5 ms·

Let me begin by saying that I wholeheartedly agree the they should open-source it, not only the source code, but perhaps the hardware designs as well. > “It’s

Let me begin by saying that I wholeheartedly agree the they should open-source it, not only the source code, but perhaps the hardware designs as well. > “It’s safe because I say so”. That's not quite the case. There are members from different parts of society, including regular civilians, who audit the system. Moreover, the political parties (the most interested parties in this whole thing, arguably after the general public) all have representatives who can audit the system. O procurador regional eleitoral deve indicar, então, um representante do Ministério Público para acompanhar os trabalhos da comissão. Os partidos políticos, as coligações, a Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB), o Congresso Nacional, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), a Controladoria-Geral da União (CGU), o Departamento de Polícia Federal, a Sociedade Brasileira de Computação (SBC), o Conselho Federal de Engenharia e Agronomia (Confea) e os departamentos de Tecnologia da Informação de universidades também podem indicar representantes para acompanhar os trabalhos do grupo. Loosely translated: The regional electoral attorney must indicate a representative of the Ministério Público [0] to follow the works of the committee. The political parties, the alliances, the Order of Attorneys of Brazil (OAB), the National Congress, the Supreme Federal Court (STF), the Controladoria Geral da União (CGU), the Federal Police Department, the Brazilian Society of Computing (SBC), the Federal Council of Engineering and Agronomy (Confea) and the IT departments of universities may also indicate representatives to follow the works of the group. [0] Similar to the USA's State Department, if I'm not mistaken [1] Not sure what would be an equivalent. They're a Government organ responsible for taking care of public patrimony, provide transparency, fight corruption and other things Link: https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2020/Dezembro/veja-como-funciona-a-auditoria-de-funcionamento-das-urnas-eletronicas https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2020/Dezembro/ve... So you see, there's a lot of space for people from outside of the Government, the Electoral Court and the political system in general to take part in the audit proceedings. I personally know someone who has followed the audit process. He's also fighting for opening up the source code but has vouched for it. In fact, one of his arguments for opening up is precisely the fact that the audits have all come out well (with observations for improvements).

