Johns Hopkins computer scientists weigh in on electronic black box voting.

[kixot]

Warning, reading is very dry.
http://www.avirubin.com/vote.pdf

Abstract

Recent election problems have sparked great interest in managing the election process through the use of electronic voting systems. While computer scientists, for the most part, have been warning of the perils of such action, vendors have forged ahead with their products, claiming increased security and reliability. Many municipalities have adopted electronic systems, and the number of deployed systems is rising. For these new computerized voting systems, neither source code nor the results of any third-party certification analyses have been available for the general population to study, because vendors claim that secrecy is a necessary requirement to keep their systems secure. Recently, however, the source code purporting to be the software for a voting system from a major manufacturer appeared on the Internet. This manufacturer’s systems were used in Georgia’s state-wide elections in 2002, and the company just announced that the state of Maryland awarded them an order valued at up to $55.6 million to deliver touch screen voting systems.

This unique opportunity for independent scientific analysis of voting system source code demonstrates the fallacy of the closed-source argument for such a critical system. Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We highlight several issues including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. For example, common voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal. Furthermore, we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discovered without the source code. In the face of such attacks, the usual worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. That said, we demonstrate that the insider threat is also quite considerable. We conclude that, as a society, we must carefully consider the risks inherent in electronic voting, as it places our very democracy at risk.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. Yay!

good article! It seems like we might get some help with this issue.

[peacetalksforall]

2. It is now impossible to say what it the single most devestating

American tragedy. Imperialistic killing or vote theft.

I am one who believe in innocent until guilty, but I'll go out on a limb here in saying that the intentions of these people was theft.

If anyone can tell me that all three of the foremost voting machine manufacturers that we are talking about are NOT right wing Republicans, I'll reconsider.

[BeFree]

3. Methinks you're a little too High, Mr. Class

You don't think votes would ever be stolen by the use of these computers? You don't think anyone would be so devious? Give me a break.

Employees in these companies know the potential. The politicians know the potential. Now we know, thanks to BBV and the internet. That's what they all under estimated. The internet. Us.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

4. wow, good going!

:thumbsup:

JC

[Pobeka]

5. Er, uh

I think you and high class are agreeing here :-)

[BeFree]

10. You may be right!

I may have misread Higherclass' statement....whatever. My comments stand for anyone who may doubt whether or not the companies would use the machines to our disadvantage. Thanks, Pobeka.

[mike_c]

6. bookmarked for later reading....

This is what I've been waiting for....

[mike_c]

7. scanned it, but I presume this is a pre-print....

There's no journal identification, so has this been submitted for publication, peer reviewed and etc.? Seems awfully fast, so I assume it's a pre-print. Very interesting, however, and the authors appear to have good credentials. If nothing else, this vividly makes the point that for some purposes, only the most rock-solid technology is reliable, and that extends all the way to paper and pencil.

[gristy]

8. FYI, this is the report that prompted the NY Times article

on the front page of their National section on 7/24, as well as other articles in dozens (hundreds?) of newspapers around the world.

[kixot]

9. shameless kick!

:kick:

[kixot]

11. shameless re-kick

It's important we spread this around as much as possible.