You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Remote Hack of Diebold Systems Analysis [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
RedEagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 09:40 AM
Original message
Remote Hack of Diebold Systems Analysis
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Thu May-05-05 10:06 AM by RedEagle
Due to contraints in how much can be posted, please check out article at:, main page,
and forums:

(On edit: Morning, I'll get this right yet)

Much more coming on this but rest needed after an exhausting field trip by Black Box Voting.

Please read whole article, lots to it. As I understand it:

Touch Screens - Relatively easy to hack
Op Scan - Harder but not by any means impenetrable
Touch Screens - Allow access to Op Scan

What I want to know, is why delay the Auto Mark, which marks an op scan ballot?
Does encryption really help security of our votes, or the security of a potential hack?

Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 09:25 pm:

Black Box Voting has discovered that the addition of a single Diebold touch-screen with or without a paper trail -- introduces a change to the remote access configuration such that malicious tampering of the entire system (including the paper ballot-based portion) becomes easier.

----- snip -----

The HAVA-triggered move to add a touch-screen in each polling place to accommodate the visually impaired will make it easier for political operatives located in another state, or even in a foreign country -- to take a crack at your election.

Black Box Voting, together with a team that includes telecommunications and security experts, has been conducting field tests on remote access vulnerabilities with Diebold voting systems. These hacking tests differ from those performed by RABA, Avi Rubin, and the demonstration by Bev Harris with presidential candidate Howard Dean, because Diebold was able to claim that those demonstrations involved a contrived setup, never-used software, or were impossible in the real world of elections.

----- snip -----

We have received a report from an elections official that ES&S has put a hold on federal certification of the Automark, which will delay the ability to comply with ADA requirements by purchasing Automark. If the Automark certification occurs after the HAVA deadline, election officials may be forced to buy touch-screens.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC