3 ms·

No reason for your question to be downvoted. I've done my small part to reverse that. I doubt the officials suspect the machines have been compromised, but the

No reason for your question to be downvoted. I've done my small part to reverse that. I doubt the officials suspect the machines have been compromised, but they have no way of knowing. There are chain of custody rules to help ensure integrity of the systems. Those have been violated so the machines can't be used until they've been carefully examined and recertified. Putting this in a money context might help some--lets say you owned slot machines that could have big payouts. Would you let rando unauthorized person to be alone with one of your machines in a private office, doing upgrades, and still trust the machine? Probably not. You'd want to take a look at it top to bottom before trusting it to do any payouts. The person might not have done anything wrong but you've got to be sure first, and since there are other ways these things could be compromised than just adding unauthorized software to the hard drive, a clean install isn't enough.

caseysoftware 5y ago
So far the claim is "an unauthorized person's name was entered into the log of people who were present for a secure software update conducted by Dominion employees" and not "rando unauthorized person to be alone with one of your machines." If someone seeing an update executed compromises the machines, that's a HUGE problem. But I think you're spot on with the slot machine comparison. In a casino, asking security to turn off the cameras monitoring an area would be a breach in itself. They wouldn't do it and would report someone who requested it. In this situation, "how could an official could order it?" and "why did the security team do it?" are both things to look into. Was this standard operating procedure? If so, for how long and when else did it occur? And broader, are there other jurisdictions where they had similar security lapses? If so, when, where, and for how long? Further, were those machines also removed from service and analyzed?

caseysoftware 5y ago

So far the claim is "an unauthorized person's name was entered into the log of people who were present for a secure software update conducted by Dominion employees" and not "rando unauthorized person to be alone with one of your machines." If someone seeing an update executed compromises the machines, that's a HUGE problem. But I think you're spot on with the slot machine comparison. In a casino, asking security to turn off the cameras monitoring an area would be a breach in itself. They wouldn't do it and would report someone who requested it. In this situation, "how could an official could order it?" and "why did the security team do it?" are both things to look into. Was this standard operating procedure? If so, for how long and when else did it occur? And broader, are there other jurisdictions where they had similar security lapses? If so, when, where, and for how long? Further, were those machines also removed from service and analyzed?