Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Cyber-attacks on the upcoming presidential election?

  1. #1

    Default Cyber-attacks on the upcoming presidential election?

    http://arstechnica.com/security/2016...board-systems/

    There are vulnerabilities at numerous levels of the election system and it would seem that at least some are being actively exploited. Who's responsible? How far will they go? And how should/will the US respond when Trump wins the election with Putin's help?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    Electronic voting is a terrible idea.
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,084
    I didn't see anything about the actual voting process. But I am wondering; are they actually allowing voting in an online-environment?
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  4. #4
    No but I believe there are many districts where the voting process is, theoretically, very vulnerable to attacks of varying degrees of sophistication, with limited means of objectively verifying the results.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I didn't see anything about the actual voting process. But I am wondering; are they actually allowing voting in an online-environment?
    No.

    I will point out, this isn't necessarily to do with any kind of voter fraud. These are large databases stock full of information phishers like (not the credit cards they're usually after, granted, but lots of material for identity theft or fraudulent credit applications, for instance) and they're not necessarily that well protected.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #6
    What I've read is that voter rolls are the biggest vulnerability. They're commonly kept in vulnerable municipal databases that could be hacked to mess around with voter eligibility or something. If you can create confusion on election day and significantly reduce the number of voters in certain areas, you can affect the outcome of an election. This is the whole point of all the voter ID laws in conservative states - poor people are less likely to have IDs and less likely to jump through hoops to get them, so that requirement is likely to keep significant numbers of them from voting.

    A lot of states have voter machines that are entirely electronic and no paper ballot backup, a prime opportunity to rig the vote. These machines are not kept on-line, so rigging would have to happen on a machine by machine basis at a lot of polling stations to pull off large scale fraud. And a conspiracy like that would be hard to pull off. But you never know, especially in very close elections. In Michigan we complete a paper ballot and when done we hand it to a poll worker who runs it through a scanning machine. Then the paper ballot is kept on file. That way you get the efficiency of computerization while maintaining a paper backup. It's surprising, really, because Michigan is so completely fucked up in most other ways....
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I didn't see anything about the actual voting process. But I am wondering; are they actually allowing voting in an online-environment?
    Probably because the process is different in different parts of the US. Some of them use all paper systems, some of them use those touch screen machines and some of them use weird hybrid systems like the one Chooobs described.

    In general, the security problems with electronic voting are:

    1) Verification that the software on the machine is doing what it's supposed to be doing
    2) Verification that *all* the individual machines are actually running the software you verified in stage one
    3) Verification that the results transmitted from the machines at the polling stations are the same ones that arrived at the counting place

    In general, if a state actor (*cough* Russia *cough*) wanted to mount an attack into to throw the result of an election to their preferred candidate (*cough* Donald Trump *cough*) they could probably do so without having employing anywhere near the level of technological sophisticating of something like Stuxnet.

    Internet voting, obviously, can fuck off forever.
    Truth serves them
    Embrace and defend her case
    Part flattery, part threats
    "For those who cling to this domination will partake in its fall"


  8. #8
    Its not like you even need an ID to vote or that dead people haven't vote in previous elections...

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Its not like you even need an ID to vote or that dead people haven't vote in previous elections...
    Any noticable voter fraud coming from foreign sources would be something very new though.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Probably because the process is different in different parts of the US. Some of them use all paper systems, some of them use those touch screen machines and some of them use weird hybrid systems like the one Chooobs described.

    In general, the security problems with electronic voting are:

    1) Verification that the software on the machine is doing what it's supposed to be doing
    2) Verification that *all* the individual machines are actually running the software you verified in stage one
    3) Verification that the results transmitted from the machines at the polling stations are the same ones that arrived at the counting place

    In general, if a state actor (*cough* Russia *cough*) wanted to mount an attack into to throw the result of an election to their preferred candidate (*cough* Donald Trump *cough*) they could probably do so without having employing anywhere near the level of technological sophisticating of something like Stuxnet.

    Internet voting, obviously, can fuck off forever.
    But many states DO have internet voter registration. I'm not sure how my state (PA) verifies those on-line registrations, when so many of our agencies are antiquated and paper-oriented, but it was super easy for my kids to register to vote in just a few key strokes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Its not like you even need an ID to vote or that dead people haven't vote in previous elections...
    That "dead people voting" is mostly an urban myth, as there are only a handful of proven voter fraud incidents. The truth is -- it's easier to get a gun license than a driver's license, let alone a voter ID.

  11. #11
    http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ng-california/

    And that's recent to say nothing of other examples in US history...

  12. #12
    No, I won't click on a Breitbart link. It's a site known for conspiracy theories and all kinds of weird shit. That you're using it to defend/support your position just reinforces that your opinions are based on shit.

  13. #13
    You might think that combining wifi and voting is just a spectacularly stupid idea, but they're going to require hackers to show photo ID.

    https://www.kentucky.com/news/politi...219508945.html

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #14
    Blockchain-based voting is actually a pretty good idea, it'd just require some infrastructure that doesn't exist yet.

    Wireless voting systems probably aren't the best idea, though. It could be secure, but from past voting machines I don't have a ton of faith that the producing company used people who know what they're doing; voting machine contracts seem to be handed to either the lowest bidder or the company that gives the most kickbacks to politicians.

    Electronic voting is not inherently a bad idea. I think a lot of people & reporters tend to overstate the risks. It's possible to make them much more secure than paper ballots, because paper ballots aren't very secure anyways - consider how many times ballots have been misplaced, or how many times they've been "misplaced". It just doesn't seem like governments and the companies they contract are too interested in going to the lengths necessary to secure it.

    edit: I'm probably being too hard here; a big part of the problem is probably just that the people who decide who to give the contracts to aren't computer people. Things like allowing wireless software updates can greatly decrease the cost of operation, and the people deciding aren't knowledgeable enough to realize it also makes the system much more difficult to fully secure. All they hear is that it saves money.
    Last edited by Wraith; 10-08-2018 at 07:05 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •