From what I gathered the last time reports on the internals of the Dominion machines was made public, some years ago, they lacked even the first. Dominion was arguing that the text log that the programmers had implemented to aid in development would suffice.
It would not.
And it doesn't sound as if Dominion has implemented anything of the sort in the years since.
The kind of security I'm talking about is standard practive in financial systems, and required by law in casinos.
It should be the bare minimum in voting machines. That it's not might simply be incompetence, but it might well be malice.
There are two essentials when designing a secure system:
The system must maintain an audit of everything that is done, and by whom, and
that audit must be protected from modification by anyone, including the root user of the system.>>> The most important audit controls are the process controls (people) around chain of custody of all the voting materials. The process builds a domain for each vote cycle. None of these processes as well as the actual collecting delivery balancing of totals counts, etc are auditable. And the centralized counting of the mail ins just make it worse. All counting should be verified at the precinct level with totals and signoffs. mail ins should also be controlled at that level. The more distributed the system is the harder it is to come up with 3 more votes per each mail in ballot as you need to involve more people. Now a centralized counter can just run the dem ballots thru two times. one guy can produce thousands of extra votes. That is the fraud. machines are just machines. I think most counties do not have the software and hardware expertise to produce machine capable ballots and counting without a high degree of error. Again these are process controls.