Hacking the Voter System
This should probably be posted on one of my other blogs, which I haven't posted to for months. But, I'll start here.
"DEFCON Hackers Found Many Holes in Voting Machines and Poll Systems"
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/defcon-hackers-find-holes-in-every-voting-machine
I first heard about this a few weeks ago in one of my cybersecurity classes, and one of the students had actually attended the DEFCON conference. I wasn't surprised to hear about the ability to hack into these systems. I'm not a hacker by any stretch, but I've been interested in computer security for several years and in some posts I have indicated my opinion that security will most likely be a driving factor to push for some kind of personal ID chip, or biometric-based security system.
Here are some clips from the article:
And, if a system has no way to prove whether the integrity of the system has not been compromised-- no audits, no logs, etc.--then there is no way to prove that the system has not been hacked.
Apparently, in some cases the default passwords were used on the devices. The use of default passwords is surprisingly common.
Is there some kind of conspiracy behind the voting machines? Some will say no. Others, like the politicians and most media, will say absolutely not, and claim the machines are "unhackable." But this article clearly proves them wrong. Doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. But it also doesn't mean some clandestine government or foreign nation group hasn't discovered the problems and isn't taking advantage of the weakness. Too many in the government like to poke their noses into the private business of the citizens, and to control the population. And, too many of the citizens actually want the government to control the population, to take away independence and freedom.
So, while there may or may not be a conspiracy, there is the potential for fraud to occur. There is the potential for elections to be hacked, and outcomes to be modified.
Have voting systems been hacked, and elections changed? Probably, but there is no proof since at least some of the machines have no way to prove they have or haven't been hacked. Personally, that sounds fishy. If you're designing and building a secure system then you want to be able to prove that it is secure. So, either the manufacturing companies were lazy (including the engineers, security personnel, programmers, etc.) and didn't include security mechanisms or the systems were intentionally designed that way.
Conspiracy theorists will obviously claim the systems were intentionally designed that way, so they could be hacked. But, there are also plenty of companies who cut corners to make a profit. In this case, and at the time the system was built, maybe it didn't seem like a possibility to ever hack the system.
Personally, I think in most cases the system designers were just lazy. But, I also think that at least some national security groups have known about these security problems for years, and it's possible these weaknesses may have been exploited to change an election outcome.
Other than my class and this article, I haven't heard of any national news network sharing this discovery.
Why wouldn't this be huge news?
Because it would erode the trust of the voters, and the American public, in the system and those at the top, the politicians who want power and control. It would also legitimize President Trump's claims that there is voter fraud.
And cities, states, and others with these voting and polling machines don't want the expense of replacing them (many of the problems cannot be simply fixed by updating software), so you probably won't hear any of them clamoring to replace the machines. On the contrary, if this story becomes mainstream we will hear from those with these machines that their machines have not been hacked. But, as the article states, this cannot be proved because these machines don't have security in place to enable forensics to identify conclusively if there was or was not a breach.
Here's my take away. If there hasn't been hacking and vote manipulation before, there will be. And if actual proof is shown, or even if there is strong evidence, especially if it changed the results of the election, it will put the public in an uproar. And, that "uproar" may make the protests that happened after President Trump was elected look like block parties.
"DEFCON Hackers Found Many Holes in Voting Machines and Poll Systems"
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/defcon-hackers-find-holes-in-every-voting-machine
I first heard about this a few weeks ago in one of my cybersecurity classes, and one of the students had actually attended the DEFCON conference. I wasn't surprised to hear about the ability to hack into these systems. I'm not a hacker by any stretch, but I've been interested in computer security for several years and in some posts I have indicated my opinion that security will most likely be a driving factor to push for some kind of personal ID chip, or biometric-based security system.
Here are some clips from the article:
"E-voting machines and voter registration systems used widely in the United States and other countries’ elections can readily be hacked—in some cases with less than two hours’ work."
"Some of those hacks could potentially leave no trace, undercutting the assurances of election officials and voting machine companies who claim that virtually unhackable election systems are in place."
"Before the Hacking Village organizers were even finished with their opening morning introductory remarks, a Danish hacker in the audience had already broken into one of the target machines wirelessly."
"These people who hacked the e-poll book system, when they came in the door they didn’t even know such a machine exists. They had no prior knowledge, so they started completely from scratch."
"Both hacks, Hursti says, undermine critics who have claimed that computerized election system hacks are too elaborate and unrealistic to be used in real world settings."
“Overheard more than once (at the Hacking Village): 'Wait, it can't be that simple, can it?'”
"One disturbing aspect of a number of attacks was that a hacker might be able to cover their tracks."
“These machines have no capability of providing you any kind of evidence whether they were not hacked or hacked. There’s no protective locks, there’s no forensic evidence gathering. There’s absolutely nothing. The machine cannot prove it’s been hacked.”Whenever I hear of anyone, especially a politician, who claims some system can't be hacked I don't believe them. Maybe a system hasn't been hacked, at least not to that person's knowledge. But there are plenty of security breaches which go undiscovered for months, and sometimes years.
And, if a system has no way to prove whether the integrity of the system has not been compromised-- no audits, no logs, etc.--then there is no way to prove that the system has not been hacked.
Apparently, in some cases the default passwords were used on the devices. The use of default passwords is surprisingly common.
Is there some kind of conspiracy behind the voting machines? Some will say no. Others, like the politicians and most media, will say absolutely not, and claim the machines are "unhackable." But this article clearly proves them wrong. Doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. But it also doesn't mean some clandestine government or foreign nation group hasn't discovered the problems and isn't taking advantage of the weakness. Too many in the government like to poke their noses into the private business of the citizens, and to control the population. And, too many of the citizens actually want the government to control the population, to take away independence and freedom.
So, while there may or may not be a conspiracy, there is the potential for fraud to occur. There is the potential for elections to be hacked, and outcomes to be modified.
Have voting systems been hacked, and elections changed? Probably, but there is no proof since at least some of the machines have no way to prove they have or haven't been hacked. Personally, that sounds fishy. If you're designing and building a secure system then you want to be able to prove that it is secure. So, either the manufacturing companies were lazy (including the engineers, security personnel, programmers, etc.) and didn't include security mechanisms or the systems were intentionally designed that way.
Conspiracy theorists will obviously claim the systems were intentionally designed that way, so they could be hacked. But, there are also plenty of companies who cut corners to make a profit. In this case, and at the time the system was built, maybe it didn't seem like a possibility to ever hack the system.
Personally, I think in most cases the system designers were just lazy. But, I also think that at least some national security groups have known about these security problems for years, and it's possible these weaknesses may have been exploited to change an election outcome.
Other than my class and this article, I haven't heard of any national news network sharing this discovery.
Why wouldn't this be huge news?
Because it would erode the trust of the voters, and the American public, in the system and those at the top, the politicians who want power and control. It would also legitimize President Trump's claims that there is voter fraud.
And cities, states, and others with these voting and polling machines don't want the expense of replacing them (many of the problems cannot be simply fixed by updating software), so you probably won't hear any of them clamoring to replace the machines. On the contrary, if this story becomes mainstream we will hear from those with these machines that their machines have not been hacked. But, as the article states, this cannot be proved because these machines don't have security in place to enable forensics to identify conclusively if there was or was not a breach.
Here's my take away. If there hasn't been hacking and vote manipulation before, there will be. And if actual proof is shown, or even if there is strong evidence, especially if it changed the results of the election, it will put the public in an uproar. And, that "uproar" may make the protests that happened after President Trump was elected look like block parties.
Comments
Post a Comment