy to occur, let the real free markets sort out those ludicrous collateralized debt obligations and hedged derivatives bets and all those other pseudo financial "products" and other forms of mass leechery from the real working folks. People said in huge numbers "No, we don't need to offer millionaires and billionaires welfare when they bet wrong, they should eat their own megacapitalist dogfood..we'll deal with whatever happens, but don't subsidise those people". But nope, the US public got put on the hook to bail them out.
GM and Chrysler, again, decades of getting it wrong in the auto industry, all the chance in the world for management, unions and investors to get it right..nope, they kept screwing up. People really didn't want to bail them out, again in huge numbers, just let them go bankrupt like normal, but, the quasi bailout happened anyway, and now we have some precedent that the executive branch can just seize corporations and run them. Seems like we fought a big fat war over that economic and governmental "blend" two generations ago, we were against that back then, and actually hung some of the high level proponents after that war. Now, it is *policy*, despite most folks being against it.
Look at the dumb wars..I sincerely doubt there is even close to a majority opinion anymore to continue these wars....but they still go on.
The bottom line is "government" doesn't give a rat's ass what "the people" want, they just go ahead and do whatever they want to do, or what they have been bribed and blackmailed into doing.. I can't give you an exact date when it happened, but voting and "representative democracy" has been broken on many levels for a long, long time now.
Now I still vote, inertia mostly and all, but I think it stopped having much meaning at the larger scales. Local elections I think your vote can make a little difference, at state and above levels though, you have your choice of the globalist screw the middle class party that subsidizes a.b and c over there at your expense, or the globalist screw the middle class party, who subsidizes x,y and z over thataway, again at your expense.
I *wish* it was different, really, I sincerely do, but not seeing it. Until such a time as the two corrupt major parties are abandoned or outlawed for major racketeering, just not seeing things getting any better. Just way too corrupt, for way too long now, it is just "business as usual", and neither party has any incentive to eliminate themselves or the other party, because they are equally corrupt, so they just are never going to go there.
My big hope, really..I hope the USA does a USSR and just dissolves as a bad idea, past prime, with no bloody revolutions. I want some real honest choice. If a regional bloc or state wants joe government to run all aspects of their lives, cradle to grave, and stay taxed at 90% with a herd of commissars overseeing them all the time...swell, let them try that, see how it works. If another wants just about no government at all, private everything, no rules except ferengi "profit at all costs!", fine, let them try that and see what happens.
Somewhere, some state or group of previous states will go "gee..ya know..the original Constitution and bill of rights actually seems well thought out..wonder what will happen if we really, REALLY follow those guidelines and not just lie about it all the time??". THAT place I *will* move to, even if I have to fight every step of the way there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government should never do what the people want, individuals may be smart but "the people" are dumb as dogshit. The government's job is to do wehat they believe is right no matter what "the people" think. If they screw up they get voted out, if they're right they get another spin of the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
And stop paying them, you shouldn't be in government for a salary. Also stop non-individual entities (corporations) from providing "campaign contributions".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If they own it, whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad, *bad*, BAD idea. If you can't be in government for a salary, then you're in it for the bribes. Not that paying a decent salary renders a politician immune to corruption, but at least he doesn't have to be on the take simply to put food on the table.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh*
Troll, these days, is too common a moderation, and is often misused. It wasn't always that way around here.
I, for one, like Obama. I like many of his policies, and dislike many others, but I sure like him better than the last guy, overall. That's my opinion, of course, but it's important that I be allowed to state it -- even though I'm quite certain that others disagree.
Likewise, as an American, I support the right for anyone at all to call him a corrupt asshole, and be heard.
Sometimes, I think the
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think -- and I could be wrong -- that "Owning" is like "Pwning," and it means "to dominate," if you're fourteen.
Re: (Score:2)
Owning is done to you; pwning you do to yourself out of your own stupidity. See also FAIL.
Re: (Score:2)
I think -- and I could be wrong -- that "Owning" is like "Pwning," and it means "to dominate," if you're fourteen.
Actually, chances are a 14 yo would totally understand to own/pwn something where it's much more likely that a 30 year old would have no clue.
Re:If they own it, whats the problem? (Score:4, Funny)
Jeez, talk about going right over your head.
Re:If they own it, whats the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
That seems to have gone right over your head.
The irony here is palpable.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had irony smoothies, they taste terrible. It's got that real strong metallic taste and is just gross in general.
Re: (Score:2)
But they do wonders for your anemia.
Still not fair. (Score:5, Funny)
What these "intellectuals" and "researchers" have to keep in mind, is that in reality, no one would ever dream of committing election fraud.
We all live in a utopia, where everyone has equal say, no one would ever coerce others and there's a kitten on every lap. That's why there are no such things as secret ballots. In every voting booth there will be three heavily armed guards who will watch you vote to ensure that you won't be doing anything you shouldn't do.
Have a cotton candy, drink your beer and turn on the TV. The shiny shiny is on again, you like that. You have always liked that.
</sarcasm>
Re:Still not fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways of combining electronic and paper systems so that they are more reliable and more difficult to defraud then either paper or electronic alone. The problem is that no one seems to be willing to sell such a machine.
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways of combining electronic and paper systems so that they are more reliable and more difficult to defraud then either paper or electronic alone. The problem is that no one seems to be willing to sell such a machine.
I'm perfectly happy with elections being as low-tech and simple as reasonably possible, i.e. paper. I'll gladly pay the few more cents in taxes every few years that ultra-efficient electronic elections would have saved me. All of this desire to have marginal gain at the expense of substantial risk is one of the worst examples of decision-making.
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways of combining electronic and paper systems so that they are more reliable and more difficult to defraud then either paper or electronic alone. The problem is that no one seems to be willing to sell such a machine.
No, the problem is that no one wanting to count the votes would be willing to BUY such a tamperproof machine.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact that we had one election "stolen" by the R's in 2004 (so say the D's), and the fact that we had the next election "stolen" by the D's in 2008 (so say the R's), should be proof, at least, that there is no ultimate ability to steal on either groups part - otherwise, once you have power, why ever let the other side win?
It would also imply the following:
If we have an illegitimate vote in 2004, then it is nonsensical for "them" to not have taken advantage of their power in 2006 and 2008. If that is tru
Re:Still not fair. (Score:4, Informative)
The absence of perfect fraud does not indicate the absence of fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiight.
Because no one could stuff a ballotbox, eh?
Ask Mayor Daily in Chicago how secure they are.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the guy who got caught? Nice example.
Ballot box stuffing has practical limits that are very, very small compared to electronic vote fraud. I.e. you can only have so many extra ballot boxes before someone gets wise in the counting. When the recording, consolodating, and counting of the votes all happens in a machine(s) that is opaque to observers, the potential for recognizing a problem is much much lower.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Minnesota, where Al Franken mysteriously "won" three counties that had more counted votes than registered voters, right?
Here's an electronic system I can trust (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a system I can trust:
User uses a machine to prepare a printed ballot. In addition to printing the ballot the machine records a running tally. Of course, both are subject to fraud.
The user inspects the printed ballot. If the printed ballot is bogus it is invalidated and the user votes again. If the user is blind he has a trusted friend or a machine read the ballot back to him. If he uses a machine, it will be a machine developed independently from the ballot-printing machine. There is an opportu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still not fair. (Score:4, Funny)
There's a kitten on every lap?
That damned kitten clawed my balls, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you must have read "Wildcat's revenge" by "Claude Balls" then?
If we were meant to vote, we'd get candidates (Score:4, Funny)
Americans today committed egregious acts of democracy [today.com] to elect the next failed administration and the next failed Congress.
In a fabulous upset, almost no-one could bring themselves to vote directly for either of the official candidates, instead opting for a write-in vote. Popular write-ins included "the black guy", "the old guy", "McCain from 2000" and "Tina Fey." The seventeen votes for "The Invisible Man" were tallied for Joe Biden. Several tons of Liquid Paper needed to be scraped off voting machines.
