Attacks/Breaches

10/13/2016
01:00 PM
Jai Vijayan
Jai Vijayan
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

7 Ways Electronic Voting Systems Can Be Attacked

Pre-election integrity tests and post-election audits and checks should help spot discrepancies and errors, but risks remain.
Previous
1 of 8
Next

Image Source: Fredex via Shutterstock

Image Source: Fredex via Shutterstock

Concerns about the fragility of US electronic voting systems to cyberattacks go back to 2002 when the Help America Vote Act was passed mandating the replacement of lever-based machines and punchcards with more modern voting equipment.

Those concerns have been greatly amplified this election season with reports of attacks on voter registration systems in some 20 states and intrusions into the Democratic National Committee’s computers by hackers believed to be out of Russia.

The attacks have stirred considerable fears about foreign adversaries and nation-state actors somehow disrupting the elections and even manipulating the outcome of the voting to favor one of the two major party candidates.

The reality is less alarmist than might first appear.

Recent attacks involving the theft of data from voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona certainly serve as a warning about the potential for foreign actors to cause problems. But the fact is that the attacks have been on systems used to manage the elections and handle tasks like voter registration, not the voting systems that people will use to cast ballots.

The actual machines that people will use to vote are not Internet-connected and are therefore protected against a vast number of cyberattacks that people assume the systems are exposed to, the National Association of Secretaries of State said in an open letter to Congress recently.

In all states but five, a vast majority of the electronic voting equipment that voters use will have paper backups. Some voters will use what are known as Direct-Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems to cast their votes electronically. Others will mark their choices on a paper ballot and feed it into an optical scanner that will do the ballot counting. In both cases, voters and election officials will have a so-called Voter Verifiable Paper Audit trail that will provide a reliable backup even if the machines fail or are somehow compromised.

Pre-election integrity tests and post-election audits and checks should help spot discrepancies and errors as well, the NASS has noted while cautioning against a loss of public confidence in the US voting system.

Despite such reassurances, security analysts point to several weaknesses in electronic voting systems that attackers could take advantage of to cause varying degrees of problems.

Here are seven of those security weaknesses in e-voting systems.

 

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
10/15/2016 | 1:43:46 PM
One place where we need open source
Contributing to all of these factors (especially #3) is that electronic voting systems are proprietary and not open source.  Accordingly, there is no real auditing that can be done -- and whenever an update gets pushed out, it has to go through an onerous, lengthy vetting process (where very little genuinely useful information actually gets discovered) -- sometimes up to two years...meaning that systems stay un-updated for two years or more, that the updates may be ineffective if not outright bad, and that local governments don't have the time or money to train their volunteers on the systems.
Election Websites, Back-End Systems Most at Risk of Cyberattack in Midterms
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/14/2018
Intel Reveals New Spectre-Like Vulnerability
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/15/2018
Australian Teen Hacked Apple Network
Dark Reading Staff 8/17/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-2765
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
pyro before 3.15 unsafely handles pid files in temporary directory locations and opening the pid file as root. An attacker can use this flaw to overwrite arbitrary files via symlinks.
CVE-2018-15594
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c in the Linux kernel before 4.18.1 mishandles certain indirect calls, which makes it easier for attackers to conduct Spectre-v2 attacks against paravirtual guests.
CVE-2018-15572
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
The spectre_v2_select_mitigation function in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c in the Linux kernel before 4.18.1 does not always fill RSB upon a context switch, which makes it easier for attackers to conduct userspace-userspace spectreRSB attacks.
CVE-2018-15573
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in Reprise License Manager (RLM) through 12.2BL2. Attackers can use the web interface to read and write data to any file on disk (as long as rlm.exe has access to it) via /goform/edit_lf_process with file content in the lfdata parameter and a pathname in the lf...
CVE-2018-15574
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in the license editor in Reprise License Manager (RLM) through 12.2BL2. It is a cross-site scripting vulnerability in the /goform/edit_lf_get_data lf parameter via GET or POST. NOTE: the vendor has stated "We do not consider this a vulnerability."