I didn't watch the second link, but wouldn't it make sense that one could just "hack" the central server? Why "hack" the individual machines?
Because it's the easier route.
It depends on the brand and configuration, but for many of the machines:
The physical security is minimal
The user has direct access, and
That access is -by its very nature- private
Therefore, a golden opportunity exists for someone with bad intent to change the internal vote data on a machine. One brand of machine was so poorly secured, that someone could open it very quickly with nothing more complicated than a paper clip and a magnet.
Many of the voting machines also don't do any kind of internal auditing, so it becomes unnecessary to attack the central server. Conceivably, one could completely stuff enough votes to completely throw an election via just one machine. If the attack it can't be traced back to a given machine at a given precinct, then you have no way to tell where the election was thrown, if you even notice. If someone was careful, and stuffed given vote by say, 10%, it could easily alter an election, especially if they did it at three or four precincts.
Last edited by Thorn; March 5, 2010, 12:08.
Reason: typo
Thorn "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." - Catherine Aird
Therefore, a golden opportunity exists for someone with bad intent to change the internal vote data on a machine.
Beyond that, the hacks of the Diebold machines demonstrated the ability to infect the cards used to collect votes, automatically replicating the hack to other machines.
Beyond that, the hacks of the Diebold machines demonstrated the ability to infect the cards used to collect votes, automatically replicating the hack to other machines.
Good point, bascule. I'd forgotten that little tidbit.
Thorn "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." - Catherine Aird
Comment