The winning candidate turned out to be Noneof Theabove, 46, of Dogshit, Nebraska. Apart from the Presidency, Mr Theabove won 72% of Congressional seats and all Senate seats up for election this year.
Mr Theabove's policies include drinking, shouting abuse at the television and inchoate existential despair. "He completely embodies the national mood," said Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, just before applying for a new job flipping burgers.
A majority of US soldiers in Afghanistan stated the place was "just fine, really" and they were learning to speak Pashto rather than returning. Canada looked south and snickered, though not very much as they still had Stephen Harper to cope with. The Kingdom of Mexico stated its "regret" today that it has had to close its borders to American refugees.
Not a Bug (Score:4, Funny)
deliver a complete working attack in a plug-in cartridge that could be used by anyone with a few private minutes with the machine.
It's not a bug! It's a feature!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not a Bug (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
"The attacker does not need to remove any tamper-evident seals; in particular, he does not need to remove the circuit-board cover."
(CAPTCHA: counted)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is designed to serve as a backup in the event that the machine is destroyed (i.e: building burns down) and the ballots are lost.
How often has that happened in the history of American elections?
That is exactly the kind of dramatic detail that puts my fraud-detector on alert. "Look, it's so secure that it's even secure against problems you don't have!" Typical distraction. It makes me wonder what you're hiding.
As it happens, if you google "ballots lost in fire" you get a bunch of hits on the first page
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not a Bug (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with this is that you aren't going to get a few "private minutes" with the machine
Surely that depends on the standards of voting privacy in your district, like whether you get a three-sided screen block or a complete booth with ceiling-to-floor curtains.
And an election can be thwarted by leaving evidence of tampering in a district you want to disenfranchise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or, in a lot of cases (including my own state, incidentally), an enclosed booth where you are alone with a touch-screen terminal directly connected to the voting machine. Because felt-tipped markers are, y'know, *old-fashioned*.
Re: (Score:2)
Put lots of voting machines in the rich, white neighbourhoods, and very few in the poor, black neighbourhoods. That's how they did it, at least, in Ohio in 2004.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can find a way to rig an election in the State of New York then I'd be real interested in knowing about it.
Make the machines. Include a backdoor that allows them to be controlled via radio. Rig the machine so that it doesn't print what it says it's printing.
Fin
Sincerely,
A Fellow NY Voter
P.S. Running machine candidates with major avenues named after their namesake granddaddies is a pretty sure-fire way to rig the democratic process, too, although it has nothing to do with voting machines.
Re: You're too generous (Score:4, Interesting)
First, 99.99% of the EJs are good people, but there are also bad seeds. You must guard against the EJ's as much as the voter. We had an EJ voting every day of early voting, until the Alternate Judge discovered what he was doing and reported him to us. We reported him to the County Commissioners and County Prosecutor who declined to prosecute the person for whatever (probably politically motivated) reason.
With paper ballots, the fraud would be easier to spot statistically. But any EJ that could figure out how to upload a virus to their voting machine, and get it onto the tabulating machine, could possibly edit results in a way that would make it very hard to discover.
Second, an attacker could possibly find a way to defeat a tamper seal, or could break into the storage facility of the voting machines before election day, or I am sure there are a multitude of other attacks where someone could have a short time of unsupervised access to the voting machine that wouldn't be detected by tamper proof seals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked as an elections inspector (poll worker) in the state of New York for the last five years. Every aspect of the machine (both the old style lever machines and the new optical scanning machines) that could be tampered with is sealed with numbered tamper evident devices. If the numbers on the seals don't match up with the records retained by the Board of Elections then you know the machine has been tampered with. This isn't rocket science people.
and then what happens? do you count its votes (knowing they might be faked) or not (somoene can remove your vote by cutting the seal)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you think it's impossible to get a few private minutes with one of these voting machines you are crazy. I am not sure how you have been an election worker and still managed to come to that conclusion. In fact, you can easily get a few private HOURS with them. Ed Felten (one of the writers of this paper) annually takes photos of himself with unattended voting machines the night before Election Day.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/unattended-voting-machines-usual [freedom-to-tinker.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only problem with this is that you aren't going to get a few "private minutes" with the machine
I am a student at Princeton and last term I took Ed Felton's class on Security. (Ed Felton being one of the authors). This was one of the issues which he talked about. I can't speak for the State of New York, but in New Jersey the voting machines are often stored at the voting sites over night. These voting sites are more often than not, unsecured places such as Churches or Schools. Prof. Felton, on the night before an election, went to all of the election sights. A distrubing number of electronic voting ma
Re: (Score:2)
OK, suppose the tamper-evident seal is found to be broken at the end of the election day. What happens then? Are those votes not counted? I wouldn't expect that result. That would open a door to an intruder going to a district favoring the opponent and merely tampering with the seal. I'd expect the votes to be counted in spite of the broken seal. Is there actual experience anywhere on this point?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone got a mirror? (Score:2)
Site is nearly unresponsive.
And it's just hosting a 3.1MB PDF...
Re: (Score:2)
I have the PDF. I hesitate to ask this, but, where can I put it?
Things like this will never change (Score:5, Insightful)
Electronic bits do not have the quality of being static. Electronic votes can be changed without obvious physical evidence, and as long as they're purely electronic, it will always be like that.
Even an optical disk is more static than electronic bits that live in a database.
People need to demand paper ballots until electronic voting machines are all enhanced with built-in paper trails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a paper trail actually, if the damned county uses them. The problem though is that old folks running the precients barely understand the devices, so they don't bother with the additional hassle of a vote-by-vote trail and just settle for a total count printout.
Read one of my journals for when I worked for Dieb-errr....Premier Election Solutions last year. The best thing I like is a electronic tabulator which can deliver results fast as can be but still has a paper ballot. Touchscreen's should not b
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Things like this will never change (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup. That's a good start.
I'd also love to see some kind of basic voter assessment to substantiate the vote as well. We all have a right to vote, but if yopur vote is based on fallicy or a complete lack of knowledge, you should not be allowed to register that vote.
My grandfather is a prime example of this. He's voted republican his entire life, nearly 70 years of going to the polls. I pointed out to him just before Obama's election that he couldn't, other than Right to Life and anti gun restriction, name a single Republican platform stance. Then i further asked him what his personal beliefs were on the top 25 debated items between the 2 parties. Of the 25 things, he chose the side the DEMOCRATS voiced support for. he didn't believe me, so i showed him the republican national website, and ran down the list (which took a while, it's not well organized). He voted straight democratic ticket. You see, the current Democratic platform is actually closer to what the Republicans had for a platform 50-60 years ago. He started voting replublican as a youth and then allways did, not paying ANY attention to the actual politics at stake. He figured about half his retired friends were doing the same thing...
If you can't name the candidate you're voting for, and at least 1 major platform stance out any 1 issue that candidate supports out of that candidates top 10 supported initiatives, you are not informed enough to effect MY future by registering your invalid votes. If you want to vote straight ticket, that's fine, name 3 platform stances of your party instead. If you can do that, you can vote, if not, either stay home, or only vote for the candidates you know something about. If uninformed people continue to vote, we'll need to bring voter certification back into play... (yes, I know it was used to discriminate in the past, but it would be VERY easy to ensure that did not happen in the future).
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that is exactly how the poor used to be kept out of the voting process, right?
In the early days of the good 'ol US of A, only men who owned land were permitted to vote. Obviously, if you didn't own land and weren't a man, you did not have enough vested interest or mental faculty to have a say in government.
When that was found to be illegal, the requirements changed and you had to pass a reading test in order to vote. This kept the majority of the poor out of the voting process. That too was e
Re: (Score:2)
(yes, I know it was used to discriminate in the past, but it would be VERY easy to ensure that did not happen in the future).
