Slashdot Mirror


Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System

rbuysse writes "A million monkeys can write Shakespeare, but it only takes one to mess up an election. Scoop here." Blackboxvoting is behind this demonstration; there's also a lengthy thread on the Bugtraq mailing list.

26 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. So, uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that chimp one of the Diebold engineers?

    1. Re:So, uh by cgranade · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't insult the monkeys!

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    2. Re:So, uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You fools laugh, but this could be serious. Maybe it's some kind of super monkey. What if there's more supermonkeys like it? WHAT IF THEY'RE CREATING AN ARMY OF THEM? Holy shit. It must be a conspiracy like in the X-Files... ROSWELL style. This little monkey could be the fuckin' damn dirty ape responsible for the fall of the human race. In this world gone mad, we won't spank the monkey- the monkey will spank us. And after the fall of man, these monkey fucks'll start wearing our clothes and rebuilding the world in their image. OH and only those as super smart as me will be left alive to bitterly cry - DAMN YOUS DIEBOLD. Goddamn yous all to hell.

  2. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A new denial of service attack is spreading through the wild. It involves hurling feces...

  3. Video Mirror by chrispyman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Incase of the enevitable slashdotting, here's the movie of the chimp hacking the vote.

  4. No kiddin' by HateBreeder · · Score: 5, Funny

    A million monkeys can write Shakespeare, but it only takes one to mess up an election.

    I'm a proud Bush voter, You insensitive clod!

    --
    Sigs are for the weak.
  5. Attention Script Kiddies.... by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Final_Results.Mdb
    Look for this attatchment on the Electoral College's Outlook Express inbox.

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  6. It's all a liberal conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's why the liberal media, like Fox, is reporting on it.

  7. Re:This story could make a liberal's head explode by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They want to hate Republicans for possible taking advantage of flaws in evoting,
    Who? Where? Please provide examples of a credible (ie. non-conspiracy theorist) source suggesting that Republicans might abuse a security hole.
    and they also want to hate Fox News....
    I'll give you the Fox News thing, but since your previous argument is now void, the novelty has worn off of this argument too. Anyway, "Hate corporate run news media" would have been a much more accurate term.
    WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?
    It means that your trolling was unsuccessful today. Please move along.
  8. Re:This story could make a liberal's head explode by cgranade · · Score: 5, Informative
    Who? Where? Please provide examples of a credible (ie. non-conspiracy theorist) source suggesting that Republicans might abuse a security hole.

    Try the US Civil Rights Commission. (Their report on the Florida electoral fraud is available here: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm )

    --

    #define DRM chmod 000

  9. Re:This story could make a liberal's head explode by tajmorton · · Score: 5, Informative
    Who? Where? Please provide examples of a credible (ie. non-conspiracy theorist) source suggesting that Republicans might abuse a security hole.

    "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
    - Wally O'Dell, CEO Diebold

    --
    Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
  10. What I don't understand is why... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    rather than going 'all electronic' there are not more efforts to have a hybrid paper-computer model, off the top of my head:

    - the voter comes to the poll, is identified and is given a paper token with a barcode that contains the polling ID station ID and a sequential number (note that the ID is not humanly readable, important for privacy)

    - the voter goes in the box, which has a touch screen and an 'easy' UI, voter inserts the paper token in the box which scans it

    - voter votes on the touch screen (make it really easy, BIG buttons, BIG text, whatever)

    - machine prints out a ballot with the voter's vote in humanly readable form (say, prints out a 'real' ballot with blackened out rectangles on the relevant candidate(s)) and a 2D barcode at the bottom with the vote in machine readable form including the ID on the 'paper token'

    - voter looks at the ballot to make sure it's ok, folds it, comes out, puts the ballot in one box and the paper token in the other. If the ballot is not ok there is a shredder right there inside the poll station and the voter votes again.

    ========= election over ===========

    the paper token are shipped to the central office, scanned (should be very fast via the 2d barcodes) and votes tabulated accordingly; for an additional level of security you can always count the votes via the 'human readable' part of the ballot before shipping them.

    If a recount or anything is necessary there are several safeguards with this system:

    - you can't have ballot box stuffing, because 1 'token' = 1 vote and if those ID are generated 'well' you could even double check that all IDs make sense, sort of like a 'there are only so many valid serial numbers' there. Multiple votes with the same 'ID' will be discarded.

    - you can't have doubts on the voter intent, they'll vote on the screen *AND* look at the paper copy before putting it in the ballot box later on

    - if there is really no trust in the computers no problem, you can just look at the 'human readable' portion of the ballot as many times as you want: no nonsense about hanging chads or anything.

    this (or something like it) would cover all the bases in terms of fast results (via scanning ballots, ship them all to a central location and do it), paper trail and so on. I really can't understand who in their right mind would consider putting the fate of the election in the hands of MS Access, for crying out loud!

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
    1. Re:What I don't understand is why... by Woody77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1-2: Handled by millions of point-of-sale terminals already. This is no large feat of engineering that needs to be reinvented.

      3: Scantrons are ancient, and work well, with a very low error rate, at least, lower than hanging chads when you've got machines to properly mark the cards in the first place.

