4 ms·
If a single breach to a ceremony involving the equipment is enough to invalidate it’s use completely, doesn’t sound like the machines are designed with enough
by ricardobeat 5y ago
If a single breach to a ceremony involving the equipment is enough to invalidate it’s use completely, doesn’t sound like the machines are designed with enough layers of security? Couldn’t they repeat that step and reset that leaked password?
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoIt’s a safety precaution. Consider it like a supply chain breach: If you discover that your supply chain has been possibly tampered with by QAnon-associated conspiracy bloggers who deliberately lied to circumvent background check requirements and who also disabled the security cameras that week, you replace the equipment to be safe while you investigate. > Griswold also said that one week before the breach, Peters ordered her staff to turn off the video surveillance system that monitors the voting machines and that it was only recently turned back on. Precautions for supply chain breaches aren’t unique to voting machines. If you discover supply chain tampering for anything security-sensitive, you replace the gear. This goes for everything from people’s laptops to network equipment. The full article has more details. This wasn’t just a simple leak. There’s some strange corruption involved at that office.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]