I beg to differ on your last point about how easy it would be to ensure non-discriminatory practices. Any politician who got elected with this system being used for discrimination would be motivated to sabotage or block any attempt to curb said discrimination, or appoint friends who will do likewise. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have had Strom Thurmond's 24 hour filibuster on civil rights legislation. And no, racism is far from dead: for instance, the vast majority of the so-called 'Birthers' (who beli
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Things like this will never change (Score:4, Insightful)
The printout should be made BEFORE you confirm the vote for the final time on-screen. You need to be able to confirm that the paper actually shows your correct vote.
Re: (Score:2)
and the user gets an extra copy with their serial number and their vote, and can go
to the bar and get a free drink for voting a particular way.
If the user gets a receipt that includes the way they voted, the user can sell his vote.
If the way he voted is encoded in a way that is only evident through encryption, the user has to trust the encryption method to accurately record his vote. And then the system is exposed to false discredit if enough voters presenting their receipts lie about how they voted claiming the receipt is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
This is trivial to solve.
Each receipt has on it enough detail to cross reference to a specific vote (ie: location, voting machine number, and time to the minute. It's unlikely that 2 people will vote on the same machine during the same minute. If it's a problem, use seconds, too.) And the receipt has the results of the vote.
What it does NOT have is any link to the voter. So any 'Vote this way or else' schemes will fail, as the voter can simply pick a receipt out of the trash (you know most people will just
Prediction: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity does not work! (Score:2)
With open source, diebold (or whomever) is still making money because someone needs to build the machines, and someone needs to manage the opensource project, but all those who are concerned about the integrety of the vote can contribute and find/fix exploits like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope a politician of some sort with some tech savvy (mod funny lol) gets a hold of this and realizes that opensource is the way to go for voting machines. With open source, diebold (or whomever) is still making money because someone needs to build the machines, and someone needs to manage the opensource project, but all those who are concerned about the integrety of the vote who can understand the programming language being used can contribute and find/fix exploits like this.
And everyone else will just have to take their word that it is OK.
Oh yeah, how will those people know that the "open source" code they contributed to is actually the code running on any voting machine other than the one nearest them (or even on that one)?
Re: (Score:2)
.PDF text (Score:3, Informative)
Copy/paste, some formatting, no tables. Extra carriage returns (sorry)... "Implementing the gadgets" section stripped off...
Abstract
A secure voting machine design must withstand new attacks
devised throughout its multi-decade service lifetime.
In this paper, we give a case study of the longterm
security of a voting machine, the Sequoia AVC
Advantage, whose design dates back to the early 80s.
The AVC Advantage was designed with promising security
features: its software is stored entirely in read-only
memory and the hardware refuses to execute instructions
fetched from RAM. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that an
attacker can induce the AVC Advantage to misbehave
in arbitrary ways--including changing the outcome of
an election--by means of a memory cartridge containing
a specially-formatted payload. Our attack makes essential
use of a recently-invented exploitation technique
called return-oriented programming, adapted here to the
Z80 processor. In return-oriented programming, short
snippets of benign code already present in the system
are combined to yield malicious behavior. Our results
demonstrate the relevance of recent ideas from systems
security to voting machine research, and vice versa. We
had no access either to source code or documentation beyond
that available on Sequoia's web site. We have created
a complete vote-stealing demonstration exploit and
verified that it works correctly on the actual hardware.
1 Introduction .var directive--or immediate values;
A secure voting machine design must withstand not only
the attacks known when it is created but also those invented
through the design's service lifetime. Because
the development, certification, and procurement cycle for
voting machines is unusually slow, the service lifetime
can be twenty or thirty years. It is unrealistic to hope
that any design, however good, will remain secure for so
long.1
In this paper, we give a case study of the long-term
security of a voting machine, the Sequoia AVC Advantage.
The hardware design of the AVC Advantage dates
back to the early 80s; recent variants, whose hardware
differs mainly in featuring a daughterboard enabling audio
voting for the blind [3], are still used in New Jersey,
Louisiana, and elsewhere. We study the 5.00D version
The AVC Advantage voting machine we studied.
(which does not include the daughterboard) in machines
decommissioned by Buncombe County, North Carolina,
and purchased by Andrew Appel through a government
auction site [2].
The AVC Advantage appears, in some respects, to offer
better security features than many of the other directrecording
electronic (DRE) voting machines that have
been studied in recent years. The hardware and software
were custom-designed and are specialized for use in a
DRE. The entire machine firmware (for version 5.00D)
fits on three 64kB EPROMs. The interface to voters
lacks the touchscreen and memory card reader common
in more recent designs. The software appears to contain
fewer memory errors, such as buffer overflows, than
some competing systems. Most interestingly, the AVC
Advantage motherboard contains circuitry disallowing
instruction fetches from RAM, making the AVC Advantage
a true Harvard-architecture machine.2
Nevertheless, we demonstrate that the AVC Advantage
can be induced to undertake arbitrary, attackerchosen
behavior by means of a memory cartridge containing
a specially-formatted payload. An attacker who
has access to the machine the night before an election can
use our techniques to affect the outcome of an election by
replacing the election program with another whose visible
behavior is nearly indistinguishable from the legitimate
program but that adds, removes, or changes votes
as the attacker wishes. Unlike those attacks described
1
in the (contemporaneous, independent) study by Appel
et al. [3, 4] that allow arbitrary computation to be induced,
our attack does not require replacing the system
ROMs or processor and does not rely on the presence of
the daughterboard added in later revisions.
Our attack makes essential use of return-oriented programming
[24, 8], an exploitation technique that allows
an attacker who controls the stack to combine short instruction
sequences already present in the system ROM
into a Turing-complete set of combinators (called "gadgets"),
from which he can synthesize any desired behavior.
(Our exploit gains control of the stack by means of
a buffer overflow in the AVC Advantage's processing of
a type of auxiliary cartridge; see Section 5.) Defenses
that prevent code injection, such as the AVC Advantage's
instruction-fetch hardware, are ineffective against
return-oriented programming, since it allows an attacker
to induce malicious behavior using only preëxisting, benign
code. Return-oriented programming was introduced
by Shacham at CCS 2007 [24], a full two decades after
the AVC Advantage was designed. Originally believed
to apply only to the x86, return-oriented programming
was generalized to the SPARC, a RISC architecture, by
Buchanan et al. [8]. In Section 4 we show that returnoriented
programming is feasible on the Z80 as well,
which may be of independent interest. In addition, we
show that it is possible starting with a corpus of code an
order of magnitude smaller than previous work.
Using return-oriented programming, we have developed
a full demonstration exploit for the AVC Advantage,
by which an attacker can divert any desired fraction
of votes from one candidate to another. We have
tested that this exploit works on the actual hardware; but
in developing our exploit we used a simulator for the machine.
See Sections 5 and 6 for more on the exploit and
Section 2 for more on the simulator.
Our results demonstrate the relevance of recent ideas
from systems security to voting machine research, and
vice versa. Our attack on the AVC Advantage would
have been impossible without return-oriented programming.
Conversely, the AVC Advantage provides an ideal
test case for return-oriented programming. In contrast to
Linux, Windows, and other desktop operating systems,
in which the classification of a process' memory into
executable and nonexecutable regions can be changed
through system calls, the AVC Advantage is a true Harvard
architecture: ROM is executable, RAM is nonexecutable.
3 The corpus of benign instruction on which we
draw is just 16kB, an order of magnitude smaller than in
previous attacks.
