Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Politics

Researchers Easily Breached Voting Machines For the 2020 Election (engadget.com) 123

Posted by BeauHD from the way-too-easy dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The voting machines that the U.S. will use in the 2020 election are still vulnerable to hacks. A group of ethical hackers tested a bunch of those voting machines and election systems (most of which they bought on eBay). They were able to crack into every machine, The Washington Post reports. Their tests took place this summer at a Def Con cybersecurity conference, but the group visited Washington to share their findings yesterday. A number of flaws allowed the hackers to access the machines, including weak default passwords and shoddy encryption. The group says the machines could be hacked by anyone with access to them, and if poll workers make mistakes or take shortcuts, the machines could be infiltrated by remote hackers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Easily Breached Voting Machines For the 2020 Election More

Researchers Easily Breached Voting Machines For the 2020 Election

Comments Filter:

  • Only one moral action to take: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by linforcer ( 923749 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @09:18AM (#59246408)
    Co-ordinate an effort to breach all the machines, and do some very obvious voting fraud. Make sure no-one who could ever win gets juuust enough votes to win. That way it will be obvious that the machines don't work and that the results are fraudulent. In fact, we should probably have done this a few years ag- oooooohhhh....

    • The vote went hi-tech with voting machines because al gore lost the 2000 election, we were allowed to keep them when Obama won in 2008, but now that Trump won in 2026 we have to go back to paper/mechanical voting I guess...

      • Just the fact that you think Trump already "won" in 2026 says everything we need to know about you. While the GP was making a joke you need to learn that like him or hate him Obama was a US President and Trump is an organized crime boss, albeit a bumbling one, and treating him differently is not just prudent, but using any other President, including Nixon, in an attempt to suggest similarity of situation is like comparing and vegetable or fruit of your choosing and dog shit.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          And your response tell us everything we need to know about you. That a simple typo is enough to set off your TDS and set you frothing over a fictional election in 2026. You should seek some help for that.

          Just for your sanity Trump can't be reelected in 2026. . There are no 2026 elections. Election occur every 4 years, 2016, 2020, 2024, and 2026. Since Trump can only be president twice, and once he wins the 2020 election, he can' t run again

        • FFS it was a typo, grow up.

  • So at this point is anyone going to pretend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @09:18AM (#59246412)
    that this isn't on purpose? This has been known for decades. We also know that multiple foreign governments are working to interfere in our elections. Finally "Moscow" Mitch McConnell refused to do anything to protect elections (only agreeing to allow a few token floor votes after the name "Moscow Mitch" started to stick to him on the campaign trail).

    I mean, I know nobody likes partisan politics and all, but at some point it's time to call the spade a spade.

    • Re:So at this point is anyone going to pretend (Score:5, Funny)

      by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @09:35AM (#59246442)
      But do you have any idea how hard elections are to rig? We need these machines. -Some senator somewhere.

      • Re:So at this point is anyone going to pretend (Score:5, Funny)

        by Mattcelt ( 454751 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @10:27AM (#59246522)

        Your translation from Russian is rather good!

        • And if you look at my /. and my Sig # if you think I'm Russian I'm playing one HELL of a long game. I've been posting left wing stuff on /. for a little over a decade now.

          I started when a family member got sick and I noticed how incredibly fucked up our healthcare system was. Sad thing being I was too dumb and naive to notice it until it affected me personally, which is a common problem with Americans. We're a bunch of Temporarily Inconvenienced Millionaires.

          I don't think there's all that many Russi

          • Your mom killed herself by choosing to smoke. You helped her along by not convincing her to quit.

            You can blame whoever you want, but you were a factor in your mom's death.

