California Wants All E-Voting Machines To Get Independent Review By Security Experts
from the good-for-CA dept
One of our biggest complaints with e-voting systems is that all of the testing is done under severely limited conditions. Neither the voting machine companies nor election officials (with a few very rare exceptions -- who are quickly punished) are willing to let security researchers fully explore the machines for security flaws. No good explanation is ever given for this. Diebold once protested such tests by saying it would undermine "the public's confidence in the security and accuracy" in the machines. That's funny -- if Diebold is worried that such testing would make the public lose confidence in its machines, isn't that an admission that the machines aren't secure enough?
We may soon find out. California politicians are proposing a new e-voting law that would require all e-voting machines in the state to be available for hacking attempts by "red teams" of computer security experts. Of course, the e-voting firms are already complaining, saying there wouldn't be enough time for the firms to upgrade machines -- which, again, certainly sounds like an admission that the firms know that the current machines aren't secure or accurate. You would think that any company that was confident in the security and accuracy of its machines would be overjoyed at the opportunity to have third-party security experts show how secure their machines are.
We may soon find out. California politicians are proposing a new e-voting law that would require all e-voting machines in the state to be available for hacking attempts by "red teams" of computer security experts. Of course, the e-voting firms are already complaining, saying there wouldn't be enough time for the firms to upgrade machines -- which, again, certainly sounds like an admission that the firms know that the current machines aren't secure or accurate. You would think that any company that was confident in the security and accuracy of its machines would be overjoyed at the opportunity to have third-party security experts show how secure their machines are.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Whining...
Look at it this way, it's free testing by professionals. Stop complaining and build a better product.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft, Oracle, IBM all
If the eVoting machine makers are so fearful I can only guess it is because they have reason to fear; their machines are so security weak that they would not stand even minor testing.
I will huff and puff and blow your eVoting machine down. It needs to withstand the brick test.
I like the previous note about RIAA lawsuits:
"Straw will burn."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Careful Cali...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I was careful to not mention the
For anything to last it must stand the test of time.
MSDOS, feudalism, eatable underwear, communism, IBM PCs and the AMC Gremlin can attest to the harsh wind of time.
The eVoting machine will be attacked. Someone will try. The only question is how well the eVoting machine will repel the attack.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Bring on the Red Team!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
so..
i agree with your point though.
and most certainly agree with the notion that these companies very clearly are hiding something.
that was patently obvious when that "evoting machine company employee" happened across this blog a while back.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
also..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore.
(what movie was that from?)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment