Programmers weigh in on vote-rigging idea, some details confirmed

[Carolab]

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/vote_rigging_concept_1207.htm

[jamboi]

1. Thanks Carolab! n/t

[thedutch]

2. Thanks

Heres my cursory take on the diebold GEMS software:
http://www.legjoints.com/DirtyHacks/

for the non-geeks: try these hacks out yourself!

for the geeks: I posted this link a week ago, but I still haven't recv'd any replies on it from the hackers out there. I NEED help on this; Im haveing no luck tracing the winsock calls.

[dave420]

3. As a programmer...

... I have to agree 100%. The particular systems they used - the operating system, networking arrangement and hardware - are all well known for lack of security. I'm a windows user, so I don't have a vested interest bashing microsoft, and even I admit these systems are just ridiculous for such an undertaking.

The operating system, a variant of Windows, is so insecure it's unbelievable. They use default settings for most things, which exposes the machines to a long list of well-known vulnerabilities. Microsoft even list the vulnerabilities on their website, with detailed information about what's possible to do through them.

The database they used, Microsoft Access, is a joke. It's designed for small databases, as a prototyping tool people use to see if something is possible, rather than something any reputable company would think of releasing in their software. It has numerous insecurities, ranging from weak (easy to break) passwords to poor file security (anyone can tamper with the files, as they're not protected) - virtually every aspect of it screams out how inappropriate it is.

The networking is probably the most worrying. Even if they used a more secure operating system and database, the networking allows people to gain access to the machines. Diebold could do it, and short of monitoring all phone calls to/from the machines, no-one would know. Each voting machine is configured to be a remote access server, allowing people to dial in, and effectively network their computer to the voting machine, as if it was in the same room. A Diebold employee (or, indeed, anyone with very trivial and easy-to-guess information about the machine) can dial in, and edit the votes however they see fit. Even if they could just dial in, gaining access to the voting machine is trivial - Windows is so insecure it includes enough tools to crack itself, no joke. Anyone out there who knows about "nbtstat" will tell you themselves :)

All in all, they couldn't have chosen a worse setup for such an important use. Every single aspect screams "put together by amateurs!". For me, it looks like someone non-technically-minded put something together to suit a means. As in, they purposely wanted a machine easy to tamper with. Every single technical person I know agrees on this point whole-heartedly.

I'm sorry if any of that confused anyone, or was overly simplistic. How a country like America can put so much trust in something so obviously flawed and dodgy makes me feel ill. I'm a brit, by the way :)

[libertypirate]

23. Could they hide the vote rigging module outside the vote app source?

I know there are many modules built into the system, wouldn't the voting software use them? How about a third party module?

[dave420]

26. Well,

Anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. There is no reason why ANYTHING can't be done on these machines. They're so open to tampering that they could be remotely reprogrammed to play Doom 3 if Diebold so wanted.

As no state seems to care what's on the machines, they could just have a module called "VoteRigger" running in plain view. No-one seems to care about vetting these machines at all.

dave

[whistle]

4. Program source code would answer most questions and put

...the majority of the doubts aside. But the software companies won't release their source code because it would hold them accountable and it would also demonstrate just how simple the process of screen display code and vote registrations and tabulations are.

After-all, none of these systems are rocket science, but are simple counting and accounting routines. One of the very first things regarding fraud that would be revealed is the price gouging fraud that the computer software developers and touchscreen companies have perpetrated on the American taxpayer. I can guarantee that the charges levied by these companies and that the voting districts agreed on for the development and codification of these routines will be found to be astronomical compared to the extent of real creativity and actual time spent on writing these program codes.

I submit that the software companies are opposed to releasing the source codes even to independent examination because they are protecting their "Geese which lays golden eggs" come every election cycle.

[dave420]

5. Afraid not...

How do we know that's the code that's actually ON the machines?

They do have a process where various versions of the software is certified for use in elections. It's been demonstrated that Diebold machines have been used in local elections with non-certified software, which is against the law (but nothing happens, of course).

There's a massive problem here. We can't trust the software, as we can't see the code. Even if we could, we can't trust the machines, as we don't know what software is on there in the first place.

It makes my head hurt!

I guess we should all look to Brazil, who employ an open-source election solution, which is both fast and efficient. It amazes me that a country so economically weak compared to the US can wipe the floor with it over election technology. Strikes me as odd, no?

[Carolab]

6. NO we should look to OREGON

which uses mail-in paper ballots which are hand-counted publicly.

[nofurylike]

9. yes, Carolab! absolutely! n/t

[dave420]

10. EXACTLY

I'm with you, man. Heck, even "check the box next to the candidate" pencil/paper method is FAR better than this current democratic abortion.

[bloom]

15. Wow - what a concept

:o

[Farmgirl]

22. I'm from Oregon

and I tell you, it's simple, it's basic, and it WORKS. The vote by mail is the way to go. We have about two weeks to either mail in, or hand deliver our ballots, which are put into a "security" envelope. I know that lots of folks were initially leary about using the vote by mail system, but now, I don't know anyone who doesn't absolutely LOVE it. My .02

:thumbsup:

[life_long_dem]

27. I agree 100%. Here in Minnesota you could have a major snow

storm and not be able to get to the polls. Not to mention no more
E-voting.

[nofurylike]

7. thank you for posting this, Carolab! n/t

[Razorback_Democrat]

8. Kick it! n/t

[jamboi]

11. kick

[ClintCooper2003]

12. Excellent. So the core elements of the story hold up....

what if the dead dog thing was a ruse; disinformation from a Rove operative posing as Clint Curtis?

[nofurylike]

13. kick! n/t

[IndyPriest]

14. Get Conyers to run an example!

Carolab -- you're much better connected than I am. Whom do you know who could get Conyers and the Dems of the Judiciary Committee to run an example of how easy it is to hack the vote? Can you imagine? On C-Span? There sits an e-machine. Over here sits a simple PC. Camera pans in close as the votes are switched with no one anywhere near the machine! The MSM would go F'ing NUTS to get a copy of C-Span's tape for re-play!

[libertypirate]

16. This is a great idea -- Kick

[BR_Parkway]

25. Awesome, simple enough and visual - even the Freepers would "get it"

[nofurylike]

17. kick n/t

[nofurylike]

18. kick n/t

[nofurylike]

19. kick. important info n/t

[nofurylike]

20. kick n/t

[nofurylike]

21. kick. n/t

[FloridaCrat]

24. Kick - love the idea of Conyers demo'ing the vote hack ! n/t