            • You're just jealous because my /. Id is lower than yours.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              Well no. Cigarette companies lied to her about how great smoking tabbaco was, and the product addicted her as it was designed to do. So the attempts to influence her, was not as strong as the addiction that bound her to that product, keep in mind the engineered it to be as addictive as possible. Government has no excuse for ignorance and the reality the majority of claimed ignorances was lies paid for by lobbyists for the cigarette companies. So this in fact it was a criminal conspiracy to sell an addictive

          • I don't think there's all that many Russian bots on /. these days anyway. I _do_ think we've got Astro turfers, especially in the Climate Change articles. I absolutely refuse to believe /., a tech and science focused website, has that many actual Climate Change deniers;

            The /. id numbers astound me. It appears that there has been an acceleration in new account creation, while the number of actual readers has gone down. I attribute this to Astroturfers and Russians (or Russian Astroturfers).

            Russia is a huge s

          • Easy there, Itchy... I wasn't slagging your post, I was responding to the child post under yours:

            But do you have any idea how hard elections are to rig? We need these machines. -Some senator somewhere.

            TBH, I don't remember if I even read yours - I was only commenting for the "; Funny".

    • I know nobody likes partisan politics and all

      What ever gave you that idea? Do you intentionally avoid all news sites?

      • It's also what Joe Biden's campaigning on in the absence of any positive policy [youtube.com] that would help everyday working Americans.

        If you'll indulge me in a bit of a tangent, If you have to make a list of things you're going to campaign on that won't cause problems for the super wealthy but poll alright in this election cycle there's punching Nazis, No New Taxes and Reaching Across the Isle. That'll get you to around 25%, which might be just enough for something like the DNC to cheat their way to another Hillar

    • While I'm on the subject (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @10:35AM (#59246542)
      This right here [politicususa.com] is timely.

      This administration with the help of a GOP led Senate (and some Third Way Dems, those bastards) keeps blocking anything to do with election defense. Again, there's a clear pattern here.

      • I guess you didn't even read her memo? It was submitted yesterday morning, it's from a singular member of the FEC, and the memo asked that the member's summary be brought up for discussion at the next meeting in October. There is literally NOTHING there to be published in any Federal register - because it's not a new approved rule, law, or interpretation. It's simply input to actually start the process.

        Talk about getting worked up over nothing...

        • Funny thing about this is so far the Democratic presidential candidates have accepted money from lobbyists registered as agents of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russian state-run radio ...

          It's a pretty safe bet Democrats get right around twice as much money from foreign contributions than does the "America first" party. The Dems definitely do NOT want to cut off their supply of campaign cash. Just as they don't want government unions to be prohibited from donating to them, or Republicans wouldn't want to stop Amer

          • I might give you Biden, Buttigeig and Harris though, they're all bought and paid for. Even Warren's a bit dodgy since she said she'll take it in the General.

            But now here's the point where you tell me the GOP equivalent to the "Justice Democrats", which is the wing of the Democratic party that makes refusing Corporate PAC cash a requirement to join. Go on. I'll wait.

            And for the Record I'd _love_ to be proven wrong here. It would be great if the GOP was dragged onto the "No corporate cash" bandwagon.

            • "Justice Democrats", which is the wing of the Democratic party

              That's the problem. They're still part of the democrat party. To be legitimate they must divest themselves entirely from the party itself. Then maybe they will be believable. Otherwise they are just trying to ride their coattails. This is just sheepdogging, like Sanders did in the last election and is doing now.. Corralling "liberal" money into the party coffers. Until they divest, it is as phony as a three dollar bill.

              Oh, and please, what is eve

            • If you're a Bernie Sanders fan, that's great. If you believe whatever he says, cool.

              Factually, he keeps getting busted by the FEC for *illegally* taking foreign contributions (instead of legally funneling them through US lobbyists), illegal foreign influence in his campaigns, etc.

              In one example instance Bernie Sanders agreed had to pay $14,500 fine to the Federal Election Commission for illegally taking foreign donations, which were then used to pay people to tear down Trump signs.

              It's illegal to have fore

              • Ray, stick with technology. You often speak intelligently in that domain. Every time politics come up you sound like a fool.

                • You know, it's kind fun. Ever since about 6 years ago when I decided not to be a "fan" of any political party, the way people are fans of sports team, things have been a bit different.

                  Since I don't have a horse in the race, I just post objective facts and sure enough that consistently pisses off about half the people each time - whomever is a fan of the "team" that looks bad based on the facts gets mad. Typically they then devolve into ad hominem attacks on the messenger.

                  Some people probably wouldn't like

                  • That last sentence was missing a word. It should be:

                    Just throw some objective facts out there like gasoline to a fire and watch the Bernie/Trump/Obama/Clinton FANS scramble.

                    It's kinda entertaining, if you're sick and twisted like me.

                    You should see the Clinton fans when it's pointed out that 8 of her too 10 donors are Wall Street firms. It's fucking hilarious. Trumpers are little too easy, I kinda feel like I'm picking on a baby with them.

                  • I can't tell if you know the real facts [wltx.com] or not. It is certainly not true that he "keeps getting busted by the FEC for *illegally* taking foreign contributions." In fact that never even happened one time. I don't usually support any candidate, but Sanders is the one person who has been honest and hasn't changed his story for decades. I lived in Burlington Vermont and he is universally respected there. He has always worked for the little guy, and has never catered to special interests. Literally never. Get yo

                    • According to your link, cherry picking that case "The Sanders campaign was investigated by the FEC and ended up paying a fine".

                      Your link said he wasn't "colluding with a foreign government". It does not say that he didn't illegally accept foreign campaign contributions yet again.

                    • While I have you here, let me ask you about a different question I'm just curious about. You mentioned you live in Vermont and really like Bernie Sanders. You seem to be a pretty intelligent guy*, so I'm curious about something.

                      If you like living up North, and you like the policy proposals of Bernie Sanders a lot, and I'm guessing you have a decent job. Twenty percent of Canadians moved there from somewhere else. Have you ever looked into the Express Entry program to live in Canada? In many ways, Sanders p

                    • I get it that you are in love with Sanders. That's cool.

                      Suppose the Koch brothers pay people to work for the Trump campaign. In cooperation with the Trump campaign, people are going around putting up "Trump 2020" signs, being paid by Koch to do so. You know what the law calls that? A "campaign contribution". Paying the expenses of things the campaign wants to do is a campaign contribution under the law - regardless of whether you, me, or Trump likes the law. It just *is*. You don't have to write a che

                    • > I'm not about to sit around while the few decent ones are painted with the same brushstroke

                      He's human. (I'm fairly certain - Rand Paul may be an alien). We humans have faults. We do bad things *daily". Yesterday I was rude to the cashier at the burger place. I had to apologise.

                      Oddly, we humans also love to pretend our favorite movie star or quarterback or politician is flawless.

                      > Now suppose that the Koch brothers did so without telling Trump they were going to do it. Did he "accept contributions"

                    • > The soft sell on America is the greatest country in the world because we have free speech and if you express that you don't support our tyranny you should leave, eh?

                      That's great sarcasm and all, but I'm still curious.
                      If you'd like to live somewhere like Canada and
                      you're already less than an hour from Canada and
                      Canada would welcome you -
                      Have you ever thought about living in the place that is indeed just exactly like Canada?

                      > however like most Democrats, I am capable of concern for others besides myse

                    • > That's a radical difference from most if not all of the others and you know it.

                      Sanders is definitely *different", we can agree there. I would also agree he's not a snake in the same way that Rick Perry (R) and Bill Clinton (D) are. His faults are different from theirs.

                      You said in the other post "I don't know what they could be thinking". If you're ever curious, most of the time I understand where both liberals and conservatives* are coming from. More often than not, I see both of their points. So i

              • Sanders was coordinating with the Australian Labor Party [washingtonexaminer.com], basically another left wing party in another country. They paid for some Aussies to come over here and campaign for Sanders, which is technically a contribution. Sander's campaign acknowledged this, paid the fine and moved on.

                So what we have here is working class people from around the globe trying to work together for a common goal and getting stymied. Meanwhile there's a couple dozen cases of the rich and powerful getting together to screw us [theatlantic.com] a

                • That's a pretty funny Photoshop.

                  If you ever want to seriously talk about bad things Trump has done, there about 10,000 different things that are worse than attending the opening of a peace center.

                  (The Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology is an organization founded by predominantly Muslim nations to work on reducing the radicalization of Muslims by groups such as al Qaeda and ISIS)

                  https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/05/... [cnn.com]

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by OYAHHH ( 322809 )

              Are you really so stupid to think Conservatives wouldn't totally fund conservative candidates' needs at a far higher rate than liberals if no corporate donations are allowed? Puuuuhhhhhhlease!

            • You haven't gotten the Democrat party to adopt it, you've got a couple of outliers that are promising to try out no Corp donations in the General. So what?

              In 2016 Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and lost the election. Money alone doesn't guarantee victory in elections.

        • The Republican chair of the FEC resigned a few months ago and hasn't been replaced. Until he is the FEC is basically parallelized because rules require a full board. Trump's administration has been nominating absolute whackadoodles. People so insane that there's no way whatsoever they can be appointed.

          The GOP is smart. Evil. But Smart. And they are completely about "The Ends Justify the Means".
          • Roles can swap. Always remember that Lincoln was a republican at a time when the Democrats thought slavery was just peachy. 125 years ago the Republicans were basically the party of good.

            Yea, how times change. Trump isn't even conservative. I wouldn't even call him right-wing. He's a populist demagogue, plain and simple. In old-fashioned dungeons and dragons, he'd be neutral evil. And the Republicans of today are piling in behind him. I can forgive the last election. They decided to take a chance on a

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sjames ( 1099 )

              True about Lincoln but keep in mind, he was painfully aware that his anti-slavery stance wasn't that popular within his own party. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the Confederate states (where it was held to have no effect since they supposedly weren't part of the U.S. at the time. I believe Lincoln himself supported emancipation everywhere, but there was only so much he could do at the time.

          • They learned it from a mid-level IRS career staffer that simply refused to approve tax exempt status on any group she could identify as tea party or conservative. She even had her staff ask illegal questions to help justify multi-year application review processes that normally took 90 days. Why? Because an organization can appeal a decision, but they can't appeal if they never get a decision.

    • Hmmm... I am fairly certain that ALL balloting systems are hackable once physical access is compromised (ex: ballot box stuffing, etc.). Heck, it is not even that uncommon for certain districts to record more votes then actual living registered voters or Al Franken winning the Senate in MN weeks after the election when they found new ballots in the trunk of someones car...
    • I know my post makes it seem like it's pointless. Like the election's rigged anyway so why bother. That is not the case.

      The GOP can really only cheap by 1-2% points. Anything more and it's painfully obvious. Furthermore their agenda (Cutting SSI, Medicare and the VA by means testing it, repealing the ACA, continuing the offensive wars, tax cuts for the rich while raising taxes for the working class, etc, etc) are extremely unpopular.

      This makes it very possible to beat them by a wide enough margin th

      • Furthermore their agenda (Cutting SSI, Medicare and the VA by means testing it,

        And you are in favor of NOT means testing for gov't benefits? I have no idea where these "agenda" items came from, a citation would be appreciated.

        repealing the ACA,

        I'm pretty sure every "Medicare for all" Democrat candidate is espousing that very idea.

        continuing the offensive wars,

        You may want take another look into that claim - Trump administration has been winding down our military in the various wars, sorry, "kinetic exercises" he inherited.

        tax cuts for the rich while raising taxes for the working class, etc, etc) are extremely unpopular.

        It's the Democrat candidates who a planning to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for "Medicare for

    • Elections are the responsibility of the individual states, not Congress.

  • Long live democracy.

  • Probably was easy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @09:25AM (#59246432)

    This sounds like they took at most a few hours to develop the attacks. Well-funded attackers can take months or longer and work in lager teams. These machines do not even seem to get basic software security right.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How does one join one of these lager teams? Sounds like my sort of job.

  • Back to paper ballots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @09:32AM (#59246438)

    I think the solution is simple: mark-sense paper ballots filled out with a permanent marker. They are both machine-count and hand-count readable.

