Slashdot Mirror
Hotel Minibar Key Opens Diebold Voting Machines
Billosaur writes, "As if Diebold doesn't have enough to worry about! On the Freedom To Tinker blog, Ed Felten, one of the co-authors of the recent report 'Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine', reveals an even more bizarre finding related to the initial report. It turns out that you can gain access to an AccuVote-TS machine using a hotel minibar key. In fact, the key in question is a utilitarian type used to open office furniture, electronic equipment, jukeboxes, and the like. They might as well hand them out like candy."
I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and it's been said a thousand times before, but as long as we have closed voting processes, we're going to have people screwing up by doing things like having voting machines accessible with hotel minibar keys. We hate Microsoft for their closed-source software, yet we continue to accept this kind of idiocy.
Quick question: If we have viable alteratives, such as those presented by the Open Voting Consortium, why do we continue to bother with these stupid Diebold machines? I know, dumb answer, because Diebold pays the people who decide lots and lots of money.
I would say write to your Congresscritters and let them know that you want these screwed up pieces of junk out of our polling locations, but like I said, I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and you won't do it. >:-( But realistically, just know that until you do, we can look forward to many, many more articles about this kind of thing. Ooh, at least until we see the one that says, "Electronic voting machines hacked! Election results tainted!." Or even better, when we see nothing at all and Richard M. Stallman is mysteriously elected President in a write-in landslide.
sigh Oh well, it was worth a shot. Just give me my damn +5 and go back to reading about lasers on Intel's chips now.
I'd like to have access to the minibar.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Electronic systems - including electronic voting machines - will always be able to be tampered with, no matter who makes them, no matter what their CEOs stupidly say, no matter what ongoing audit mechanisms are implemented, whether they're open or proprietary, and no matter what legislation or other initiatives mandate or recommend them.
Finding out that computer systems can be tampered with and that some large-scale enterprise-class systems can have shoddy security, physical and otherwise, should come as no surprise to us, particularly in this community. On this particular issue, a generic security key is used because of key management issues and the fact that casual access is what's being prevented. Neither of which excuses this or any of the numerous other glaring shortcomings and flaws in this equipment. No one - citizen, politician, or party - benefits from universally shoddy security on electronic voting systems. No one.
Remember, too, that voting legislation, in large part in response to issues in the 2000 election, designed to ensure fair, uniform, and universal access to voting for all citizens by mandating electronic voting equipment, such as HAVA (2002), were Democratic and bipartisan efforts.
The real issue is that Congress screwed up: they inherently, and erroneously, believed that since we trust so many critically important things to machines, certainly reliable electronic voting is possible, and indeed, we use automation, computers, and machines in almost every aspect of our lives to increase efficiency and reliability - why should voting be any different?
Except for one problem: when you're trying to administer a one-vote-per-person system that also maintains anonymity, and also disallows any external entity from discovering who voted for which candidates, when there is no permanent, voter-verified paper trail, the system as a whole cannot be trusted, since any level of security will always be able to be overridden. This has nothing to do with open source versus proprietary, or how shoddy physical security on e-voting systems is. A permanent, voter-verified paper trail solves all of these problems.
The only problem is that no legislation mandating electronic voting systems includes or speaks to any provisions requiring permanent paper receipt printing capability. All of the major e-voting vendors - Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia - have this capability, but it's an add-on that requires retrofitting existing equipment, or in some cases, purchasing new equipment. And that takes money many counties and municipalities - particularly in the most hotly contested areas - don't have. (Hint: it's not just poor areas that have long lines)
Our focus now should be on passing legislation that requires permanent voter-verified paper trail capability on all newly deployed e-voting systems, and allocates funds and creates a timeline for deployment on existing systems. Please, continue to raise this issue with both your county election officials and your elected representatives.
This issue is too important and too critical to the integrity of our election process to let rest.
---
Temporary disclaimer, since this seems to have been an issue for people reading my posts lately: I am not a Republican, did not vote for Bush in the last election, and have always voted for more non-Republican (usually Democratic) candidates since I have been voting.
the key in question is a utilitarian type
That's the problem right there. You should never religion and state, it always makes one cross.
Have you read my journal today?
Let me see, this key opens voting machines, mini-bars, jukeboxes, etc? Sounds pretty shiny, where do I get one! I need to add it to my lil' bastard music-copying, alcohol-drinking, electrion-throwing kit.
stuff |
After all, these machines were never seriously designed with security in mind...they were designed to be easily compromised.
That's bullshit, and you know it.
When these systems are vulnerable, it's just as easy for ANYONE to take advantage of that fact. Not one party or one political stripe.
As for ATM security:
Citibank ATM fiasco "worst ever"
ATM reprogrammed to give out 4 times more money
Diebold ATMs hit by Nachi worm
If you watch the video of the university guys explaining the hack, you'll see a good closeup of the lock. The lock looks like a real cheapy one; something you'd find on one of those floppy disk / CD storage boxes, or the kind they put on suitcases. I betya the keys for those boxes/suitcase will open this lock as well, with a little jiggling. Hell, these locks can be opened with 2 paper clips.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The only problem is that no legislation mandating electronic voting systems includes or speaks to any provisions requiring permanent paper receipt printing capability.
Do not use the word "receipt" in this context. A receipt is something that you take with you, as a personal record of a transaction. A receipt is worse than useless here... you don't WANT people to be able to show the party bosses that they voted the "right way".
What is needed is a "permanent paper ballot capability", where the ballots are retained at the voting place and serve as the primary official paper (ahem) trail.
Most of those smaller lock cylinders use the same key patterns. Those desk drawer keys and cabinet keys use a very common key blank (usually a Y11 based on a Yale brand cylinder) and from that point there are only a few combinations of cut. Cash drawer manufacturers and receipt printer companies use the same common key, so that explains why you can open McDonald's cash registers..you can likely open mine as well. For cash drawers the key is really just functioning as a latch...same wtih desk drawers and cabinets. A determined thief will get in anyway so it's just to keep the casual thief from pulling the drawer open without delay.
For a voting machine one would hope that they would have used more secure cylinders like the round 7-pin cylinders or maybe Medeco style. The voting machine locks should be at least as secure as unattended machines that hold money, like soda machines, slot machines, even pay phones. Those machines have secure locks with tough-to-duplicate keys. I guess protecting Pepsi is more important than our protecting electoral process.
John
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
With the Diebold UberFascer 6000, you can Fix elections AND enjoy a hard-earned single malt scotch!
the mods may say you posted flamebait, but to me it's a flame that warms my heart. rock on, brother! --chebucto
I think the distinction that needs to be made here is that voting needs to be an open process -- not just use open source software, but apply some of the same principles. (Mainly that ANYONE can verify the voting process is valid.) So things like paper trails, open source software, and voting officials who can actually verify what is going on (because with diebold, all they can do is lug the boxes around).
The phrase you are looking for is "Plausible Deniability". If you design a machine that can only be comprimised by a single party then you're clearly a crook. If it can be hacked by a pre-school class with plastic hammers then you can claim to be merely hopelessly incompetant.
Pretty please...with sugar on top.
Either make voting machines as secure as slot machines, or let mini bar keys open up slot machines.
Either or. I'm not picky.