In designing our attack, we had access neither to
source code nor to usage documentation; through reverse
engineering of the hardware and software, we have reconstructed
the functioning of the device. This is in contrast
to the Appel et al. report, whose authors did have
this access, as well as to most of the previous studies of
voting machines (discussed in Section 1.1 below). We
had access to an AVC Advantage legitimately purchased
from a government surplus site by Andrew Appel [2]
and a memory cartridge similarly obtained by Daniel Lopresti.
Since voting machines are frequently left unattended
(as Ed Felten has documented, e.g., at [12]), we
believe that ours represents a realistic attack scenario.
We hope that our results go some way towards answering
the objection, frequently raised by vendors, that voting
security researchers enjoy unrealistic access to the systems
they study.4
1.1 Related work
Much of the prior research on voting machine security
has relied on access to source code. The first such work
by Kohno et al. [18] analyzed the Diebold5 AccuVote-
TS voting machine and found numerous problems. The
authors had no access to the voting machine itself but the
source code had appeared on the Internet. Many of the
issues identified were independently confirmed with real
voting machines [9, 21, 22].
Follow up work by Hursti examined the AccuVote-
TS6 and AccuVote-TSx voting machines using "source
code excerpts" and by testing the actual machines. Backdoors
were found that allowed the system to be extensively
modified [17]. Hursti's attacks were confirmed
and additional security flaws were discovered by Wagner
et al. [27].
In 2006, building on the previous work, Feldman et al.
examined an AccuVote-TS they obtained. The authors
did not have the source code, but they note that "the behavior
of [the] machine conformed almost exactly to the
behavior specified by the source code to BallotStation
version 4.3.1" which was examined by Kohno et al. In
addition to confirming some of the security flaws found
in the previous works, they demonstrated vote stealing
software and a voting machine virus that spreads via the
memory cards used to load the ballot definition files and
collect election results [11].
In 2007, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen
decertified and then conditionally recertified the direct
recording electronic voting machines used in California
as part of a top-to-bottom review. As part of the recertification,
voting machine vendors were required to
make available to independent reviewers documentation,
source code, and several voting machines. In all cases,
significant problems were reported with the procedures,
code, and hardware reviewed [6].
Also in 2007, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
ordered project EVEREST--Evaluation and Validation
of Election Related Equipment, Standards and Testing--
as a comprehensive review of Ohio's electronic voting
2
machines. Similar to California's top-to-bottom review,
the reviewers had access to voting machines and source
code. Again, critical security flaws were discovered [7].
2 The road to exploitation
In 1997, Buncombe County, North Carolina, purchased
a number of AVC Advantage electronic voting machines
for $5200 each. In January 2007, they retired these machines
and auctioned them off through a governmentsurplus
web site. Andrew Appel purchased one lot of
five machines for $82 in total [2].
Reverse-engineering the voting machine. Two members
of our team immediately began reverse engineering
the hardware and software. The machine we examined
is an AVC Advantage revision D. It contains ten circuit
boards, including the motherboard shown in Figure
1, with an eleventh inside the removable memory
cartridge--see below. Each is an ordinary two-sided
epoxy-glass type. Since these are somewhat translucent,
with the use of a bright light, magnifying glass, lowvoltage
continuity tester, and data sheets for the components,
we were able to trace and reconstruct the circuit
schematic diagram, and from that deduce how the unit
worked. We filled in remaining details by partially disassembling
the machine's software using IDA Pro.
After approximately six man-weeks of labor, we produced
a functional specification [14] describing the operation
of the hardware from the perspective of software
running on the machine. We documented 47 I/O functions
that the processor can execute to control hardware
functions, such as mapping areas of ROM into the address
space, interfacing with the voter panel and operator controls,
and reading or writing to the memory cartridge.
Reverse-engineering the results cartridge. The AVC
results cartridge is a plastic box about the dimensions of
a paperback book with a common "ribbon-style" connector
on one end that mates to the voting machine. Inside,
there is an ordinary circuit board containing static RAM
chips--backed by two type AA batteries--and common
TTL 74-series integrated circuits. There is no microcontroller;
instead all control signals come directly from the
voting machine. Much of the internal circuitry appears
to have been designed to withstand hot-plugging and to
prevent accidental glitching of the memory contents.
There is an additional 8bit of nonmemory data that
can be read from the unit corresponding to the type and
revision of the memory cartridge. This data is set by etch
jumpers on the circuit board. We were able to change
the type and revision of the cartridge by cutting the associated
trace on the circuit card and wiring alternate
jumpers.
The contents of memory can be read or written by
powering the device and toggling the appropriate input
signals. We constructed a simple microcontroller circuit
to interface with the cartridge to perform reads and
writes. The microcontroller simply controls the appropriate
signals on the cartridge connector to perform the
operation indicated by a controlling program communicating
with the microcontroller via a serial port. No access
to the inside circuitry was necessary.
By disassembling the software and looking at the contents
of a valid results cartridge, we were able to understand
the format of the file system used on the memory
cartridges (and also the internal file system of the 128kB
SRAM described below) and many of the files used by
the voting machine.
Crafting the exploit. Joshua Herbach used the hardware
functional specifications to develop a simulator for
the machine [15], which another member of our team
subsequently improved.6 Our simulator now provides
cycle-accurate emulation of the Z80, and it executes the
AVC election software without any apparent flaws.
We developed our exploit almost entirely in the simulator,
only returning to the actual voting machine hardware
at the end to validate it. Remarkably, the exploit
worked the first time we tried it on the real hardware.
Total cost. Starting with no source code or schematics,
we reverse engineered the AVC Advantage and developed
a working vote-stealing attack with less than 16
man-months of labor. We estimate the cost of duplicating
our effort to be about $100,000, on the private market.
3 Description of the AVC Advantage
In this section, we give a description of the hardware and
software that makes up the AVC Advantage in some detail.
Readers not interested in such low-level details are
encouraged to skip ahead to Section 4, referring back to
this section for details as needed.
3.1 Software
The core of the version-5.00D AVC Advantage is a
Z80 CPU and three 64kB erasable, programmable ROMs
(EPROMs) which contain both code and data for the Advantage.
Each EPROM is divided into four 16kB segments:
BIOS, System Toolkit, Toolkit 2, Toolkit 3, Election
Program, Election Toolkit, Reports Program, Consolidation
Program, Ballot Verify Program, Define Ballot
Program, Maintenance Utilities, and Setup Diagnostics;
see Figure 2.
When the Advantage is powered on, execution begins
in the BIOS at address 0x0000. The BIOS contains a
mixture of hand-coded assembly and compiler generated
code for interrupt handling, remapping parts of the address
space (see Section 3.2), function call prologues and
epilogues, thunks for calling code in other segments, and
code for interacting with the peripherals.
3
Figure 1: We reverse engineered the AVC Advantage hardware. The motherboard, shown here, is composed mostly of
discrete logic and measures 14in14in. Election software is stored in removable ROM chips (white labels). The results and
auxiliary memory cartridges are plugged directly into the motherboard (upper right).
Apart from the BIOS, each EPROM segment contains a
16B header followed by a mixture of (mostly) compilergenerated
code and data. The segments with "Toolkit"
in their name7 in addition to the Reports Program consist
of the header followed immediately by a sequence of
jp addr instructions, each of which jumps to a global
function in the segment. For the entries in this sequence
corresponding to global functions, there is a corresponding
thunk in the BIOS which causes the segment to be
mapped into the address space before transferring control
to the function. Functions in one segment can call global
functions in another segment by way of the thunks.
Each of the remaining segments is a self-contained
program with just a single entry point immediately after
the segment header. When a program is run, much of
the state of the previous program--including the stack
and the heap--is reset. In particular, any data written to
the stack during one program's execution are lost during
a second program's execution.
A typical sequence of events for an election would
include the following. The machine is powered on and
begins executing in the BIOS. The BIOS performs some
initialization and tests before transitioning to a menu in
Maintenance Utilities awaiting operator input. The operator
selects the Setup Diagnostics choice and the corresponding
Setup Diagnostics program is run. This performs
various software and hardware tests before transitioning
to the Define Ballot Program. This program
checks the memory cartridge inserted into the machine
and upon finding a ballot definition transitions to the Ballot
Verify Program. The Ballot Verify Program checks
that the format of the ballot is correct and ensures that
the files which hold the vote counts are empty. After
this, it illuminates the races and candidates so that the
technician can verify that they are correct. Assuming everything
is correct, control transfers to the Election Program
for the pre-election logic and accuracy testing. The
voting machine is powered off at this point and shipped
to the polling places. After it has been powered back on,
control again passes to the Election Program, this time
for the official election.
The ZiLOG Z80 CPU is an 8bit accumulator machine.
All 8bit arithmetic and logical operations use the accumulator
register a as a source register and the destination
register. Apart from the accumulator register, there are
six general purpose 8bit registers b, c, d, e, h, and l
which can be paired to form three 16bit registers bc, de,
and hl. These registers along with an 8bit flags regis-
ter f and 16bit stack pointer sp and program counter pc
registers are compatible with the Intel 8080. In addition,
there are two 16bit index registers ix and iy, an interrupt
vector register i, a DRAM refresh counter register r,
and four shadow registers af', bc', de', and hl' which
can be swapped with the corresponding nonshadow registers.
The Advantage uses the shadow registers for the
interrupt handler which obviates the need to save and restore
state in the interrupt handler. See [28] for more
details.
Due to the limited ROM space for code and data,
compiler-generated functions which take arguments or
have local variables use additional functions to implement
the function prologue and epilogue. The prologue
pushes the iy and ix registers and decrements the stack
pointer to reserve room for local variables. It then sets
iy to point to the first argument and ix-80h to point
to the bottom of the local stack space. Finally, it pushes
the stack-address of the two saved index registers and the
address of the epilogue function before jumping back to
the function that called the prologue. See Figure 3. The
epilogue function pops the saved pointer to the index registers
and loads sp with it. Then ix and iy are popped
and the epilogue returns to the original saved pc. It is the
caller's responsibility to pop the arguments off the stack
once the callee has returned.
3.2 Address space layout
The AVC Advantage has a 16bit flat address space divided
into four distinct regions. The bottom 16kB
is mapped to the BIOS. The 16kB-32kB range can
be mapped to one of the 12 16kB aligned segments
on the three program EPROMs. This mapping is controlled
by the software using the Z80's out instruction.
The 32kB-63kB range addresses the bottom 31kB of a
32kB, battery-backed SRAM. Finally, the top 1kB of the
address space can be mapped to either the top 1kB of
the 32kB SRAM or it can be mapped to any 1kB aligned
region of a 128kB, battery-backed SRAM. This mapping
can be changed by the software using the Z80's out instruction.
For more detail, see [14].
The AVC Advantage's stack starts at address 0x8FFE
and grows down toward smaller addresses. The heap occupies
a region of memory starting from an address specified
by the currently active program to 0xEBFF. Scattered
throughout the rest of 32kB main memory, there
are various global variables and space for the string table
of the active program. In addition, starting at 0x934E
and growing down, there is space for a module call stack
which allows modules to make calls to functions in other
modules, such as printf or strcpy. See Figure 4.
As the lower 32kB of the address space corresponds
to EPROMs, data cannot be written to those addresses
and attempts to do so are silently ignored by the hard-
ware.8 Similarly, as the upper 32kB of the address space
is for writable memory, not program code, any attempt
to fetch an instruction from those addresses raises a nonmaskable
interrupt (NMI). The NMI causes the processor
to load a known constant into the pc register and execution
resumes in the BIOS where the processor will be
halted after displaying an error message on the operator
LCD. This design makes the AVC Advantage a Harvardarchitecture
computer.
4 Return-oriented programming
Since the AVC Advantage is a Harvard architecture computer,
traditional code injection attacks cannot succeed
because any attempt to read an instruction from data
memory causes an NMI which will halt the machine. In
practice, given a large enough corpus of code, this is
not a barrier to executing arbitrary code using returnoriented
programming--an extension of return-to-libc
attacks where the attacker supplies a malicious stack containing
pointers to short instruction sequences ending
with a ret [24, 8].
The Z80 instruction set is very dense. Every byte is
either a valid opcode or is a prefix byte. As there are no
invalid or privileged instructions, instruction decoding of
any sequence of data always succeeds. This density facilitates
return-oriented programming since we can exploit
unintended instruction sequences to build gadgets--a
sequence of pointers to instruction sequences ending
with a ret. For a concrete example, the BIOS contains
the code fragment ld bc,2; ret--a potentially useful
instruction sequence in its own right--which is 01
02 00 c9 in hex where the first three bytes are the
load and the last is the return. If we set the program
counter one byte into the load instruction, then we get the
instruction sequence 02 00 c9 corresponding to the
three instructions ld (bc),a; nop; ret which stores
the value of the accumulator into memory at the address
pointed to by the register bc.
Shacham [24] and later Buchanan et al. [8] had code
corpora on the order of a megabyte from which to construct
gadgets. In contrast, Francillon and Castelluccia
[13] had only 1978B of code with which to craft gadgets;
however, they did not construct a Turing-complete
set of gadgets. This prompts the question: What is the
minimal amount of code required to construct a Turingcomplete
set of gadgets? By constructing a Turingcomplete
set of gadgets using only the AVC Advantage's
BIOS--which consists of 16kB of code and data--we
make progress toward answering that question.
Following Shacham, we wrote a small program to
find sequences of instructions ending in ret. We ran
this program on the AVC Advantage's BIOS. We then
manually devised a Turing-complete set of gadgets from
the instruction sequences found by our program, including
gadgets to control the peripherals like the LCDs
and memory cartridges. We build a collection of gadgets
that implement a 16bit memory-to-memory pseudoassembly
language. See Table 1 for a description of the
pseudo-assembly language and Appendix A for the implementation
of many of the gadgets and a precise explanation
of the notation that will be used in the remainder
of the paper.
(We stress that demonstrating return-oriented programming
on the Z80 is a major contribution of this paper
and of independent interest; we have moved the details to
an appendix to improve the paper's flow.)
Some of the gadgets in Table 1 are straightforward to
construct; others require more finesse due to tricky interactions
among the registers used in the instruction sequences.
For ease of implementation, no state is presumed
to be preserved between gadgets. That is, all arguments
are loaded from memory into registers, operated
upon, and then stored back into memory.9 In this way,
each gadget can be reasoned about independently. The
operands to the gadgets are either global variables--declared
with the
labels are resolved to offsets and thus are immediate values.
Some of the instruction sequences described in Appendix
A contain NUL bytes which make them unsuitable
for use in stack smashing attacks using a string copy. An
early implementation of the gadgets took great pains to
avoid all zero bytes. However, using the multi-stage exploit
described below, avoiding zero bytes was unnecessary
except for in the first stage of the exploit which did
not use the gadgets presented in this section. As such,
the simpler form of the gadgets is presented.
It has become traditional in papers on return-oriented
programming to show a sorting algorithm implemented
as a return-oriented program [8, 16]. In Appendix B, we
give the listing for a return-oriented Quicksort. We have
verified that this sorting algorithm works on the actual
AVC Advantage as part of a larger program that prints a
list of numbers on the printer, sorts them, and prints the
sorted list.
5 A multi-stage exploit for the AVC Advantage
Even though many parts of the code we reverse engineered
appear to handle data from memory cartridges
safely, we have been able to find a stack buffer overflow
vulnerability. In this section, we describe this vulnerability
and discuss how an attacker can exploit it to overwrite
the AVC Advantage's stack and reliably induce the execution
of a return-oriented payload of his choice.