    • But, but, but we can't have the people deciding the fate of our country!?! Quick, machine count them and then destroy the paper copies when we get subpoenaed, it's the only way to be safe.
      • Heck, just go and print out a bunch more ballots and "discover" them a few days or weeks later, to ensure the election turns out as desired!
        • Wow! Just look at all these election ballots just sitting in the back of this 86' dodge caravan. It would be a shame if something happened to them.
          • As that election proved, if at first you don't succeed, find more votes. And if that doesn't work, find even more. And if that still doesn't work - find even more! But since then, the Democrats have moved on to "well even if we can't overturn the election by votes, we don't like the results anyway so we'll just ignore and try to remove an elected official By Any Means Necessary".

            • we'll just ignore and try to remove an elected official By Any Means Necessary".

              Heh, you're talking about the previous decade, right?

              Jokers to the left, clowns to the right...

            • I know right! I can't believe the democrats dressed up like Trump and lied 10,000+ times, commited multiple acts of attempted obstruction, solicited foreign aid in election tampering, and did hundreds of on camera interviews dressed as him! The truly insidious thing though was how they managed to act as stupid as he is while saying the kinds of stupid shit he would say *and* hacked his Twitter account. They are truly insidious! The fake news would have you believe that was actually Trump on camera first say
              • Not a single thing you said is based in truth. In fact, we had years of investigations which proved everything you said was a lie. And that's the point - Orange Man Bad so you can lie about whatever you want about the President, because Orange Man Bad.
                • You can't possible be so stupid that you believe that. It specifically says in the Meuller report that Trump attempted to obstruct justice multiple times. We all watched him state that he would collude with foreign entities, and he openly admitted that he solicited dirt from Ukraine on camera. Meuller stated that *he* couldn't act on Trumps documented acts of attempted obstruction due to justice department regulations, but that Congress may do so. They are now doing exactly that. Off you go now little troll

                  • You can't possible be so stupid that you believe that. It specifically says in the Meuller report that Trump attempted to obstruct justice multiple times.

                    No, it doesn't. It says there may be things that some might think were collusion, but that the Mueller team did not believe they were obstruction.

                    We all watched him state that he would collude with foreign entities, and he openly admitted that he solicited dirt from Ukraine on camera.

                    No he didn't, never happened. I assume you mean the joke about "maybe Russia can get her e-mails"? You know, those e-mails already available from Wikileaks 4 months before?

                    Meuller stated that *he* couldn't act on Trumps documented acts of attempted obstruction due to justice department regulations, but that Congress may do so.

                    Lie again. Mueller corrected his statement [nbcnews.com] and specifically stated so. And it correlated with his earlierThey are now doing exactly that. Off you go now little troll ...

                    It's all based on li

                    • "No, it doesn't. It says there may be things that some might think were collusion, but that the Mueller team did not believe they were obstruction."

                      I can't tell if you either never read the report, are too stupid to understand English, or think lying about readily available facts is a tactic that works.

                      " I assume you mean the joke about "maybe Russia can get her e-mails"? "

                      This is why you need to stop talking. You are stating that you are uninformed and haven't seen things, therefore they never happened. He

                    • I read the report. I did not see where it claimed the President committed obstruction. Nor do I see where where it stated collusion or conspiracy. Perhaps you can point to the page that contains those statements? If you can't get these basic facts right - the rest of your rants can be ignored. Orange Man Bad is all you have - no facts, just belief.
                    • It is a fact that Trump is bad you stupid fucking douche. Now do the world a favor and go kill yourself.

                    • Now THAT is an argument with lots of facts and impeccable logic!

                      Not.

                      Anyway, I take it that you can't point me to where the Mueller report said he obstructed justice or conspired with Russia - since it doesn't say that. Meaning that - yes, it should be obvious - you are wrong. Belief before facts, eh?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Brama ( 80257 )

      It is! Even Russia does this. Like gerrymandering, it's baffling how this democracy is getting murdered in plain daylight and everyone just shrugs it off.

