Menu:

Unfettered access?

This was not a security risk evaluation but an unrealistic worst case scenario evaluation [...] performed in a laboratory environment by computer security experts with unfettered access to the machines and software over several weeks. This is not a real-world scenario [...]

     Sequoia, July 30, 2007

Security reviews of the Hart system as tested in California, Colorado, and Ohio were conducted by people who were given unfettered access to code, equipment, tools and time [...]

     Hart InterCivic, June 2008

The "unfettered access" claim has been a standard response from electronic machine vendors to the reports of serious security flaws in their equipment, as identified by recent evaluations, such as the California's Top-To-Bottom Review and the Ohio's EVEREST project.

This claim, essentially, postulates two theories:

  1. Vulnerabilities can be discovered only if analysts have extended access to the voting equipment under study.
  2. Attackers don't have extended access to voting equipment.

Theory number 1) is very suspicious from a security point of view, in that it builds on two discredited ideas: that "attackers/analysts have limited capabilities" (weak threat model), and that "as long as the system is unknown, it is secure" (security by obscurity). I will not elaborate further on this, since, I think, what follows is more interesting.

Theory number 2) (electronic voting equipment is not available to the general public) has been proven wrong a number of times in the past. There are various ways in which voting equipment can become accessible to non authorized people:

Here is a list of cases when, for similar or other reasons, voting systems have finished (or might have finished) in the hands of the general public:

I'll try to maintain this list accurate and up-to-date, so if you know more cases, please, let me know! Thanks to Joseph Lorenzo Hall for his comments and for contributing many entries to this list. Errors are mine.

To leave a comment, complete the form below. Mandatory fields are marked *.

Comment details