Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

blog.cylance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#51

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39
gergles wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's preposterous to think that election judges aren't actively verifying seals during election day and making sure nobody is tampering with them. I've been an election worker around the country and have never been in a jurisdiction that did seal checks during the election - only once at the beginning and once at the end. Granted, I've never been in a jurisdiction using DREs, but still. I agree physical security is…

I have been an election worker. We were asked to sign the attestation envelopes in advance. I trust further checks were conducted higher up. But at our level, protocol was ignored.

And you reported this right?

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#52

Post by oxide »

wfunction wrote: post #50
oxide wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a risk you have to take, at some point. you eventually have to trust that someone isn't lying, somewhere along the chain. what else could be done to further vet volunteers? you can't interrogate people or drug them with serums for the truth, so I think it's safe to assume registering is enough. so, to answer your question, I doubt there is any "guarantee" other than the fact that these are volunteers and you'd…

> that's a risk you have to take Well, obviously. But the risk can be high or low, right? You could either let any random voter you don't know walk in and become a volunteer after filling out a form, or you could let maybe ~50 people that the party's head/nominee personally trust pick a set of volunteers nationally based on e.g. personal knowledge or some concrete evidences of their past contributions and allegiance…

let's take this a step further: two republicans, one falsely registered as a democrat, have been paired off at the polling station in Araphaoe County. the lie was bought, the fraud complete. now what?

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#53

Post by wfunction »

oxide wrote: post #52
wfunction wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's a risk you have to take Well, obviously. But the risk can be high or low, right? You could either let any random voter you don't know walk in and become a volunteer after filling out a form, or you could let maybe ~50 people that the party's head/nominee personally trust pick a set of volunteers nationally based on e.g. personal knowledge or some concrete evidences of their past contributions and allegiance…

let's take this a step further: two republicans, one falsely registered as a democrat, have been paired off at the polling station in Araphaoe County. the lie was bought, the fraud complete. now what?

> let's take this a step further: two republicans, one falsely registered as a democrat, now have been paired off at the polling station in Araphaoe County. the lie was bought, the fraud complete. now what?

I don't know, but you seem to be completely ignoring my point. I'm trying to figure out the probability of this happening. I'm NOT trying to figure out what to do after this happens.

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#54

Post by imode »

lovely! more paranoia about the upcoming competition for a single political position.

as if I needed more of a reason to say "wow, this is rigged", now I see this!

I can't imagine how well this will go. november is a cake walk. january is where the fun starts.

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#55

Post by rblatz »

Pinckney wrote: post #44
empath75 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't even need to throw the election. Two or three machines with absurd results in favor of Clinton or Trump would be enough to push the county into civil unrest.

Absurd results aren't what you want, since they're readily dismissed as localized, and people could believe that hacking had no effect on the overall result. You want to prove that hacking took place, but subtly, so that people can imagine it was widespread. More effective would be to preselect a precise number of votes for a few machines in a swing state, with totals just 3-4 percentage points higher than what polli…

If you used a one time pad you could skip the whole hack the election part and generate a key that reflects the actual totals after they've been published.

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#56

Post by wfunction »

cperciva wrote: post #49
wfunction wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everything we did was in pairs of republicans and democrats Question: What constitutes a Democrat or a Republican? Is registering as one enough? What guarantee is there people aren't lying about the parties they identify with?

I don't know about the system in that particular county, but the system in most democracies is that any candidate has the right to appoint a representative to be present. In practice this means that the parties run down their lists of volunteers; depending on how many volunteers they have in a particular area it might be very easy for someone to get appointed as such. (In the last Canadian election, I turned up on el…

Good to know -- thanks for the anecdote!

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#57

Post by rblatz »

mpweiher wrote: post #33

I really don't see what problem these machines are solving, except for "as an operative, I would like additional vectors to manipulate the election". In Germany, we get (a) a paper ballot (b) a pen Works perfectly. And quickly.

How are the paper votes tabulated? If it's by machine you've just kicked the can further down the road.

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#58

Post by galtwho »

peterarmstrong wrote: post #37

Dear America, This all sounds complicated and insecure. Why can you not just do paper voting with simple ballots, like in Canada? Yes, you have 10x the people, but just get 10x the human counters and scrutineers. Counting is parallelizable. We run elections and get accurate, verifiable results in the same day. Ours aren't as nasty as yours are, and we still have better anti-fraud than you do, since every paper ballot…

The largest democracy India has e-voting.

Works fine for them. Why are other countries not going the same way.

There is a move in India to get all voting machines to print out your choice which the voter can drop into a ballot box.

Not sure if that is implemented yet. Surely something like that will work fine.

Re: Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability

#60

Post by [deleted] »

wfunction wrote: post #53
oxide wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let's take this a step further: two republicans, one falsely registered as a democrat, have been paired off at the polling station in Araphaoe County. the lie was bought, the fraud complete. now what?

> let's take this a step further: two republicans, one falsely registered as a democrat, now have been paired off at the polling station in Araphaoe County. the lie was bought, the fraud complete. now what? I don't know, but you seem to be completely ignoring my point. I'm trying to figure out the probability of this happening. I'm NOT trying to figure out what to do after this happens.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN