Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Hacking The Polls: Where US Voting Processes Fall Short
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
9/29/2016 | 7:50:36 AM
Re: Pah.
@Jeff: Yes, don't get me wrong.  I do think the "IT" of it has a lot of problems, but you are totally right that the process is just as much (if not more) to blame.  For instance, bureaucratic government approaches for vetting updates to proprietary voting systems keep said voting systems vulnerable for longer.

As for Internet voting, studies have demonstrated that it doesn't encourage non-voters to vote; it simply adds a layer of convenience for people who have already decided to vote.

All of this said (and more), there's a serious ROI issue with e-voting in any form because of the security perils.

( I roundly criticized e-voting security a couple of years ago here: enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsecur/hack-early-hack-often-the-perils-of-electronic-voting.html )

Jeff.schilling
Jeff.schilling,
User Rank: Author
9/29/2016 | 3:07:20 AM
Re: Pah.
Joe,  Thank you for your comments.  I think no matter what process we adopt in each of the states, we need to focus on securing that process.  Many folks want to blame the IT systems for being unsecure.  However, in most cases, it is the process itself that is not secure.  Our payment card industry is a perfect example to illustrate that point.  We never really changed the process of how we manage credit payments at the point of sale, we just put it in "electrons."  We are starting to see many innovations in that space now to keep you from having to show your credit card at the point of sale.  I think the voting process needs the same innovative look.
Jeff.schilling
Jeff.schilling,
User Rank: Author
9/29/2016 | 3:00:47 AM
Re: Why is This Suddenly an Issue?
Agree this is not a new risk, but there has not been any real effort to address this wicked problem.  That is what I was calling out in the article.  I know there is not a lot of trust in a federal program for electronic voting and that is not what I am proposing.  I am proposing that some of the "have not" states who can't seem to put the investment needed to get their voting processess secure, pool their resources in "state to state" agreeements.  
geriatric
geriatric,
User Rank: Moderator
9/28/2016 | 1:27:37 PM
Why is This Suddenly an Issue?
There have been grave concerns with electronic voting ever since this turkey was foisted on the public. The lack of an audit trail, the ability to 'flip' votes, and machines delivered with votes already cast have littered the headlines for decades. But NOW it's a problem? I'll leave the answer to this question to rational, reasonable beings. Seems rather obvious to me.

We need to figure out how to authenticate a paper vote first.

And from a security perspective, a decentralized system is more secure than a Federally-controlled national system. Right now, there are vulnerabilities, but no way to hack the entire system to produce a desired outcome. If all the eggs are in one basket, it will be much simpler.
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
9/28/2016 | 11:40:48 AM
Pah.
The NIST standards are a helpful tool -- but they are FAR from a helpful salve (particularly considering how the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is a bit M&M-security-focused...with much less focus on what to do during and after an initial breach and much more focus on initial prevention).

Frankly, we need to perfect the sanctity and security of old-fashioned in-person voting before we move forward with more e-voting measures.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Incorporating a Prevention Mindset into Threat Detection and Response
Threat detection and response systems, by definition, are reactive because they have to wait for damage to be done before finding the attack. With a prevention-mindset, security teams can proactively anticipate the attacker's next move, rather than reacting to specific threats or trying to detect the latest techniques in real-time. The report covers areas enterprises should focus on: What positive response looks like. Improving security hygiene. Combining preventive actions with red team efforts.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-22497
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
IBM Aspera Faspex 4.4.1 and 5.0.0 could allow unauthorized access due to an incorrectly computed security token. IBM X-Force ID: 226951.
CVE-2022-29334
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
An issue in H v1.0 allows attackers to bypass authentication via a session replay attack.
CVE-2022-29337
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
C-DATA FD702XW-X-R430 v2.1.13_X001 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the va_cmd parameter in formlanipv6. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted HTTP request.
CVE-2022-29333
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
A vulnerability in CyberLink Power Director v14 allows attackers to escalate privileges via a crafted .exe file.
CVE-2021-3597
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
A flaw was found in undertow. The HTTP2SourceChannel fails to write the final frame under some circumstances, resulting in a denial of service. The highest threat from this vulnerability is availability. This flaw affects Undertow versions prior to 2.0.35.SP1, prior to 2.2.6.SP1, prior to 2.2.7.SP1,...