    • Cracks me up all you dummies think paper hard ballots are unhackable too. Being nerds, you all think the only things you can hack are machines or electronics.
      • Hey dumbshit. Vladimir isn't sneaking in to ballot booths all over the country to "hack" all the paper ballots like some kind of Trumpian Santa Clause.
        • Then..why are we worried about local exploits again?

          • "Then..why are we worried about local exploits again?"

            Because the machines start out in a factory, get stored there, shipped to and stored somewhere else, shipped by still someone else to the voting location, and sit around waiting to be used for years. One doesn't need to go to each location the night of the election after votes have been cast and hack them at the same time because they are computers, not blank pieces of paper. Hacking the machines can be done by a single person prior to election night. Ha

    • Election security experts have been saying for years we need to use paper ballots. They are the best and most secure option.

  • FUD Doesn't Help (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @09:42AM (#59246454) Journal

    I am a volunteer poll worker in Virginia. These click-bait articles spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt does us no favors in actually securing the vote.

    The voting process is an enormous undertaking. It involves hundreds of millions of people participating in tens of thousands of live, synchronized events spread across an enormous country and territory that spans 9 time zones.

    Securing this is a non-trivial exercise. There is no "one thing" that either makes or breaks the security of an election. There is no silver bullet that guarantees security. Security in depth is the only kind of security that we should be talking about, not these silly one-off penetration tests of individual machines to which the testers have physical access and the time to do whatever they want to.

    Look, If you grant me physical access to a computer OF COURSE I will be able to hack into it. As technical people, we know that better than anyone. So any so-called "test" that steps outside the real-world constraints of an election is nothing more than FUD. It's no real test at all.

    Actual voting equipment is under very strict chain-of-custody controls. The chain is enforced with laws, procedures, vaults, seals, signed affidavits, multiple, independent witnesses and an entire court system where exceptions and issues can be adjudicated.

    An actual vote takes place in a controlled, public location with multiple, independent witnesses monitoring and watching. You couldn't get within 500 feet (literally) of the voting machines in my precinct with a tool to physically hack into them. You can't even physically _touch_ the machines. All you can do is fill out a paper form and feed it into a scanner slot.

    But these FUD articles do have an impact, an impact very much for the worse. It makes the public worried when they absolutely shouldn't be. It makes the public wonder whether they should even vote at all. That's not right. We need push back against these silly stunts every election.

    You want to really understand how an election is secured? Do what I did: volunteer to help run one.

    • An actual vote takes place in a controlled, public location with multiple, independent witnesses monitoring and watching. You couldn't get within 500 feet (literally) of the voting machines in my precinct with a tool to physically hack into them. You can't even physically _touch_ the machines. All you can do is fill out a paper form and feed it into a scanner slot.

      I don't think voters' physical access to the machines is the concern leading up to 2020, nor is the concern the INPUT into the machines as you're saying, but rather the programming of them before the election, and the integrity of the results after voting is completed.

    • Re:FUD Doesn't Help (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Saturday September 28, 2019 @10:26AM (#59246518) Homepage

      I am a volunteer poll worker in Virginia. These click-bait articles spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt does us no favors in actually securing the vote.

      you've never posted before on slashdot, have you? so here's how it works. you post something that is well-meaning but technically not very knowledgeable, and, if it gets voted up, a boat-load of extremely well-informed technically competent people do some insant research, using either google or just simply stuff that they know, which shows you very, very clearly how your lack of knowledge is, sadly, horribly, horribly misinformed.

      here are some quick links and exerpts which i found simply by googling "diebold voting machine network access". you can do the same thing yourself, which {insert-voting-machine-name}. and you'll find that it's not what *YOU* can see *IN THE VOTING BOOTH* that matters, it's how the data *GETS TRANSFERRED OFF-SITE* that matters.

      with no digital signatures and nothing to stop trojans and viruses getting down the pipe.

      plus... did you remember to ask if the machine could be opened up, and photographs published, *AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION*, so that people can see that the machine has not been tampered with, no internal WIFI USB dongle installed?

      did you remember to ask if the Hard Drive can be removed, inserted into a separate machine, read, and its OS Partitiion verified, taking a SHA Checksum to ensure that it is actually PROPERLY CERTIFIED and has NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH during the election?

      did it even OCCUR to you, as a lay-person with zero technical experience, to even ASK these basic computer science questions?

      no of course it did not.

      so please, DON'T claim that we are quotes fear-mongering quotes. not on slashdot, ok?

