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.


10:00 AM
Craig Hinkley
Craig Hinkley
Connect Directly
E-Mail vvv

Election Security 2020: How We Should Allocate $425M in Funding

Too many states and municipalities still rely on aging systems; it's time they upped their game and treated election technology like they would any other security project.

The old curse, "May you live in interesting times," seems appropriate these days, as we look to navigate the challenges of securing the election systems in the US. 

In December 2019, the federal government allocated $425 million for states to upgrade their election security. This is the second round of funding to protect voting systems; the first, in 2018, totaled $380 million. Roughly 90% of that money was allocated for new voting machines and other cybersecurity projects for the elections. However, many feel that both allocations are not enough to properly invest in election security, including hiring cybersecurity experts, conducting post-election audits, and upgrading registration databases and voting machines. 

This is why we must focus on the most effective areas to allocate the recent funding to improve the security of our elections.

How do we start?
The US is known as a technologically advanced country, and there are many options to take on this journey. Yet, the reality is that many states and municipalities still rely on aging systems and infrastructure, which are often complex and decentralized. This fragmentation problem alone is enough to give us pause. Combine that with limited resources and a growing gap in cybersecurity talent, and we have the potential for a runaway train.

First and foremost, this problem needs to be looked at just as a typical organization would with a security budget. An effort of this magnitude needs impeccable planning and execution. Here are five tips to get that process started in the right way.

  • Hire a CISO specifically for election security projects. Just like any other organization would hire a security executive to oversee security efforts, federal and state governments must do the same. While we have heads of security for states and sometimes for municipalities, there is so much decentralization, it’s difficult to get all security experts on the same page and agree to what is necessary. This also helps the common problem of lack of transparency between states and the federal government.
  • Evaluate the current environment and build a custom election security model. Everything from the network and firewall level, down to the application and data layer need to be evaluated thoroughly and made sure they are fully deployed, operational, and effective. We can often learn from other organizations, from different industries, that have been successful in implementing a strong, transparent, and effective security model for their company. It would be helpful to seek the advice and council of those leaders who have attained that level, and who can also help you see any blind spots. 
  • Protect the applications in the actual voting systems. We are often quick to slap on perimeter security in hopes that these measures will take care of a majority of potential incidents. But this way of thinking is limited. If there is one thing that the past 15 years has taught us, is that the perimeter is breaking down, with many experts maintaining that it’s already effectively dissolved. This gave rise to frameworks such as zero-trust security, that given the use of cloud technologies and the collaboration economy, plainly states that all aspects of technology and security must defend itself.

    We can't rely solely on firewall and network security anymore. We must protect the applications and the data itself. This includes implementing extensive application testing protocols — such as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Software Composition Analysis (SCA) — throughout the software development lifecycle, to ensure that your software code isn’t exploited and used to bring down critical infrastructure and other election system technologies. Or worse yet, that your election software isn't hacked, and the actual votes and election results altered thereby hacking our democracy.

  • Understand the risks of using third-party development and security companies.
    Outsourcing development and security projects can introduce risks that any organization must consider before proceeding with this model. These potential hazards can negatively impact the business’s bottom line and bring critical projects to a grinding halt before they can even be launched. Do these third-party vendors deeply understand the problem and the business outcomes you need? It’s also important to know their due diligence and software quality practices when it comes to the development and security of the applications that power election systems.
  • Tap threat research, SOCs, and incident response. It's well understood that you can't protect what you can't see. Make sure there is a solid operations center on this effort at all times, and that you're learning from the data streams it’s uncovering. This includes research about particular threats, that can feed into an overall incident response plan in the event that something happens. SIEMs and security management platforms can help in this effort.

The Bottom Line
This is not a short-term journey, and it’s certainly not an easy one, but it’s possible to get there if we do it right. It takes the involvement and collaboration between states, municipalities and the federal government, as well as security companies that can help provide guidance, and third parties that can help in development and implementation efforts. Let’s not waste any more time and money. Let’s work together and spend this latest allocation in the best and smartest ways possible. Let's work together to keep our democracy hack-proof.

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Top story: "7 Steps to IoT Security in 2020."

Craig Hinkley joined WhiteHat Security as CEO in early 2015, bringing more than 20 years of executive leadership in the technology sector to this role. Craig is driving a customer-centric focus throughout the company and has broadened WhiteHat's global brand and visibility ... View Full Bio

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
7 Old IT Things Every New InfoSec Pro Should Know
Joan Goodchild, Staff Editor,  4/20/2021
Cloud-Native Businesses Struggle With Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/6/2021
Defending Against Web Scraping Attacks
Rob Simon, Principal Security Consultant at TrustedSec,  5/7/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** An issue was discovered on Zebra (formerly Motorola Solutions) Fixed RFID Reader FX9500 devices. An unauthenticated attacker can upload arbitrary files to the filesystem that can then be accessed through the web interface. This can lead to information disclosure and c...
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that received fragments be cleared from memory after (re)connecting to a network. Under the right circumstances, when another device sends fragmented frames encrypted us...
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that all fragments of a frame are encrypted under the same key. An adversary can abuse this to decrypt selected fragments when another device sends fragmented frames and...
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that the A-MSDU flag in the plaintext QoS header field is authenticated. Against devices that support receiving non-SSP A-MSDU frames (which is mandatory as part of 802....
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
An issue was discovered in the kernel in NetBSD 7.1. An Access Point (AP) forwards EAPOL frames to other clients even though the sender has not yet successfully authenticated to the AP. This might be abused in projected Wi-Fi networks to launch denial-of-service attacks against connected clients and...