      4: He walks out of the booth with it, and right up to the ballot box, just like we do currently. No big deal, and after that, he can have proof he voted, but the card with the actual votes on it is in the box.

      =====

      I wouldn't be amiss to a mis-vote called whenever the election was indeterminate with a known (low) level of error. Like, 0.01% or less (or some other number, that one was pulled out of thin air). To cover error in the system.

      Automatic revote.

  11. Your first clue by nerd256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "saves vote totals in Microsoft Access"
    Hey, at least its accurate advertising

  12. Spin Spin Spin by miu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:
    "Quite honestly it's somewhat insulting to elections officials and volunteers," he said to the idea that elections officers would tamper with vote results.
    -Some Diebold talking head.

    Sure we trust the election officials, but do we trust every contractor or tech who might work on those systems? Especially as Diebold seems so lax in checking backgrounds that people with convictions for fraud, blackmail, and embezzlement have access to their code. I'd bet that their contractors are even less subject to appropriate background checks.

    --

    [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
  13. Re:Fair and balanced?? by stockmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I agree that there is an apparent bias in the politics of the stories submitted by CmdrTaco, though I feel any individual contributor to Slashdot is certainly entitled to have a bias. That's the great thing about the availability of feedback; we can all express our opinions.

    However, most of the rejected stories you listed have nothing to do with technology; they merely describe political news or events. I think the bias Slashdot has toward "news for nerds" is appropriate; we can get our pure political news from other sources.

    When I'm reading slashdot, I'm looking for info about tech trends and social impacts therefrom, nothing more.

  14. Thankfully... by burtonator · · Score: 5, Funny

    The good thing is that even though a monkey can hack the system this still puts the hack out of the reach of the average Republican ;)

  15. Wrong headline by Oriumpor · · Score: 5, Funny

    But I guess Chimp hacks Access Database isn't really news.

  16. Imagine the damage that a...... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    beowulf cluster of chimps could do.

  17. for-profit voting systems by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't it basically unconscionable that the actual process of elections be a for-profit venture? While the military may buy hardware from outside vendors, it does so because certain problems require such specific, high-level technical knowledge and manufacturing know-how which they don't posess in-house. A voting system is, at it's core, a system of adding numbers together that any first-year comp sci student could create. Why is something so basic to the legitimacy of our government being given to for-profit ventures with closed systems?

    At the government's disposal are hundreds of public universities with some of the brightest minds in the country, many of whom would gladly work on implementing the great american open-source voting system. Even if these graduate students and professors were paid market rates for their work, it would still be much cheaper than what Diebold systems are costing the US. There is also no competitive advantate go keeping the system closed-source... so what if Austrailia decides they want to run their elections on our software? We've proud of other countries copying our constitution and systems of government, why not our systems of elections too? Especially if they improve it, and give those improvements back to us? What, are we suddenly going to be exporting less consumables to them because they have more legitimate elected officials?

    1. Re:for-profit voting systems by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Isn't it basically unconscionable that the actual process of elections be a for-profit venture?

      This is already the case today. Do you think the current voting booths or the printed ballots are manufactured by the Salvation Army? Why should it be a surprise that when the government moves from lower to higher tech forms of voting it continues to buy from private industries? I agree that buying from a corrupt and/ or incompetent company is reprehensible. I also agree that everything should be accountable to the voters and the software, security mechanisms, etc., should not be kept secret. But I don't like the idea that the government should be unable to give a contract to any private company to manufacture any of the tools used to run the election. That is neither workable nor desirable.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
  18. Re:No kiddin' - FOR REAL... by neil.pearce · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A million monkeys can write Shakespeare...

    Perhaps you'd like to visit The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, which randomly attempts to duplicate Shakespeare's work (don't worry about legal aspects, you can generally assume it's out of copyright).

    The current record is 20 letters from "Coriolanus" after 462,060,000,000 billion billion monkey-years. Sent in by Jens Ulrik Jacobsen from Denmark on 31 Aug 2004.
    "1. Citizen. Before w ZgJ 8GPxwFnwvG&iX4tKfo("2ny!3Pp..."
    matched
    "1. Citizen. Before w e proceed any further, heare me speake All. Speake, speake 1.Cit. You are all resolu'd rather to dy then to famish? All. Resolu'd, resolu'd..."

  19. Re:Monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    that monkeys will be prevented from accessing the machines

    Which is un-constutional: Our president has the right to vote too!

  20. Reset the Election by Soldrinero · · Score: 5, Funny
    Did anyone else burst out laughing when they read this?
    The entire voting record can be deleted by choosing "reset the election" on a drop-down menu, he said, or a hacker can destroy a tabulator's ability to recognize ballots by un-selecting three checkboxes on a program control panel.

    I mean, really. They practically have a button that says "Press to Hack Election."

    --
    I would rather be killed by a terrorist than enslaved by my government.
  21. Diebold responds by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Funny

    When asked about the chimp hacking their voting machine a Diebold spokesman shrieked loudly, barred his teeth and threw feces at the offending reporters.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  22. Re:Monkeys by dhalgren99 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Elections administrator Linda Lamone said" that monkeys will be prevented from accessing the machines during the elections..... :P

    So, does this mean that Florida won't be allowed to vote in the coming elections?