      Networking Diebold Voting Machines
      https://freedom-to-tinker.com/... [freedom-to-tinker.com]

      Top Voting Machine Vendor Admits It Installed Remote-Access Software on Systems Sold to States
      https://www.vice.com/en_us/art... [vice.com]

      Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine
      https://www.usenix.org/legacy/... [usenix.org]
      Like the ballot definitions, the election results may be transferred OVER A LOCAL AREA NETWORK

      Source Code Review of the Diebold Voting System
      https://www.verifiedvoting.org... [verifiedvoting.org]

      Vulnerability to malicious software
      The Diebold software contains vulnerabilities that could allow an attacker to install malicious
      software on voting machines or on the election management system. Malicious software
      could cause votes to be recorded incorrectly or to be miscounted, possibly altering election
      results. It could also prevent voting machines from accepting votes, potentially causing long
      lines or disenfranchising voters.

      Susceptibility to viruses
      The Diebold system is susceptible to computer viruses that propagate from voting machine to
      voting machine and between voting machines and the election management system. A virus
      could allow an attacker who only had access to a few machines or memory cards, or possibly
      to only one, to spread malicious software to most, if not all, of a county’s voting machines.
      Thus, large-scale election fraud in the Diebold system does not necessarily require physical
      access to a large number of voting machines.

      Failure to protect ballot secrecy
      Both the electronic and paper records of the Diebold AV-TSX contain enough information to
      compromise the secrecy of the ballot. The AV-TSX records votes in the order in which they are
      cast, and it records the time that each vote is cast. A

      • OP, this is what we call a 'filthy nerd'. He has no imagination or basic social skills, and the only type of hack he can imagine is one involving computers. He completely missed your point and can't imagine that even a basic ballot box pencil-marked voting system can be compromised. Because he imagines himself a technical genius, he wants to focus the discussion on software hacking and talk down to you like the stereotypical SNL-skip "MOVE!" nerd. "Lay person", lol.. can you imagine some little asshole sayi

        • You really are new here. We all recognize your pathetic attempts to build a strawman and your appeal to ad hominem based logic as the admission that you are a fool that you are trying so skillessly to obfuscate. DOH!

    • Re:FUD Doesn't Help (Score:5, Informative)

      by idji ( 984038 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @11:18AM (#59246634)
      and the rest of the world uses paper because it's much harder to fraud and almost as fast to count.
      • Paper ballots are just as easy to commit fraud with, if not easier (e.g. ballot stuffing). The difference is mass fraud is harder with paper ballots - the amount of work needed for each fake vote scales with the number of votes you wish to fake. With computer voting machines, once you're in you can manipulate all the votes just as easily as you can one.

        • Yes, I'm sure nobody would notice a voting machine in BumFuck Iowa getting 23 million votes... If the compromises all require local access it's not nearly as big a deal as the breathless, hysterical nerds would have you believe. Secure the voting machines locally, problem solved just as well as they are for paper ballots.

          Remote exploits? That's a serious fucking problem and multiple people should be immediately fired if it's ever demonstrated.

      • I'm pretty sure most of the Western world uses optically scanned ballots, with totals that are stored and transmitted electronically.

        Actual paper ballots tend to be used only in places like Mali or Iraq.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Briareos ( 21163 )

          Actual paper ballots tend to be used only in places like Mali or Iraq.

          ...or Austria, or Germany, or...

    • "It's a huge effort I see, many people involved, you should bow before your democratic overlords and all the intricacies involved." - Poll worker

      "I run a website that serves 1,000,000 requests per second." - Sys admin
    • lol virginia. shit state.
    • There have been several instances of the machines disappearing and then reappearing shortly after an election you know. Mostly in the South and in districts where 60%-80% of the population is black and yet somehow the GOP carries the district....
    • Beverly Harris? Diebold backdoors? Unfamiliar with both of those?

