90 likes | 192 Vues
This article by Slavik Krassovsky highlights the security flaws in existing voting systems, focusing on DRE machine architecture and reported problems. Discover the vulnerabilities and explore potential solutions to ensure fair elections.
E N D
Security flaws in existing voting systems by Slavik Krassovsky
Introduction • HAVA • $3.9 billion appropriated in states aid • DRE Vendors: • Diebold • ES&S • MicroVote • WINvote • Sequoia • Hart InterCivic
Certification process • Is done per FEC guidelines • ITAs • Ciber • Wyle • SysTest • Off-the-shelf hardware and software is exempt
Media reported problems • 01/04, Broward County, Florida: • 134 out of 10,844 votes are missing • 11/03, Boone County, Indiana: • 144,000 votes were cast but Boone County contains fewer than 19,000 • 01/04, Hinds County, Mississippi: • Machines stayed down all day
Diebold • Analyzed by researches: • Hardcoded DES key • No Smart card authentication • Unsecure smart card deactivation • Hardcoded PIN • Etc...
Attacks on the machine Undetectable rigging Attacks
Other problems • No way to verify that their votes were recorded correctly • No way to publicly count the votes • No meaningful recounts are possible
Conclusion • Some problems can be solved by strict certification • But some problems are inherent • It’s best to look for alternatives