Only Trump people believe this... move along... move along...
Posted on 12/01/2020 12:26:22 PM PST by Jyotishi
In a paper published on the Web today, a group of Princeton computer scientists said they created demonstration vote-stealing software that can be installed within a minute on a common electronic voting machine. The software can fraudulently change vote counts without being detected.
"We have created and analyzed the code in the spirit of helping to guide public officials so that they can make wise decisions about how to secure elections," said Edward Felten,
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/
the director of the Center for Information Technology Policy, a new center
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S13/34/75A49/index.xml
at Princeton University that addresses crucial issues at the intersection of society and computer technology.
The paper
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
appears on the Web site for the Center for Information Technology Policy.
The researchers obtained the machine, a Diebold AccuVote-TS, from a private party in May. They spent the summer analyzing the machine and developing the vote-stealing demonstration.
"We found that the machine is vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces," wrote Felten and his co-authors, graduate students Ariel Feldman and Alex Halderman.
In a 10-minute video on their Web site, the researchers demonstrate how the vote-stealing software works. The video shows the software sabotaging a mock presidential election between George Washington and Benedict Arnold. Arnold is reported as the winner even though Washington gets more votes. (The video is edited from a longer continuously shot video; the long single-shot version will be available for downloading from the center’s site as well.)
The researchers also demonstrate how the machines "are susceptible to computer viruses that can spread themselves automatically and invisibly from machine to machine during normal pre- and post-election activity."
Felten said that policy-makers should be concerned about malicious software infecting the Diebold AccuVote-TS and machines like it, from Diebold and other companies. "We studied these machines because they were available to us," the researchers wrote in their Web posting. "If we had gotten access to another kind of machine, we probably would have studied it instead."
Felten said, "There is reason for concern about other machines as well, even though our paper doesn't directly evaluate them. Jurisdictions using these machines should think seriously about finding a backup system in time for the November elections."
Felten, a professor of computer science and public affairs who is known for his groundbreaking work in computer security, said that some of the problems discussed in the paper cannot be fixed without completely redesigning the machine.
Other problems can be fixed by addressing software or electronic procedures. "But time is short before the next election," he said.
According to the researchers' paper, the Diebold machine they examined and another newer version are scheduled to be used in 357 U.S. counties representing nearly 10 percent of all registered voters. About half those counties, including all Maryland and Georgia, will use the exact machine examined by Felten's group.
Felten said that, out of security concerns, the Diebold machine infected with the vote-stealing software has been kept under lock and key in a secret location.
"Unfortunately election fraud has a rich history from ballot stuffing to dead people voting," he said. "We want to make sure this doesn't fall into the wrong hands. We also want to make sure that policy-makers stay a step ahead of those who might create similar software with ill intent."
Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy includes members from diverse departments, including computer science, economics, electrical engineering, operations research and financial engineering, sociology and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
More information can be found on the Princeton Engineering News Web site.
http://engineering.princeton.edu/news/felten06
In time it will become common universally accepted truth,
that Trump had his second term stolen from him.
It will be too late for him. It will be too late for us.
It will be too late for the nation.
In affect, he had much of his first terms stolen from him.
We are living in a land of terrorists, murderers and thieves. Protect yourself and your loved ones.
I hear ya...
I was a contractor for Diebold during the 2006 election, as a network tech. I was assigned to monitor the network in Harris County, GA, and on election night, I remember sitting there watching the server and thinking how dangerous e-voting could be. My fears, it seems, have finally been proven to be correct. Woe upon us.
Why didn’t Republicans do something about it then? Maybe they really don’t care.
Not to belittle your comment, because I value your opinion
over my own due to your experience, but anyone with an ounce
of intelligence should have seen this coming.
It’s the whole reason the Left devised it and implemented it.
They can’t win open honest elections on policy.
Now they will make new states, pack the court, and do anything
else they can to ensure they retain power from here on out.
Would love to be proven wrong, but with they things they
have already done, there’s no going back.
Oh, no offense taken, you’re right. Anyone who could apply basic mental gymnastics could see that it was a Pandora’s box. I remember in our training sessions that questions about hacking and network security came up. And it became an even more stark issue when sitting there, staring at the computer screen. I envisioned many ways that a bad actor could access the system and jigger the results.
Perhaps you can be an expert witness in the current legal cases.
I agree. They have had more than a decade to fix things. The original article is from 14 years ago.
LOL I can’t remember 95% of the details after almost fifteen years. Just sitting around a training table and being in a room in the basement of the county courthouse with the computer equipment. That was the lasting impression I took away from the gig. One week, and out.
Thanks.
Take care...
This article may be moot by this time. My understanding is that the Diebold machines in question were vulnerable because they were ONLY electronic and had no paper trail. In my county we use electronic machines that count paper ballots — which means a recount of the paper ballots will expose any problems with the computer count.
I used an electronic machine, but I’m not sure which company
was involved.
It prints out the ballot. I get to look at that and it takes
it back and files it.
Now I have no idea if it saves my version, or if it saves a
new alternate version.
Main Findings The main findings of our study are:
1. Malicious software running on a single voting machine can steal votes with little if any risk of detection. The malicious software can modify all of the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting machine, so that even careful forensic examination of these records will find nothing amiss. We have constructed demonstration software that carries out this vote-stealing attack.
2. Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines.
3. AccuVote-TS machines are susceptible to voting-machine viruses — computer viruses that can spread malicious software automatically and invisibly from machine to machine during normal pre- and post-election activity. We have constructed a demonstration virus that spreads in this way, installing our demonstration vote-stealing program on every machine it infects.
4. While some of these problems can be eliminated by improving Diebold’s software, others cannot be remedied without replacing the machines’ hardware. Changes to election procedures would also be required to ensure security.
The details of our analysis appear in the full version of this paper [PDF].
http://web.archive.org/web/20090404100612/http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html
“I can’t remember . . . in the basement . . .”
Bingo! You’re qualified!
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.