Timeline for Can ROM checksum checker reliably defend against non-physical tampering/hacking of a voting machine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2016 at 3:16 | comment | added | John Deters | Making the device single purpose and based on a tiny-or-no OS would make it simpler to validate, but it's still a black box to the election officials, who have no way of reverse engineering it, or decapping the chips to verify that it's exactly as drawn in the schematics. Any malicious hardware can blink a green light, or display a number found on a published list of "good" numbers. If you want to see what amateurs are doing to hide hardware hacks, look at nsaplayset.org/turnipschool for the TURNIPSCHOOL implant. Pic: twitter.com/michaelossmann/status/491641360739352577 | |
| Nov 26, 2016 at 3:05 | comment | added | John Deters | This election shows that four predicted-to-be swing states had slim margins. E.g. Wisconsin could have been tipped to Clinton by swapping the vote counts in just two large historically red counties, Dodge and Fond du Lac. Dane or Milwaukee alone had enough voters that they could have swung the state either way by themselves without even changing their overall county winners. Rinse and repeat in three more states, and you have a winner. politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/wisconsin elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 22:57 | comment | added | DVK | Your answer realistically boils down to arguments in the final paragraph, but it seems there aren't many details as to the security issues (never mind the explanation of just why a general-purpose architecture like a PC with UEFI EEPROM BIOS would be equivalent to a - presumably far less general purpose, and as-designed, ROM BIOS). | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 22:52 | comment | added | DVK | Some examples: ]1], ]2] | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 22:47 | comment | added | DVK | ... and moreover, chances are, the election will NOT be decided by one prescinct in one swing state (Florida in 2000 was an outlier, not a rule) | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 22:35 | comment | added | DVK | While the "we only need to corrupt specific machines" is a valid critique from CompSci level, this election has conclusively proven FiveThirtyEight's thesis that it's pure fantasy in practical politics level. You don't know what your swing states, never mind swing prescincts, will be, with any precision, until after the election is over. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 17:56 | history | answered | John Deters | CC BY-SA 3.0 |