Scientists Say Unreliable Software Exposes California Recall to Fraud

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA9T8I7DJD.html

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - As if California officials don't have enough to worry about ahead of the bewildering gubernatorial recall vote Oct. 7, computer scientists say shoddy balloting software could bungle the results and expose the election to fraud.

Their worst-case scenario is the accidental deletion or malicious falsification of ballots from the 1.42 million Californians who could vote on electronic touch-screen machines. These voters comprise 9.3 percent of the state's 15.3 million registered voters.

The software experts also warn that, if any candidate contests the election, a meaningful recount would prove impossible because four counties - including two of the largest - don't provide paper backups to the electronic machines. The other counties still use punch-card machines, optical scanners or other systems that provide physical evidence of votes. snip

A team led by Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins, examined the machines' source code, which a Diebold worker anonymously published on the Internet earlier this year. His conclusion: Any clever 15-year-old could rig Diebold's system, which is based on Microsoft Windows, and vote multiple times.

Rubin also found that "1111" was Diebold's default password identification number for microchip-embedded "smartcards" that voting administrators used - a simple PIN that any hacker might try before moving onto more sophisticated attacks. Rubin added that the lack of a paper trail would make a legitimate re-count impossible.

more

[arcane1]

1. more ammo to swamp our reps' fax machines with!!

I'm on it!!

[dusty64]

20. Surprise!

:kick:

[DrBB]

2. Yet another journalist who doesn't know what "anonymous server" means

"the machines' source code, which a Diebold worker anonymously published on the Internet ..."

bzzzzzt--Wrong! Thank you for playing.

A quibble, I suppose, but the point is that they put the actual source code on an anonymous server, meaning that no log-in was required to download files off of it. I.e., this is something that should be kept in greatest security, not just because its proprietary (which it shouldn't be) but because the democratic process depends on it, and they left it hanging out in the open where anyone could fiddle with it. Which speaks volumes about their attitude toward security generally.

[Bozola]

12. Yer not quibbling, and I absolutely agree.

This is not quibbling about details; there is a huge difference:
--------------------------------------------------------

Exposing their code by "anonymous posting" means that the company has some employees who have grossly violated the company's trust by posting as an "anonymous user", on forums such as DU, confidential information that would otherwise not be expose to the world.

Read: They have security, but they have some untrustworthy employee who broke the law.

--------------------------------------------------------
Exposing their code by "anonymous server" means that the company is totally clueless and/or cavalier about systems security.

Read: The company is populated by either incompetents, criminals, or idiots who should not be trusted with any remotely sensitive transactions.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

18. Is it possible that the person posting the code

did it to expose Diebold, or knew that someone inside Diebold
was planning on rigging the system??

The most secure systems are always beatable by the person(s)
holding the keys.

[jefff]

19. That's not what happened...

Diebold itself set up an anonymous FTP server so that field services and support personnel, as well as various county and state organizations, could exchange software and data. For those who don't know, an anonymous FTP server is like an open file sharing system. All you have to do to gain access to any file on the system is type the word "anonymous" at the password prompt.

The software wasn't posted anonymously, it was posted by the company itself, and anyone was free to modify it. Of all of the people and organization that used this, I'm sure that more than a few knew that this set-up was insecure. The question is why it was allowed to be insecure, and untracable, for so long. Just saying that Diebold was ignorant doesn't really make sense here. To an experienced computer person such as myself, this looks like a deliberate attempt to provide cover for vote tampering.

[TacticalPeek]

26. Or, it could simply be a method sometimes seen in software development:

"Quick and Dirty".

Often leading to Fast Hell.

[Bozola]

21. Actually, no.

"The most secure systems are always beatable by the person(s)
holding the keys."


-------------------------------------------------------
On a real high security system, the private key is stored in a cryptographic accelerator, such as an nCipher card.

The memory content of these cards cannot be copied. There is no way from the computer that you can access the internals of the card.

They also have a putty like material that totally covers the circuitry so that they can't be logic probed. If some one tries to scrape off the putty, the card will self-destruct.

The private key is also distributed to N number of administrator cards, usually 6-10 in a high security environment, and it requires K number of them to make another instance of the nCipher card in the same security world.

On an application I wrote, we have 10 admin cards that REQUIRE 5 administrators to build a new card (each card is also password protected). You'd have to co-opt 5 of the most trusted people in the company to activate a new decrypter; mind you, you still wouldn't have the private key. That's still protected by another encryption layer when the key is distributed among the cards.

