Electronic voting machines security risk (From 2003)

[Renew Deal]

This is old, but I'm sure people will find it interesting.

Computer-science researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Rice University are heaping criticism on electronic voting machines built by Diebold Election Systems, based on software code for the machine said to have been posted publicly to the Internet by an activist.

Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at John Hopkins, along with computer science doctoral students Adam Stubblefield and Toshi Kohno, say their research of the code from the Internet shows a voter could find it very easy to trick the Diebold Election Systems into accepting more than one ballot per voter.

Another researcher, Dan Wallach, assistant professor of computer science at Rice University, echoed the findings, which have been issued in a technical report, saying the country needs to have extensive independent security evaluation of all electronic voting machines on the market.

In response, Diebold indicated that the released code was not a current version of the voting machine's software.

"The work we've released is part of a dialog nationally we want to have," said Wallach, who reviewed the findings of the Johns Hopkins team's two-week security evaluation of the Diebold software code that had been posted to the Internet. "My opinion is that the code we looked at is deeply unsuitable for an election."

According to the university researchers, the tens of thousands lines of code for the Diebold Elections Systems voting machine obtained from the Internet had several serious and irremediable flaws.
<snip>

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/electronic-voting-machines-security-risk-079

[Scuba]

1. more voter fraud.....

Last fall, ES&S quietly purchased Diebold, giving them 80% of market for electronic voting machings. And it's not just the un-auditable vote-counting; they now also own polling place check-in software (electronic pollbooks), voter registration software and vote-by-mail authentication software.

http://www.benalexandra.com/cool_stuff/diebold_ess.htm

This link has very disturbing information, all with appropriate citations, regarding what could easily be a mass-manipulation of our elections.

They've already been caught registering voters who thought they were just signing petitions. Getting total registered voter numbers higher gives them more room to fudge numbers.

When you buy a pack of gum, you get a receipt. Why is there no receipt/audit trail on our votes? I can only think of one reason.