    • Actual voting equipment is under very strict chain-of-custody controls

      Perhaps your is, but a few years ago, there were photos on the Internet of voting machines in unlocked locations the nights before elections. Ed Felten showed how bad the problem of insecure voting machines was and I don't think anything has improved.

    • There is no silver bullet that guarantees security.

      But you're still supposed to use the best bullets you can find. And they are made of paper. The computers you can use for entertainment. The official count must come from the paper ballots. Arguing over the best computer is dumb. No computer can compare to human readable paper throughout the chain of custody.

    • Solution, go back to tried and prove non-electronic voting methods. Mark a square, punch out a hole, etc. Or if using electronic voting machines then make sure votes can be verified (receipts), and vet them thoroughly! The current method is a complete capitulation by technology illiterate election commissioners to the high magic of electronics.

      I don't care if it makes you job HARD, your job is to protect the integrity of the elections.

      The Bush-v-Gore ballot machines in Florida were fine - the technology wa

  • Don't "researchers" make this "startling" discovery every year about this time?

    What I find fascinating is voting districts with more collected votes than registered voters that are reported after the election.

    • Don't "researchers" make this "startling" discovery every year about this time?

      Essentially, yes. But this time it's about the 2020 election, so it's "different".

      What I find fascinating is voting districts with more collected votes than registered voters that are reported after the election.

      What I find fascinating is Dunning-Krueger. Not your comment, mind you, but all the people who think they're smarter than the people who study this stuff, and then go on to ignore them when they make this same warning every election. And also ignoring the many signs that there was election tampering.

  • Yea, so, you had unrestricted physical access to these machines and you managed to break in. Congrats, but that's FAR from being able to do this to enough machines, which you DON'T have physical access to make a difference to any election save perhaps a local one.

    Election boards control access to ballots and ballot materials which includes the machines they use. They test these things to make sure they are working, guard them and don't allow you to interact with them physically except to vote. An attac

    • Apparently the RUSSIANS were ale to throw the election to Trump with less than a quarter million in internet ads and a few ginned-up "fake news" stories. According to Democrats, that's how a Trump beat Hillary despite her outspending Trump 2:1 (HRC spent over a billion dollars and lost).

      • Apparently the RUSSIANS were able to throw the election to Trump with less than a quarter million in internet ads and a few ginned-up "fake news" stories. According to Democrats, that's how a Trump beat Hillary despite her outspending Trump 2:1 (HRC spent over a billion dollars and lost).

        You know, it's funny how a quarter million spent AFTER the election was able to do this in the face of billions spent overall. Those pesky Russians sure know how to get a bang for their buck.. er... Ruble...

  • Then we can all make vermin supreme president. That would finally get rid of the machines

  • Simple to get rid of voting machines - just make sure the hacked ones vote Republican instead of Democrat.

    Remember, for many years now the Democrats have been against even the most basic voting security systems. They will care a lot more when it hurts instead of helps them to do so.

  • yeah, yeah, we all know the Diebold/ESS machines are crap and that many jurisdictions have no ability to modernize. My county is rolling out a new system in 2020 (vsap.lacounty.gov) that is both electronic and paper and based on a secure version of Ubuntu for the vote gathering while using a separate system for registration and yet another system for tally.

    But... ...how are the Soviets going to hack all 30,000 County vote systems?

    • They don't need to hack any of your 30,000 "secure" Ubuntu-based voting machines in your county (that number seems kinda high, by the way), they only need to corrupt the votes in a few states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc...

  • Voting machines are trivial to hack. Not just easy, but trivial. This has been the case since they came into existence. I recall a step by step illustration in the mid 2000's from Carnegie. It seems to be inpossible to find now.

    But the question is if they are so easy to hack - and they are irrefutably easy, why wouldn't an adversary take advantage?

    It is very interesting to see some people defending that hackability.

    Very interesting.

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close