To make things even more annoying, there are operator cards that can be set to be required at computer bootup time. So, some one may steal a whole decryption system, but they won't be able to start it up. Beside, it's kind of obvious that it's time to change the keys when a whole, monitored, system disappears.

We also lock the cryptosystems in their rack, and they all reside in a limited access and camera-logged high security physical location.

The point is secure systems can be built. They have been, and are being built all the time. There's no mystery of how to write them. There's all sorts of code, documents, tools, and hardware specially designed to make it easy, safe, and nigh uncrackable (by modern technology - barring distributed and quantum computing).

-------------------------------------------------------

IT'S NOT F*CKING MAGIC!

Diebold are evil little idiots. It's too damn obvious to any computer professional that they haven't even attempted to make anything even slightly secure. It's time to check up on who did the certifications, I think. Smells like payola, to me.

We're look here at either a conspiracy of criminal incompetence, or treason, depending on whether or not you've still have any patience and generosity in you after three years of "Mr. Rosey Rump Patch No Vasoline Please".

[stickdog]

24. Eggs - fookin - zactly!

This is so obvious to ANYONE with any actual knowledge of computer security and/or secure transaction auditing that the fact that this is even an issue makes one suspect the worst.

Truth-in-advertising should require these voting machine models to be named something like "Friendly Fraud" or "EZ Scam." It's really that obvious -- just like the Monty Python "Crunchy Frog" sketch.

[Bushfire]

3. WTF?

"What do you do when a candidate dies or pulls out of race couple days before the election?" O'Connor asked. "In a computerized system, you can make that change on the fly."

O'Really??? Are the certification officials going to certify the software patch right before an election? Doubt it, but it would be an ILLEGAL election if they didn't. Plus there is still no paper trail which a random audit could verify on those machines.

[Bozola]

14. It would be especially useful....

if Bush would notify the election officals of the candidates deaths, beforehand.

[wryter2000]

4. Hmmmm

If, indeed, these machines allow election fraud, it'll be good if it comes out now. Davis is toast already, so the recall is going to be a disaster any way you slice it. If this election results in an outrage against the machines, at least the recall will have served some purpose.

Do we have an icon for grasping at straws?

[wryter2000]

5. BTW,

BTW, I am from California, so I am talking about my own state. I'd never make a remark like that about what someone else was going through.

(Oh, shut up, Alice, you're only making it worse.)

[FubarFly]

7. Whatya talking 'bout ?

No way. Gary Coleman is going to win this thing fair and square.

:-)

on edit: oops

[hedda_foil]

6. Here's the Yahoo link. Please get over there and rate it a 5!

Don't let this story get overlooked because of the blackout news.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030814/ap_on_el_gu/recall_electronic_voting_1

[Greyskye]

8. Done! #1 Story currently! (n/t)

[Greyskye]

9. Being FREEPED!

When I posted, it had a perfect 5.0 rating, and was at the top 'o the heap. Now, just a few minutes later, here are the stats:

Its current average rating is 3.77 with 13 vote(s).

Sounds like the Freepers are hitting this with a "1" score. :argh:

[arcane1]

11. which proves they don't want to win honestly

though I'm sure they will tell you different

can't fool us!!!

[jamesinca]

15. Going at 3.89 with 34 votes

It picked up a bit of steam there. Thanks Hedda Foil

[shanti]

28. help~

i don't see the "rate this topic" area ANYWHERE!

[leftchick]

10. thanks for the link hedda!

read and rated! :hi:

[indictrichardperle]

13. Looks like Arnold is the next governor

and Junior will win California, done deal.

Free elections? .......piffffle

[ILeft]

22. Sounds like it's time to "get over it" and move on...

...to Canada. The Republican 1000 Year Reign might only last 25 years, but that's too long for me and mine. If California goes down, I think we know what's gonna happen in 2004.

[AndyTiedye]

27. It's gonna get awfully crowded in Vancouver

and everywhere else in Canada is too damn cold!!
Is there any way to get this country back?

[catzies]

23. Our elections aren't free; on the contrary, they are very expensive.

Ask the people who are buying them.

[w4rma]

16. Sounds like it's time to build some smart cards and cheat.

They need to kick Diabold out of the voting booth manufacturing industry, NOW. Maybe if someone gamed the CA recall election, these folks will wake up.

Or at the very least threatened to by selling election stealing smart cards on the internet.

[stickdog]

17. kick (NT)

[goforit]

25. Take this to the California Supreme Court immediately!!!!

All elections should be place on hold till their is a
resolution to the dire problem!!!