We stress that the buffer overflow that we have identified
appears to be unrelated to the one identified by Appel
et al. in their report [3, Section II.26]. Our buffer overflow
occurs in cartridge processing whereas Appel et al.'s
occurs in interaction with the daughterboard (which the
machine we studied lacks); our overflow requires manual
action, whereas Appel et al.'s is triggered on boot; our
overflow is exploitable for diverting the machine's control
flow, whereas Appel et al.'s appears to allow only a
denial of service. We do not know whether the overflow
that we found persists in the more recent AVC Advantage
version that Appel et al. examined.
One of the programs not normally used in an election,
but accessible from the main menu, contains a buffer
overflow while reading from an auxiliary cartridge of a
certain type. (As described in Section 2, we physically
modified a results cartridge so that the AVC Advantage
would recognize it as a cartridge of the type for which the
appropriate menu item is enabled.) A maliciously crafted
field in one of the files allows roughly a dozen bytes to
be written at the location of the saved stack pointer. In
the first stage of the exploit, the hl register is set and
the stack pointer is modified using the sp hl instruction
sequence, inducing a return-oriented jump to
an attacker-controlled location in memory.
For stage two, a section of memory under attacker control
needs to contain gadgets. Fortunately (for the attacker),
a file of fixed size but with several dozen unused
bytes is read from the memory cartridge into a buffer allocated
by malloc. By the time of the overflow in stage
7
Figure 5: The machine has slots for two memory cartridges.
The first cartridge stores ballots and votes. An
attacker could install vote sealing code by inserting a prepared
cartridge into the second slot.
one, this buffer has been deallocated but most of its contents
remain in memory at a known location. This unused
space can be changed to contain gadgets that make up
the second stage of the exploit. The first thing that stage
two does is reallocate memory for the buffer so that additional
allocations will not overlap and thus write over
the gadgets. At the same time, enough memory is allocated
to hold the contents of an additional file from the
memory cartridge. The data from this file--stage three
of the exploit--is read into the allocated buffer. Control
then transfers to stage three which can perform arbitrary
code execution using the gadgets described in Section 4.
We have tested on an AVC Advantage that the exploit
procedure described in this section works, using it both to
run the sorting program described in the previous section
and the vote-stealing exploit described in the next.
6 Using the exploit to steal votes
We have designed and implemented a demonstration
vote-stealing exploit for the AVC Advantage, using the
vulnerability described in the previous section to take
over the machine's control flow. We have tested that our
exploit works on the actual AVC Advantage. (Although
it was designed and debugged exclusively in our simulator,
the exploit worked on the real hardware on the first
try.) In this section, we describe both the actions that an
attacker will undertake to introduce the exploit payload
to the machine and the behavior of the payload itself.
We also note several ways in which the exploit could be
made more resistant to detection by means of forensic
investigation.
Our attacker accesses the AVC Advantage when it is
left unattended the night before the election. Ed Felten
has described how such access is often possible (see, e.g.,
[12]). At this point, the machine has been loaded with
an election definition and has passed pre-LAT.10 The attacker
picks the locks for the back cabinet, the voter
panel, and (later) the open/close polls switch. Appel et al.
have shown that these locks are of a low-security kind
that is easily bypassed [3, Section I.9]. The attacker does
not need to remove any tamper-evident seals; in particular,
he does not need to remove the circuit-board cover.
Having gained access to the back cabinet of the AVC
Advantage, the attacker uses the normal functions to
open the polls, cast a single vote, and close the polls.
(The polls cannot be closed with no votes cast.11) Once
the polls are closed, the attacker unseats the results cartridge.
The cartridge cannot be removed completely because
of the tamper-evident seal; however, the seal is
small enough compared to the holes through which it
is inserted that the cartridge can be disconnected from
the machine. With the polls closed and the cartridge
removed, the attacker uses the two-key reset gesture
("print-more" and "test") to gain access to the machine's
post-election menu. From this menu, he can reset the machine;
after the reset, the machine's main menu is accessible.
(Were the results cartridge not removed, the data
on it would be erased by the reset. The attacker might
be able to recreate this data and rewrite it to the results
cartridge, but unseating the cartridge before the reset obviates
this.)
To this point, the attacker is simply following the same
procedures poll workers and election officials use in running
an election and resetting the AVC Advantage for
the next election. His goal is to gain access to the main
menu, from which he can direct the machine toward the
vulnerability described in Section 5.
The system reset appears to clear the audit logs on the
machine. Our demonstration vote-stealing exploit does
not undo this log-clearing, though a more stealthy attack
might wish to; otherwise, a post-election audit might discover
that log entries are missing. (Although, as Davtyan
et al. have found in their audit of the AccuVote AV-OS
system [10], discrepancies in logs are not uncommon and
may not be perceived as signs of an attack.) Even if
the attack is detected, the original voter intent will not
be recoverable. The attacker can use the post-election
menu to dump the contents of the logs either to a trans-
fer cartridge or to the printer and cause his exploit payload
to restore them once the system is compromised.
In addition, since a vote was cast, the protective counter
has been incremented; however, the protective counter
is subject to software manipulation and could easily be
rolled back if the attacker desires. Traces of the phantom
vote might also remain in the machine or operator logs; if
so, a stealthy exploit would have to remove these traces.
The attacker now reinserts the results cartridge and a
cartridge of the appropriate type into the auxiliary port
and navigates the menus to trigger the vulnerability described
in Section 5. Using a three-stage exploit as described
in Section 5, he takes control of the AVC Advantage
and can execute arbitrary (return-oriented) code.
Note that hardware miniaturization since the design
of the AVC Advantage makes possible the creation of
cartridges much smaller than legitimate cartridges with
orders of magnitude more storage. (Different parts of
memory could be paged in using a "secret knock" protocol.)
A smaller cartridge may allow the attacker to bypass
tamper-evident loops placed on the auxiliary port
guide rails that would prevent the insertion of a legitimate
cartridge (although we are not aware of a jurisdiction
that attempts to limit access to the auxiliary port in
this way); it may also allow him to leave an auxiliary
cartridge in place during voting while avoiding detection,
which would be useful for exploit payloads larger
than can fit in main memory and unused portions of the
results cartridge. (As noted below, our exploit payload
easily fits in main memory.)
The exploit first restores those parts of the machine's
state necessary to allow the election to begin again.
It copies the results cartridge's post-LAT voting files
(which are in their empty state) over the results cartridge's
election files so that the single ballot that was
cast in order to close the polls is erased. It then copies
(most of) the contents of the results cartridge into the internal
memory. At this point, a message is displayed on
the operator LCD instructing the attacker to remove the
auxiliary cartridge and turn off the power.
In order to convincingly simulate power off, we need
the power switch to be in the off position. Luckily, the
AVC Advantage has a soft power switch, so turning the
power knob just sets a flag that can be polled by the processor
at interrupt time to detect power off. So long as the
exploit code disables interrupts (while petting the watchdog
timer to keep it from firing) it can keep the machine
running; it can also detect when, later, the power switch
is turned to the on position. (By contrast, were the machine
actually to power down, the stack would be reset on
a subsequent power up and the attacker would lose control.)
The AVC Advantage features a large 110V battery
designed for 16 hours of operation that we believe will
allow it to remain overnight in this state [23]. Of all the
steps in our exploit, this is the one that most intimately
relies on the details of the AVC Advantage's hardware
implementation. We emphasize that we have tested on
the actual machine that our exploit code is able to survive
a power-down/power-up cycle in this way on battery
power alone.
When the exploit code detects that the power switch
has been turned to the off position, it simulates power
down. It turns off the LEDs in the voter panel, clears the
LCD displays, and turns off any status LEDs. In testing
on an AVC Advantage, we have been able to disable (via
return-oriented code) all indicators of power except the
LCD backlight on the operator panel. This is the most
visible sign of our attack; we are currently studying how
the backlight might be disabled.
