'Salon' calls 2012 election: President Sabu, VP Topiary vow to fix hackable voting machines

Researchers show how 10 bucks and "an eighth grade education" can let anyone hack the vote

By  

No one ever suspected when relatively new, largely untested voting machines were mandated as the primary way to vote in many states or districts that anything untoward could ever happen to the data.

No one predicted the machines would break down, lose votes, lose some voter credentials, survive voting day intact but corrupt the data afterward or have their data monkeyed with by partisans interested in skewing elections their own way using voting machines that often produced no paper or other form of record the voter and local election officials could check for fraud.

No one person predicted any of those things. Every single person with any concern about the electoral process and/or knowledge of how fallible those darn smart computers can be to simple manipulation.

Every single observer was able to point out some major flaw in the plan except the people committed to foisting them on the rest of us without any system of backups or fact-checking.

Just to demonstrate that they were all right, a security testing lab in Illinois showed how the Diebold Accuvote (?!) according to a story today in Salon quoting the testers at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.


We already knew the machines could be hacked remotely using viruses that would give hackers easy and automated control over the results. Princeton University ran penetration tests on the machines in 2006, two years after the machines were brought into widespread use as an alternative to the “hanging chad” controversies in the 2000 presidential election.

As with most viruses, this one can jump from one machine to another, infecting whole voting bank, according to the Princeton study. There's even a video demonstration.

The new method is a man-in-the-middle attack that waits until a voter has confirmed that the machine is displaying all his or her votes correctly, then blanks the screen for a second while the votes are supposedly being written into storage. Actually a homemade bug intercepts the signal, replaces it with one programmed into it or sent via remote control from a short distance away.

The bug uses a microprocessor that cost $1.29, an $8 circuit board and an (optional) $15 remote control.

Photo Credit: 

Argonne National Laboratory

Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Answers - Powered by ITworld

ITworld Answers helps you solve problems and share expertise. Ask a question or take a crack at answering the new questions below.

Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Ask a Question
randomness