4 ms·
Well firstly these machines should have been riveted shut, leaving the only way to access the machine is by breaking the tamper-seals. (This at least eliminates
by electromagnetic 16y ago
Well firstly these machines should have been riveted shut, leaving the only way to access the machine is by breaking the tamper-seals. (This at least eliminates everyone in the country without corresponding replacement tamper-seals from screwing around inside the machines)
Secondly, the OS on these devices should have been stored into ROM; not only is this a bastard way of ensuring people have to use the manufacturer to upgrade the systems, but it also makes tampering that much more of a pain in the ass.
Thirdly a proprietary data storage should have been used. Preferably one designed so that the voting machines only ever contain a write-only drive, in that it either cannot edit the data, or preferably doesn't even have the necessary hardware to read the data it writes (this would be complicated to get working right, but would be well worth it). This means only the manufacturer would have access to the edit/read connections.
I mean come on, compact flash, seriously. My phone can read flash drives, what were the designers thinking!
- billybob 16y agoProprietary storage? I'm skeptical. This is contrary to the open-source mentality: let the details of how the system works be known to everyone. Like PGP encryption: nobody's hiding how it works - in fact, more scrutiny helps prove it's safe. You don't hide the mechanism, you just hide your personal key. Otherewise, you start feeling secure based on your assumptions, like "only we can read these drives" - when maybe your assumption is wrong. Maybe somebody has hacked one machine somewhere and reverse-engineered the connector. Now you've got an unknown danger out there. Whereas if you're constantly submitting your system to public scrutiny, you'll probably only have known dangers. Which you can fix.