The attacker now closes and locks the operator and
voter panels, removes the auxiliary cartridge, and leaves.
The next morning, poll workers open the machine and
use the power switch to turn it on. The exploit code
detects the change and simulates the machine's powerup
behavior, followed by the official election mode messages.
The exploit must now simulate the machine's normal
behavior when poll workers open and close the polls and
when voters cast votes. While it would be possible to
reimplement this behavior entirely using return-oriented
code, the design of the AVC Advantage's voting program
makes it possible for us to reuse large portions of the legitimate
code, making the exploit smaller, simpler, and
more robust. This would be more difficult to do if the
exploit modified votes as they were cast, but we have
instead chosen to wait until polls are closed and only
then change the cast votes retroactively. The absence of
a paper audit trail means that the vote modification will
not be detected. Other possible designs for vote-stealing
software are described by Appel et al. [3, Section I.5-6].
The main voting function is structured as a series
of function calls that can be separated into three main
groups, each called a single time in order in the normal
case. The first group of functions waits for the "open/-
close polls" switch to be set to open and prints the zero
tape. The second group of functions handles all of the
voting, including waiting for the activate button to be
pressed and handling all voter input. Once the polls are
closed, the third group of functions handles printing the
final results tape and all post-election tasks.
Our demonstration exploit uses the high-level functions
in the AVC Advantage's legitimate voting program
to handle all voting until the polls are closed. Then the
exploit reads the vote totals, moves half of the votes for
the second candidate to the first candidate, and changes
the cast vote records (CVRs) to match the vote totals.
(Obviously, any fraction of the votes could be modified.
Furthermore, while our exploit processes the CVR log in
order, changing every CVR cast for the disfavored candidate
until the desired shift has been effected, more sophisticated
strategies are possible.) The exploit now relinquishes
control for good, handing control over to the
legitimate AVC Advantage program to handle all postelection
behavior. When the "Official Election Results
Report" is printed it will reflect the results as modified
by the exploit.
The AVC Advantage contains routines to check the
consistency of its internal data structures. When the data
is inconsistent, e.g., the vote totals do not match the CVR
totals, this is noted in the Results Report. The exploit ensures
that all data structures in memory and on the results
cartridge that are checked by these routines are consistent
whenever the routines are executed.
Even after it has relinquished control, our exploit remains
in main memory until the machine is shut down.
Forensic analysis of the contents of the AVC Advantage's
RAM would be a nontrivial task; nevertheless, a stealthier
exploit would wipe itself from memory before returning
control to the legitimate program. If any portion of the
exploit code is stored on a cartridge, this must be wiped
as well. Because suspicious poll workers might remove
the cartridge before it can be wiped, anything stored on a
cartridge should be kept encrypted, and the exploit code
should scrub the key from RAM if it detects that the cartridge
has been removed.
Our vote-stealing demonstration exploit is just over
3:2kB in size, including all of the code to copy the files
and the memory cart. It fits entirely in RAM, as would
even a substantially more sophisticated exploit: There is
roughly an additional 10kB of unused heap space that
could be used. In addition, any code that is executed
only while the attacker is present need not actually stay
in the heap once it is finished and could be replaced with
additional code for modifying the election outcome.
7 Conclusions
A secure voting machine design must withstand attacks
devised throughout the machine's service lifetime. Can
real designs, even ones with promising security features,
provide such long-term security? In this paper, we have
answered this question in the negative in the case of
the Sequoia AVC Advantage (version 5.00D). We have
demonstrated that an attacker can exploit vulnerabilities
in the AVC Advantage software to install vote-stealing
malware by using a maliciously-formatted memory cartridge,
without replacing the system ROMs. Starting with
no source code, schematics, or nonpublic documentation,
we reverse engineered the AVC Advantage and developed
a working vote-stealing attack with less than 16
man-months of labor. Our exploit relies in a fundamental
way on return-oriented programming, a technique introduced
some two decades after the AVC Advantage
was designed. In mounting the attack, we have extended
return-oriented programming to the Z80 processor.
Re:.PDF text (Score:4, Informative)
Here it is without the IDIOTIC carriage returns. Yes, you are an IDIOT, guido-cock.
Abstract
A secure voting machine design must withstand new attacks devised throughout its multi-decade service lifetime. In this paper, we give a case study of the longterm security of a voting machine, the Sequoia AVC Advantage, whose design dates back to the early 80s. The AVC Advantage was designed with promising security features: its software is stored entirely in read-only memory and the hardware refuses to execute instructions fetched from RAM. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that an attacker can induce the AVC Advantage to misbehave in arbitrary ways--including changing the outcome of an election--by means of a memory cartridge containing a specially-formatted payload. Our attack makes essential use of a recently-invented exploitation technique called return-oriented programming, adapted here to the Z80 processor. In return-oriented programming, short snippets of benign code already present in the system are combined to yield malicious behavior. Our results demonstrate the relevance of recent ideas from systems security to voting machine research, and vice versa. We had no access either to source code or documentation beyond that available on Sequoia's web site. We have created a complete vote-stealing demonstration exploit and verified that it works correctly on the actual hardware.
1 Introduction
A secure voting machine design must withstand not only the attacks known when it is created but also those invented through the design's service lifetime. Because the development, certification, and procurement cycle for voting machines is unusually slow, the service lifetime can be twenty or thirty years. It is unrealistic to hope that any design, however good, will remain secure for so long.1 In this paper, we give a case study of the long-term security of a voting machine, the Sequoia AVC Advantage. The hardware design of the AVC Advantage dates back to the early 80s; recent variants, whose hardware differs mainly in featuring a daughterboard enabling audio voting for the blind [3], are still used in New Jersey, Louisiana, and elsewhere. We study the 5.00D version The AVC Advantage voting machine we studied. (which does not include the daughterboard) in machines decommissioned by Buncombe County, North Carolina, and purchased by Andrew Appel through a government auction site [2]. The AVC Advantage appears, in some respects, to offer better security features than many of the other directrecording electronic (DRE) voting machines that have been studied in recent years. The hardware and software were custom-designed and are specialized for use in a DRE. The entire machine firmware (for version 5.00D) fits on three 64kB EPROMs. The interface to voters lacks the touchscreen and memory card reader common in more recent designs. The software appears to contain fewer memory errors, such as buffer overflows, than some competing systems. Most interestingly, the AVC Advantage motherboard contains circuitry disallowing instruction fetches from RAM, making the AVC Advantage a true Harvard-architecture machine.2 Nevertheless, we demonstrate that the AVC Advantage can be induced to undertake arbitrary, attackerchosen behavior by means of a memory cartridge containing a specially-formatted payload. An attacker who has access to the machine the night before an election can use our techniques to affect the outcome of an election by replacing the election program with another whose visible behavior is nearly indistinguishable from the legitimate program but that adds, removes, or changes votes as the attacker wishes. Unlike those attacks described 1 in the (contemporaneous, independent) study by Appel et al. [3, 4] that allow arbitrary computation to be induced, our attack does not require replacing the system ROMs or processor and does not rely on the presence of the daughterboard added in later revisions. Our attack makes essential use of return-oriented programming
Questions for the savvy reader (Score:4, Insightful)
1. What form of electronic voting could not be compromised?
2. What form of paper voting could not be compromised?
It may be that we must accept that no form of voting is "secure" in the sense of cannot be gamed.
At least, people have been gaming votes for as long as democracy has existed, so I don't know if they're going to stop just because we make it slightly less convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
1. What form of electronic voting could not be compromised? 2. What form of paper voting could not be compromised?
It may be that we must accept that no form of voting is "secure" in the sense of cannot be gamed.
At least, people have been gaming votes for as long as democracy has existed, so I don't know if they're going to stop just because we make it slightly less convenient.
They aren't going to stop because we make it less convenient, but why should we make it more convenient?
