Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor
From: Crispin Cowan <crispin () immunix com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:00:45 -0700
If a vendor did a proper job of constructing a machine that conformed to the VVAT spec, then open source would not be required *at all*. The voter gets to verify the paper ballot before it is deposted in the ballot box, and external oververs can physically inspect the ballot box and the discard box to ensure that the right number of ballots are deposited into each box.
OTOH, if the machine does *not* conform to the VVAT spec, then open source is no where near sufficient to assure fair balloting, because the vendor could supply source code all over the place, and then just install trojan code at the last moment.
And that is the fundamental problem with all-electronic (no paper trail) voting: a human observer on the outside cannot tell what is going on in the chips and disks. You can get all the tripwire/opensource/checksum report crap you want, but if a bad guy got access to the machine and installed a trojan, then your reports are all a pack of lies, and no amout of election observing by anyone will help.
That is why the VVAT isn the one and only answer to fair digital voting. Open source is a distraction.
Crispin Paul Wouters wrote:
Free enterprise is not the issue here. Audit trails are. If it means that somewhere someone cannot make a profit, then so be it. Unless you declare democracy dead, and instate the Corporate Republic. The 'free market'should not be a main consideration in voting security. If you cannot relay that message to your government, then either you or your government is notthe right one for its task.the VVPAT groups with the open source community. So rather than putting your energy into trying to get Diebold et al to move to open source, itDiebold has proven to not earn the trust of the public. It deserves to lose money, or even go bankrupt. That's capitalism. You screw up and your productno longer sells and you go do something else. Perhaps Diebold can go into the playing cards business.(3) WRT requiring that the technology protect itself in case the usersdon't, that's simply unrealistic. In *any* real computer system, there are expectations about the environment (e.g., the administrators aren't hostileto the functioning of the system). It's important to state what thoseexpectations are, but there will ALWAYS be some that rely on non-technical means. The important part about election systems is that they be explicitly stated, and they be enforceable using non-technical means (e.g., by having locks on doors). The problem today is that some of the assumptions (e.g., the vendor provided software doesn't have any bugs) are clearly unrealistic.We are talking about voting machines here, not general purpose operating systems! They should be able to restrict and properly (and provably!) secure a reasonably simple dedicated single purpose voting computer.(4) WRT getting one set of software approved, and then installing another... that's an old problem in any environment. The way it's supposed to work in election systems is that a particular version is approved, and it's illegal for the vendor to install something different. If there are teeth in the law, and the vendor can be fined for installing illegal software, then it'sA fine? No. They just be blacklisted from ever supplying voting machines to the government again. Screwing up elections is not like hitting a red lightwhen there is nobody around.Bottom line, election systems are no different than any other systems in that the security of the whole system is based on risk management.But I guess no one trusts the US government itself anymore if even Europe is sending officials to watch over the elections: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3666898.stmAnd to counter your arguments, the Netherlands has open sourced its votingsystem. You can download and verify it at http://www.ososs.nl/ Paul
-- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ CTO, Immunix http://immunix.com
Current thread:
- RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Jeremy Epstein (Sep 25)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Mike Healan (Sep 27)
- RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Yoav Nir (Sep 27)
- RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Paul Wouters (Sep 27)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Crispin Cowan (Sep 28)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Adam Shostack (Sep 29)
- RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Greg A. Woods (Sep 27)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Marco S Hyman (Sep 28)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Simon (Sep 28)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Colm Buckley (Sep 29)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes David F. Skoll (Sep 29)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes float (Sep 30)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes David F. Skoll (Sep 30)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Marco S Hyman (Sep 28)
- Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Account Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes Nicholas Knight (Sep 27)