A whistleblower from within Diebold has come forward and stated that the company not only knows about security problems with its electronic voting machines and central tabulator software, it doesn’t really care.
In exclusive stunning admissions to The BRAD BLOG some 11 months after the 2004 Presidential Election, a “Diebold Insider” is now finally speaking out for the first time about the alarming security flaws within Diebold, Inc’s electronic voting systems, software and machinery. The source is acknowledging that the company’s “upper management” — as well as “top government officials” — were keenly aware of the “undocumented backdoor” in Diebold’s main “GEM Central Tabulator” software well prior to the 2004 election. A branch of the Federal Government even posted a security warning on the Internet.
Pointing to a little-noticed “Cyber Security Alert” issued by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the source inside Diebold — who “for the time being” is requesting anonymity due to a continuing sensitive relationship with the company — is charging that Diebold’s technicians, including at least one of its lead programmers, knew about the security flaw and that the company instructed them to keep quiet about it.
“Diebold threatened violators with immediate dismissal,” the insider, who we’ll call DIEB-THROAT, explained recently to The BRAD BLOG via email. “In 2005, after one newly hired member of Diebold’s technical staff pointed out the security flaw, he was criticized and isolated.”
In phone interviews, DIEB-THROAT confirmed that the matters were well known within the company, but that a “culture of fear” had been developed to assure that employees, including technicians, vendors and programmers kept those issues to themselves. — The Brad Blog
I let you know back in June that the Diebold system was easily hacked; the hack was even demonstrated for the unbelievers.
As it turns out, the hack can be carried out by one person, and the results tampered with in such a way that the tampering is completely undetectable by normal canvassing procedures. The election results have never been in more doubt than now; this Diebold system simply cannot be trusted. — Homeland Stupidity
Diebold continues to state publicly that its systems are secure, but the evidence against that claim is pretty overwhelming at this point.
(Hat tip one again to Bruce Schneier.)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Billy
Sep 20, 2005
I have a theory on how the Diebold machines could be made to cheat. I offer this theory for discussion here and I admit up front that I have never seen or used a Diebold but my experience designing and manufacturing digital circuits and programming microprocessors tells me the Diebold machine cannot be very complicated.
The Diebold probably consists of:
1) a microprocessor
2) some RAM
3) keys voters press to register their vote
4) an LCD screen or printer that shows the totals after the polling station closes
5) software programmed into the microprocessor
The software is very simple. The software causes the microprocessor to sense which key is pressed. If button A is pressed then candidate A gets 1 vote added to his total. If button B is pressed then candidate B gets 1 vote added to his total. The running totals are stored in the RAM.
When the polling station closes the officers insert a key into a lock on the Diebold machine, turns the key, and the machine spits out the totals.
How could such a device be made to cheat in favor of a certain candidate? There are 2 ways that I can think of.
One way would be to tamper with the software. A software cheat would be the easiest to detect because the software can be easily analysed by most programmers. If the software was dishonest it would be spotted immediately.
Another way would be to tamper with the microprocessor. It is possible to build a microprocessor that looks like the microprocessor Diebold says it puts in the machine but does not actually work the way that model of microprocessor is supposed to work. It would cheat and the cheat would, I think, be almost impossible to detect.
Any thoughts on this?
Michael Hampton
Sep 20, 2005
Billy, I think you’ll find what they actually did is much simpler and far more insidious.
You can dial in to any Diebold central tabulator that has a modem hooked up to it, and change the election results for whatever election they happen to be running, and it’s not likely anyone will ever detect it.
Oh, and I put up those links for your edification. Use them. :)
tyler
Sep 20, 2005
These machines are bad. They do have modems, supposedly none of them are enabled though. Not sure why they’d even include a modem in the machine if it’s not used.
I don’t even know how the poll results from these machines are extracted. I would assume that the modem is used so the polling data can be downloaded to another box. But again, I thought Diebold claimed the modems weren’t even activated in the machines being used.
If the modem truly isn’t used, it’s obviously an intentional backdoor. It’s probably really easy to get into…most likely just dropping you to a shell after you’re connected so you can manipulate whatever you like on the system via a command line interface.
But, I’m not too familiar with the whole Diebold story, so I’m probably way off.
Michael Hampton
Sep 20, 2005
Like most of what Diebold has said, that’s not true either. Many jurisdictions use the modems.
Billy
Sep 21, 2005
IO ERROR, yes I see what you mean now. What they actually did is simpler than the hardware cheat I described.
I am astounded that a system so vulnerable to tampering is being used for anything more than electing dog catchers and bingo club presidents. It just goes to show you what happens when tehnology gets into the hands of idiots.
I am sure an electronic vote tallying system could be designed that would be faster and more secure than paper ballots but the Diebold system is GARBAGE and needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY.
Michael Hampton
Sep 21, 2005
Billy, stick around, for I’m all about exposing homeland stupidity, and there’s a lot of it.
I don’t even use Diebold ATMs anymore. Not if I actually want money, anyway…
Dec 23, 2005
Diebold quits North Carolina - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Jan 01, 2006
Diebold tries to evade North Carolina election law - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Sep 14, 2006
Election can be stolen in “under a minute” with Diebold machines - Homeland Stupidity