They should release hashed and signed files and disk images as torrents. It's that easy. I had hoped to see the captures and disk images online somewhere to se

They should release hashed and signed files and disk images as torrents. It's that easy. I had hoped to see the captures and disk images online somewhere to see what kind of analysis they did, as I've done reverse engineering of protocols, devices, software, and large systems throughout my career. While I'm not an elite reverse engineer who presents new methods of obfuscated malware reversing at conferences, it has fallen to me to do it professionally on and off for the last 20 years and there are certainly some thousands of people with at least my level of skill who could weigh in on it. Demonstrating technical uncertainty to present and frame risks is a lower standard than reproducing an exploit chain. As they say, POC||GTFO. I don't know that their conference (symposium) has met that standard yet. There was a link to their conference being broadcast on rumble, and I watched some of it. What I saw wasn't as good as a defcon presentation, let alone with the technical clarity and polished execution of a good blackhat presentation, which their concerns would need to be at to get serious popular consideration. My impression right now is that the 'cyber' aspect of this is really a vehicle for promoting the more serious and rigorous statistical case from a perhaps too colorful character named Dr. Douglas Frank (?), which if real, would be much more damning than technical voting machine vulnerabilities. Everyone knew a decade ago electronic voting was vulnerable. I commented multiple times here and to acquaintences involved in politics that electronic voting risks social unrest because it can be so easily discredited in a highly contested situation, and there is nothing surprising, unanticipated, or unforseeable about the consequences of using these machines. Elections that use them now have a foul smell about them. I don't think any technology evidence these people present will change any minds, mostly because minds are not generally changed by evidence, but I do think they will set a new bar for elections scrutiny that will require the integrity of elections to withstand forensic analysis. Until we have signed and hashed disk images that can be compared to sealed hardware that has a verifiable chain of custody, the Chinese hacking narrative will be bluster. Whether the "election fortification," methods used in it were legal or will be tolerated in future ones, however, I think they may have made their point.