3 ms·

Ask HN: Do You Believe Dominions Servers Were Secure and Incapable of Mass Fraud

4 points by AHappyCamper 6y ago

Hacker News has a truly talented community of computer specialists. After listening to the testimony of Colonel Phil Waldron on the multiple exploits he found, do you think that Dominions' machines were as vulnerable as he (and the State of Texas) claimed that they were?

uncoder0 6y ago
All software is exploitable and the machines and software aren't running verifiable open-source firmware and hardware so how could they possibly be demonstrably secure?
eyberg 6y ago
Considering many machines run windows I'm going to go with a resounding "no" wrt to "being secure", however saying something is 'insecure' is not the same thing as "this has been hacked". Most computers are horribly insecure - not all computers are hacked. Having said that, Col Waldron mentioned in that hearing that they have pcaps of traffic going from one or more machines on election night to servers in Germany. That's a very very crazy claim to make so if they can produce that evidence under oath (and how that was obtained is not super clear) then there's going to be problems. I think it'd hinge on that.
TechBro8615 6y ago
Of course they’re not secure. But if they altered vote tallies, wouldn’t a hand recount fail to match? I’d be interested in hearing theories of how one could hack the machine and fool the hand recount. IMO a more likely avenue of fraud is mail-in ballot stuffing, since that would hold up in a hand recount too. Although I’d be surprised if that happened.
forgotmysn 6y ago
no such thing as secure software. thats why paper ballots are so important.
- simonblack 6y ago
  Good old 'lo-tech' paper and pencil are the implements to use in voting. Put that with hand-counting with party-scrutineers watching and verifying, and you have the best available method for elections. NO machine voting, and that includes totally mechanical machines as well as electronic machines, is fraud-proof.

4 points by AHappyCamper 6y ago

uncoder0 6y ago

All software is exploitable and the machines and software aren't running verifiable open-source firmware and hardware so how could they possibly be demonstrably secure?

eyberg 6y ago

Considering many machines run windows I'm going to go with a resounding "no" wrt to "being secure", however saying something is 'insecure' is not the same thing as "this has been hacked". Most computers are horribly insecure - not all computers are hacked. Having said that, Col Waldron mentioned in that hearing that they have pcaps of traffic going from one or more machines on election night to servers in Germany. That's a very very crazy claim to make so if they can produce that evidence under oath (and how that was obtained is not super clear) then there's going to be problems. I think it'd hinge on that.

TechBro8615 6y ago

Of course they’re not secure. But if they altered vote tallies, wouldn’t a hand recount fail to match? I’d be interested in hearing theories of how one could hack the machine and fool the hand recount. IMO a more likely avenue of fraud is mail-in ballot stuffing, since that would hold up in a hand recount too. Although I’d be surprised if that happened.

forgotmysn 6y ago

no such thing as secure software. thats why paper ballots are so important.

simonblack 6y ago
Good old 'lo-tech' paper and pencil are the implements to use in voting. Put that with hand-counting with party-scrutineers watching and verifying, and you have the best available method for elections. NO machine voting, and that includes totally mechanical machines as well as electronic machines, is fraud-proof.