vulcan01 3y ago
You forgot to add your "[1]" footnote, but based on your description the equivalent would probably be the US's Government Accountability Office.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  Thanks, I didn't forget but because I only pressed return once it's inline with [0]. I'll update it for better formatting and with this new information.
irusensei 3y ago
> That's not quite the case. > Proceeds to mention the few government and government related entities that can audit the system. > I know someone... ...
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  Is there a point to this?
  - irusensei 3y ago
    Yes. The fact that you didnt dispelled any of my critics about independent auditing. None of those institutions operate outside of the government sphere of influence (even private universities). In the end you just said "it's safe because they told us so... and by the way I know a guy". Seriously I'm appalled if you think your arguments are reasonable. That's a very classic brazilian response, to have trust and faith in the smart people doing the work for you. It's probably a scar from the times of dictatorship. I don't trust. I want to verify.
    - cassianoleal 3y ago
      Despite your disrespectful and prejudiced response, I will try to address some of your criticism. > I don't trust. I want to verify. Please re-read the very first sentence in my original comment. Hopefully uou'll see that we agree in this point. > None of those institutions operate outside of the government sphere of influence No one is outside of the government's sphere of influence. What that committe is, is a reunion of many different organisations with different points of view and participation of people from all levels of society. I would hope that you don't think Bolsonaro's PL and the PCdoB (Communist Party of Brazil) both have the same interest in defrauding the elections or letting a bad system stay in place. SBC, Confea and the universities all have regular people, some of whom any one of us know, are or have worked or studied with. That's where the "someone I know" anecdote comes in. I'm not saying anyone should believe or trust this random person who's an aquantaince of another random person on an Internet forum. It's just an anecdote to illustrate a point. There's no need to be rude about it. > Seriously I'm appalled if you think your arguments are reasonable. That's your prerrogative, I have no power over what appals you. > That's a very classic brazilian response This is prejudiced and offensive. Please refrain from this kind of comment. > to have trust and faith in the smart people doing the work for you. Not my point, but please tell me how much auditing and verification you do on every single other aspect of your life. Or do you trust people "smart people" to, I don't know, write your banking software? The e-commerce websites you buy from? The banking system behind payments and transfers? The systems that hold your investments, your pension... Please, I'd love to hear about all of that auditing and verifying you do. > It's probably a scar from the times of dictatorship. I have no idea what you mean by this. It honestly makes the opposite of sense to me, but if you could elaborate a little, perhaps you'd help me understand.
cassianoleal 3y ago
Seems like I can't edit the original comment, so just to add/correct: [1] Equivalent in the US would be the Government Accountability Office, according to user vulcan01 (thanks!)
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Who cares about source code? The build system links unaudited libraries downloaded off the network. The very definition of a supply chain vulnerability. Source code literally doesn't matter. I will not be satisfied until they release all the signed binaries that ran on the machines on election day for the whole world to see. None of this "nothing but pen and paper" bullshit imposed by the courts either, we have reverse engineering tools for a reason. What are they so afraid of? They should have to prove beyond shadow of doubt that this system is not compromised. Open source both the software and hardware and release the binary artifacts used on election day. Let the whole world take the whole thing apart in Ghidra. If the system is so "unquestionable" as the judge claims, no one will find anything wrong with it. If that happens, I'll never again speak of this matter. What do they do instead? Censorship, arbitrary fines, intimidation, persecution.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  > The build system links unaudited libraries downloaded off the network. How do you know this? I thought it was all inauditable! Also, what does it matter if "the build system links" whatever libraries, if said libraries are not used by the program? Or do you admit that the source code would in fact show that usage? If it's the latter, then I suspect the answer to your very first question should be obvious. > I will not be satisfied until they release all the signed binaries that ran on the machines on election day for the whole world to see. Good stuff! Neither you nor I should be satisfied! Note: As for the rest of what you wrote, I won't engage. I've already seen plenty of your behaviour on this website and it's mostly of the "enraged Facebook/WhatsApp uncle" / "old man shouts at clouds" / "someone is wrong on the Internet" type. If you'd like to discuss more of the above, in objective terms or subjective but civil, I'm happy to do so. Otherwise this is my last comment on this branch of the comment tree.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > How do you know this? It says so on the military's audit report. They observed network connections during the compilation of the voting machine software. Software libraries that have not been audited are downloaded and linked. > I thought it was all inauditable! I never said that. I only ever claimed the audits were insufficient. Especially TSE's limited "pen and paper" audits. I even gave you an example of an audit I personally would deem sufficient. > Also, what does it matter if "the build system links" whatever libraries, if said libraries are not used by the program? If you link malicious code to your binary, it's pretty much game over. Of course it matters. Are you saying the libraries aren't linked to the voting machine program? How do you know that? > Or do you admit that the source code would in fact show that usage? I admit nothing of the sort. I state that it's precisely the opposite. You can have perfectly good source code and still end up with a malicious result. Earliest example of such a thing is of course the famous text Reflections on Trusting Trust. More recently, there are numerous examples open source software libraries with malicious code shipped to package managers like npm and pypi. Supply chain attacks that have compromised people from this very site. One of the reasons reproducible builds exist is to mitigate exactly that attack, it works by establishing cryptographic relation between the compiled binary and the source code used to build it. > I've already seen plenty of your behaviour on this website and it's mostly of the "enraged Facebook/WhatsApp uncle" / "old man shouts at clouds" / "someone is wrong on the Internet" type. Look who's prejudiced now. If you don't want to reply to me because you don't like me or what I think, I'm okay with that. It's not acceptable for you to paint me as some unthinking moron though. Perhaps I came across as "uncivil" in my words because of my disgust for the status quo but I never did anything of the sort to you. My hatred is reserved for the brazilian institutions which I perceive as total failures. So either refute what I said or leave it be but don't accuse me of being some "enraged WhatsApp uncle".

vulcan01 3y ago

You forgot to add your "[1]" footnote, but based on your description the equivalent would probably be the US's Government Accountability Office.

cassianoleal 3y ago
Thanks, I didn't forget but because I only pressed return once it's inline with [0]. I'll update it for better formatting and with this new information.

irusensei 3y ago

> That's not quite the case. > Proceeds to mention the few government and government related entities that can audit the system. > I know someone... ...