Every form of electronic voting I have seen makes it easier and more convenient to commit massive election fraud and easier and more convenient to hide such fraud. Actually, I can't think of any "voting reform" that has occurred in my life that doesn't make election fraud easier and more convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real danger is that people believe paper ballots can be easily subject to problems and that electronic voting is somehow impervious to these problems.
Actually, I find it troubling that many people seem to believe that paper ballots cannot be compromised at all. I'm not more in favor of electronic voting and I'm not against paper ballots, but I get the sense that quite a few people here seem to think "paper ballots = 100% assurance of honesty" and I don't agree with that. Then again, I was in Ukraine in November of 2004 during the Orange Revolution (long story, but I had long standing plans to go there right after the election and those plans had nothin
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about managing risk...sure, you can stuff ballot boxes, but it's difficult to do that on an enormous scale without being noticed (note: I didn't say impossible, just difficult). On the other hand, if you can simply edit a database to change votes, the barrier to entry for vote fraud drops dramatically.
We probably do have to accept that every voting system can be gamed...what we do *not* have to accept is that this means they're all equally good/bad.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't about making it impossible, just really, really hard. And to do that we have to understand the possibilities well enough that we can decide what is good enough. If we mistakenly think electric voting is perfect when it really has these big gaping holes in it, then we have a lot more work to do. That's what these guys are trying to point out. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada. We use paper ballots. It would be fairly hard to compromise this in any significant way.
You walk into a room, validate your identity, they give you a ballot from a book of ballots. The ballot has a tear-off part with a serial number that matches the stub in the book.
You go behind a screen, mark an X for the candidate of your choice, fold over the ballot, then come back out. You hand the ballot to an official who verifies that the serial number matches what was given to you, then rips off
Re: (Score:2)
Harder than electronic voting, yes, but common exploits such as multiple voting (being on the voter list in multiple polling locations), "losing" ballot boxes during transportation after voting but before counting, would still apply. The later issue could be eliminated by counting all the votes in public at the polling location. At the end the results are recorded and certified on an election results card. Then these cards are accumulated from all voting stations in an area, and the contents of the cards be
You want to prove it to the critics? (Score:2)
critics complain that the attacks aren't realistic
Step 1) Create tool to hack machine.
Step 2) Next election, reprogram the voting machine to play PacMan.
Step 3) Watch Cable News Networks spend weeks talking about the issue.
Step 4) Watch politicians scramble to pass something/anything to prove they care about this issue.
This will all work as long as you don't care about step 5.
Step 5) Go to jail. You do have to show ID to vote and if there is someone in line behind you at the booth, they will know real quick you hacked the machine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can program PacMan into a voting machine, I'm sure you could come up with a method to divert the blame... such as a delay so the 73rd voter after you get's to play PacMan instead of "Who Wants To Be A President"
As well as change the value of the delay after it expires to say it delayed until the 37th voter so they can't count backwards to find you. It can optionally also delete the code that changed the delay, but you don't really need to unless you're trying to frame a particular person. And yes, it is possible to create secure self-erasing code.
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't Public Key crypto figure in to this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what I'm trying to understand.
We have this great thing called Public Key Crypto and the PKI to go along with it.
If you presume a custom processor that will only execute code signed by an election commission, that would be a first step - the system won't run anything that hasn't been specifically approved for installation on the machine. There would be no more "last minute fixes" as we've seen in the past, where code was installed without being vetted by an election authority.
For that matter, require the software developers to store their code on a state or federal election repository, and only sign code that's been compiled on those systems, from that repository. Require that anyone who makes changes sign them with their private key and state the reason for the change.
For the results, take each ballot, strip off the identifying information, and encrypt it to the election commission, and sign it with a pre-deployed per-machine private key that's known. It would of course also be important to have a reliable time source for the device, to include that in the result file.
I would even envision that this would be a good purpose for a federal election agency - hosting the code for all certified voting systems, and being the "root of trust" that signs certificates for the state election commissions, which can then sign local and county commissions, which can then issue keys to individual election machines.
Some patches to an open-source OS, say Linux, a PKI infrastructure (along with some HSM modules to store keys) and a processor with an integrated crypto engine and TPM module would take care of all of this.
Banks do this kind of stuff all the time - what's so hard about it?
You miss the point. (Score:2)
It's not that it's hard to do it. It's that they don't want to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I volunteered to run a polling place this past election cycle, so I have a few thoughts on this:
1) One of the reasons that the electronic voting systems have so many problems is that the local and state elections board are *not* IT shops. They don't spend the time on IT to really get it, and probably won't for a good many years to come. (For example, my local election board had not considered that there would be a pretty significant failure rate on UPS' between election cycles...the UPS' to run the voting
Re: (Score:2)
I did RTFPDF, and I read that this is an 80's-era system running on a Z80 processor. Nowadays, we have chips with memory management, lockable pages, execute-only pages, and other nice things. If you require that the contents of any card inserted be signed by the election commission before you'll even touch them, it would be a bit difficult to get an interface to the system in the first place, now wouldn't it?
voting machine attacks (Score:2)
Still misses an important point (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a few private minutes with a paper ballot box and I can stuff it full of ballots for my candidate. That's an old-school hack.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how you'd do it in my district. My grandmother helps run polls there, and so I have a fairly good idea how it works. (Well, plus having voted there many times.)
You walk in the door, and (if there's no line) are faced with a table of election workers from all the major parties. Each has a stack of papers, listing around 750 registered voters in the district, in alphabetical chunks. You pick the line that matches up with the first letter(s) of your last name, tell them your name, and they che
Design Documents? (Score:2)
There IS an answer, and it;s an easy one... (Score:2)
look, it's simple.... Digital voting machine swith 2 way paper validation. 1 copie prints out of the back of the voting machine with a unique "voter number" (identifies the ticket itself as a receipt number, and has NOTHING to do with the person voting). A second copy prints out on a large tape at central voting table from a seperate central machine and feeds into a scanner on a 3rd machine. Your voting record is also stored electronically indexed by the voting receipt number in the central machine tha
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice and complicated and all, but a breach in the verification machine invalidates the entire process. The validation machine can easilly show a valid count but actually record an invalid count, and there is no way you would know the difference. Vote goes to validation machine, as well as a locked-box printout and a paper printout the voter takes to the validation machine. Voter validates their vote, but what is shown on-screen does not match what is recorded in the database. The vote is then bel
What will they Do (Score:2)
This means that politicians will have to go back to old fashioned fraud, like ballot box stuffing, having bums vote for dead people, registering phantoms from empty lots, and on and on.
Return-oriented device Pwning? (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like return-oriented programming is a nice way to own various pieces of locked down hardware, eg. region-coded DVD drives, carrier-locked phones etc.
The final showdown.. (Score:2)
I guess until the critics get in their heads they are flawed, we will have to go to great lengths to show them it does not compute,
I am thinking of adding a new partisan in the running that stands for Al Quidae being in control for our government, and then using
the tricks talked about here to actually make the votes go their way....and then 2 minutes before the actual meltdown, when everyone on CNN is seeing the impossible...call in and explain the prank to any who will listen.
THENNNNNNN.....they would get
Secure == Predicting the Future (Score:2)
Besides this being a very nice piece or work in Computer Science, it appears the point of this study is that in order for a software device to be considered "secure", it needs to stand up to exploits that have yet to be discovered at the time of release. This is, of course, seemingly impossible to do since undiscovered exploits are, well, undiscovered.
Return-oriented programming defeats security measures like DEP, but there are other measures that may be effective against attacks of this sort, such as Addr [wikipedia.org]
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Old News (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL, not to mention the fact that paying off a developer would probably be safer, and cheaper, than a team of people to root a bunch of voting machines, when you can nab all of them. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
We're one step ahead of you, we have dummy users.