Obama administration throws cold water on vote recount effort

[choomer]

HBO did an interesting look into voting machines in 2006 I think called Hacking Democracy.

YouTube has it (and a host of others in this playlist) @ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLu4Afd6uMatg_-RlEKw_aNQFW6W4U3hrL

That will tell you all you need to know about voter machine vulnerabilities.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

If they're not connected to a remote server there's no way to monitor for tampering at the local level, but if they're online it exposes them more to external tempering.

Online in this context meaning connected to an external WAN.

There are many types of voting systems. I know a few. All of them that I know are entirely cut off from any network on election day. They only time they transmit is at the end of the day with the vote totals. The election judges and state's attorneys prevent local tampering. But of course, the software is a black box to them.

 

[SneekyNinja]

There are many types of voting systems. I know a few. All of them that I know are entirely cut off from any network on election day. They only time they transmit is at the end of the day with the vote totals. The election judges and state's attorneys prevent local tampering. But of course, the software is a black box to them.

A simple man in the middle attack could alter the totals.

In theory, you could even divert the server stream to an entirely different connection altogether if you can somewhat predict the next packet size.

 

[UncleBuck]

How the hell can Russia hack voting machines that are NOT online?

don't you claim to have a degree in computer science, you fucking retard?

voting machines are computers, and they have reprogrammable software, so if attackers can modify that software by infecting the machines with malware, they can cause the machines to give any answer whatsoever. I’ve demonstrated this in the laboratory with real voting machines — in just a few seconds, anyone can install vote-stealing malware on those machines that silently alters the electronic records of every vote.

Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area. There’s no question that this is possible for technically sophisticated attackers. (If my Ph.D. students and I were criminals, I’m sure we could pull it off.) If anyone reasonably skilled is sufficiently motivated and willing to face the risk of getting caught, it’s happened already.

https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.v85rrx4s8



RETARD!

 

[Unclebaldrick]

A simple man in the middle attack could alter the totals.

In theory, you could even divert the server stream to an entirely different connection altogether if you can somewhat predict the next packet size.

There are a number of ways. None would be easy. None would escape close scrunity, as far as I know. That would be specìfic system dependent. Still, I worry about what new systems we will adopt. There have been a couple systems very close to roll out until they got hacked by interested parties as a demonstration of their insecurity. I think awareness to this issue is pretty high. That is good.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

don't you claim to have a degree in computer science, you fucking retard?

voting machines are computers, and they have reprogrammable software, so if attackers can modify that software by infecting the machines with malware, they can cause the machines to give any answer whatsoever. I’ve demonstrated this in the laboratory with real voting machines — in just a few seconds, anyone can install vote-stealing malware on those machines that silently alters the electronic records of every vote.

Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area. There’s no question that this is possible for technically sophisticated attackers. (If my Ph.D. students and I were criminals, I’m sure we could pull it off.) If anyone reasonably skilled is sufficiently motivated and willing to face the risk of getting caught, it’s happened already.

https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.v85rrx4s8



RETARD!

Yep. Especially the retard part.

 

[choomer]

At the machine, on the storage device, within the collating program.
All done.
All proven.
Watch the vids/congressional testimony.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Right. And then don't do anything when there are clear discrepancies.

Is that a common occurrence?

 

[SneekyNinja]

There are a number of ways. None would be easy. None would escape close scrunity, as far as I know. That would be specìfic system dependent. Still, I worry about what new systems we will adopt. There have been a couple systems very close to roll out until they got hacked by interested parties as a demonstration of their insecurity. I think awareness to this issue is pretty high. That is good.

Depends on what transmission protocol they use, in theory as long as different platforms can handshake (usually can) and send/expect the correct format payloads then platform shouldn't matter.

 

[Fogdog]

HBO did an interesting look into voting machines in 2006 I think called Hacking Democracy.

YouTube has it (and a host of others in this playlist) @ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLu4Afd6uMatg_-RlEKw_aNQFW6W4U3hrL

That will tell you all you need to know about voter machine vulnerabilities.

I think this all casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, don't you?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Depends on what transmission protocol they use, in theory as long as different platforms can handshake (usually can) and send/expect the correct format payloads then platform shouldn't matter.

That is why there is a random audit against the hard copy.

 

[UncleBuck]

Watch the vids

nah.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I think this all casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, don't you?

No. But he does, daily.

 

[ttystikk]

Is that a common occurrence?

Between the democratic nomination and the general, it sure looks like it's becoming a habit.

 

[SneekyNinja]

That is why there is a random audit against the hard copy.

And it's showing Trump voters that never existed were reported in official totals.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Between the democratic nomination and the general, it sure looks like it's becoming a habit.

Bernie lost fair and square.

Even if there was tomfoolery it didn't give Hillary 12.5% more of the vote, or 25% more votes when you compare 1 to 1 totals.

Most of us like Bernie, but he lost, his diehards are fucking embarrassing.

I'll vote for him if he runs in 2020.

 

[choomer]

I think this all casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, don't you?

I think it casts doubt on all election results since Diebold, etc. made an appearance on the voter circuit.

But if findings are enough to throw Dumph's electoral status in debate it would have to be applied to every candidate since 1996 (the I-vote @ 7.7%) through 2004 (DRE @ 28.9%) up to today as those percentages have only gotten larger.

If you want to oust Dumph now for alleged voter fraud shouldn't you want to negate all the legislation of the last 20 years for the same reason as most politicians since '96 have been elected when/where e-voting was used and was proven less secure than it is today?

Nothing has been a more stupid move of the republic than to allow recording of the vote to pure electronics w/ no physical verification medium.

 

[Fogdog]

I think it casts doubt on all election results since Diebold, etc. made an appearance on the voter circuit.

But if findings are enough to throw Dumph's electoral status in debate it would have to be applied to every candidate since 1996 (the I-vote @ 7.7%) through 2004 (DRE @ 28.9%) up to today as those percentages have only gotten larger.

If you want to oust Dumph now for alleged voter fraud shouldn't you want to negate all the legislation of the last 20 years for the same reason as most politicians since '96 have been elected when/where e-voting was used and was proven less secure than it is today?

Nothing has been a more stupid move of the republic than to allow recording of the vote to pure electronics w/ no physical verification medium.

So you are agreeing with me that Trump's win was not legitimate. After all, there were some strange differences in districts that had paperless tracking.

 

[choomer]

So you are agreeing with me that Trump's win was not legitimate. After all, there were some strange differences in districts that had paperless tracking.

Only if you agree that Cli'n, Shrub, and Obummer's elections be questioned for legitimacy.

All or none.

 

[UncleBuck]

Only if you agree that Cli'n, Shrub, and Obummer's elections be questioned for legitimacy.

All or none.

clinton and obama won in blowouts.

shrub crept into office on the "strength" of 500 votes in florida, and then again on less than 50,000 votes in ohio.

you're comparing penis pics to your latent homosexuality. two completely different things.