cassianoleal 3y ago
Is there a point to this?
- irusensei 3y ago
  Yes. The fact that you didnt dispelled any of my critics about independent auditing. None of those institutions operate outside of the government sphere of influence (even private universities). In the end you just said "it's safe because they told us so... and by the way I know a guy". Seriously I'm appalled if you think your arguments are reasonable. That's a very classic brazilian response, to have trust and faith in the smart people doing the work for you. It's probably a scar from the times of dictatorship. I don't trust. I want to verify.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    Despite your disrespectful and prejudiced response, I will try to address some of your criticism. > I don't trust. I want to verify. Please re-read the very first sentence in my original comment. Hopefully uou'll see that we agree in this point. > None of those institutions operate outside of the government sphere of influence No one is outside of the government's sphere of influence. What that committe is, is a reunion of many different organisations with different points of view and participation of people from all levels of society. I would hope that you don't think Bolsonaro's PL and the PCdoB (Communist Party of Brazil) both have the same interest in defrauding the elections or letting a bad system stay in place. SBC, Confea and the universities all have regular people, some of whom any one of us know, are or have worked or studied with. That's where the "someone I know" anecdote comes in. I'm not saying anyone should believe or trust this random person who's an aquantaince of another random person on an Internet forum. It's just an anecdote to illustrate a point. There's no need to be rude about it. > Seriously I'm appalled if you think your arguments are reasonable. That's your prerrogative, I have no power over what appals you. > That's a very classic brazilian response This is prejudiced and offensive. Please refrain from this kind of comment. > to have trust and faith in the smart people doing the work for you. Not my point, but please tell me how much auditing and verification you do on every single other aspect of your life. Or do you trust people "smart people" to, I don't know, write your banking software? The e-commerce websites you buy from? The banking system behind payments and transfers? The systems that hold your investments, your pension... Please, I'd love to hear about all of that auditing and verifying you do. > It's probably a scar from the times of dictatorship. I have no idea what you mean by this. It honestly makes the opposite of sense to me, but if you could elaborate a little, perhaps you'd help me understand.

cassianoleal 3y ago

Seems like I can't edit the original comment, so just to add/correct: [1] Equivalent in the US would be the Government Accountability Office, according to user vulcan01 (thanks!)

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Who cares about source code? The build system links unaudited libraries downloaded off the network. The very definition of a supply chain vulnerability. Source code literally doesn't matter. I will not be satisfied until they release all the signed binaries that ran on the machines on election day for the whole world to see. None of this "nothing but pen and paper" bullshit imposed by the courts either, we have reverse engineering tools for a reason. What are they so afraid of? They should have to prove beyond shadow of doubt that this system is not compromised. Open source both the software and hardware and release the binary artifacts used on election day. Let the whole world take the whole thing apart in Ghidra. If the system is so "unquestionable" as the judge claims, no one will find anything wrong with it. If that happens, I'll never again speak of this matter. What do they do instead? Censorship, arbitrary fines, intimidation, persecution.

cassianoleal 3y ago
> The build system links unaudited libraries downloaded off the network. How do you know this? I thought it was all inauditable! Also, what does it matter if "the build system links" whatever libraries, if said libraries are not used by the program? Or do you admit that the source code would in fact show that usage? If it's the latter, then I suspect the answer to your very first question should be obvious. > I will not be satisfied until they release all the signed binaries that ran on the machines on election day for the whole world to see. Good stuff! Neither you nor I should be satisfied! Note: As for the rest of what you wrote, I won't engage. I've already seen plenty of your behaviour on this website and it's mostly of the "enraged Facebook/WhatsApp uncle" / "old man shouts at clouds" / "someone is wrong on the Internet" type. If you'd like to discuss more of the above, in objective terms or subjective but civil, I'm happy to do so. Otherwise this is my last comment on this branch of the comment tree.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > How do you know this? It says so on the military's audit report. They observed network connections during the compilation of the voting machine software. Software libraries that have not been audited are downloaded and linked. > I thought it was all inauditable! I never said that. I only ever claimed the audits were insufficient. Especially TSE's limited "pen and paper" audits. I even gave you an example of an audit I personally would deem sufficient. > Also, what does it matter if "the build system links" whatever libraries, if said libraries are not used by the program? If you link malicious code to your binary, it's pretty much game over. Of course it matters. Are you saying the libraries aren't linked to the voting machine program? How do you know that? > Or do you admit that the source code would in fact show that usage? I admit nothing of the sort. I state that it's precisely the opposite. You can have perfectly good source code and still end up with a malicious result. Earliest example of such a thing is of course the famous text Reflections on Trusting Trust. More recently, there are numerous examples open source software libraries with malicious code shipped to package managers like npm and pypi. Supply chain attacks that have compromised people from this very site. One of the reasons reproducible builds exist is to mitigate exactly that attack, it works by establishing cryptographic relation between the compiled binary and the source code used to build it. > I've already seen plenty of your behaviour on this website and it's mostly of the "enraged Facebook/WhatsApp uncle" / "old man shouts at clouds" / "someone is wrong on the Internet" type. Look who's prejudiced now. If you don't want to reply to me because you don't like me or what I think, I'm okay with that. It's not acceptable for you to paint me as some unthinking moron though. Perhaps I came across as "uncivil" in my words because of my disgust for the status quo but I never did anything of the sort to you. My hatred is reserved for the brazilian institutions which I perceive as total failures. So either refute what I said or leave it be but don't accuse me of being some "enraged WhatsApp uncle".