Slashdot Mirror


Allegation: Lottery Official Hacked RNG To Score Winning Ticket

SternisheFan writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica about what may be the most movie-worthy real-life crime story of the year so far: Eddie Raymond Tipton, 51, may have inserted a thumbdrive into a highly locked-down computer that's supposed to generate the random numbers used to determine lottery winners, The Des Moines Register reported, citing court documents filed by prosecutors. At the time, Tipton was the information security director of the Multi-State Lottery Association, and he was later videotaped purchasing a Hot Lotto ticket that went on to fetch the winning $14.3 million payout.

In court documents filed last week, prosecutors said there is evidence to support the theory Tipton used his privileged position inside the lottery association to enter a locked room that housed the random number generating computers and
infect them with software that allowed him to control the winning numbers. The room was enclosed in glass, could only be entered by two people at a time, and was monitored by a video camera. To prevent outside attacks, the computers aren't connected to the Internet. Prosecutors said Tipton entered the so-called draw room on November 20, 2010, ostensibly to change the time on the computers. The cameras on that date recorded only one second per minute rather than running continuously like normal.

"Four of the five individuals who have access to control the camera's settings will testify they did not change the cameras' recording instructions," prosecutors wrote. "The fifth person is defendant. It is a reasonable deduction to infer that defendant tampered with the camera equipment to have an opportunity to insert a thumbdrive into the RNG tower without detection."

24 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Honestly ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm actually surprised there haven't been more cases of insiders rigging lotteries.

    I should think knowing all of those zillions of dollars are just sitting there would cause more people to decide to see if they could get away with it.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Honestly ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't see it more often because only idiots actually try to skim the lottery via the actual lottery.

      The ones who get away with it are the guys taking it out of the account via the budget (usually for a tax break for their large donors), or taking bribes from shop owners who want to sell tickets.

    2. Re:Honestly ... by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, all they need to do is not get caught. Same thing happens with slot machines and other random chance electronic games... it's easier than lobbying:

      1) Casino boss invites high ranking government official.
      2) Boss says, "We know you'll have fun, but I think you'll have more fun on machine number 57 if you grant consideration to improving legal conditions surrounding our fine establishment."
      3) Official wins jackpot
      4) Boss wins jackpot (figuratively)

      You're a fool if you don't think this happens. This is why I'm against electronic gambling. Not because of some moral "gambling is of the devil" thing... but because it would be trivial to rig these machines and then erase all evidence that anything fraudulent happened. Politicians can literally transform your hopes and dreams into money lining their wallet.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    3. Re:Honestly ... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      You need a trusted co-conspirator.

      Those words are mutually exclusive. :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Honestly ... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was a game somewhere that was proven to have software so faulty that it wasn't even capable of 'drawing' one of the possible numbers that players could choose.

      Computer-based random number generators are just about the worst possible way to conduct a lottery. They're not random, they're subject to tampering, they're only understood by a few people, and their function while operating cannot be observed by the public. They also aren't exciting.

      Machines that dump a bunch of balls into a spinning drum and then start pulling those balls out look cool on TV, plus they can be inspected, the public understands how they work, their operation is transparent, and because of the nature of the beast, are about as random as one can get within the context of a machine doing the drawing.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Honestly ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Pennsylvania_Lottery_scandal

      Nope, balls don't work either.

    6. Re:Honestly ... by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could ask any street urchin to buy a ticket for you.
      He has some highly sophisticated method, but was caught at the easiest part anyone could do better.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    7. Re:Honestly ... by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but he purchased the ticket himself, assuming the authorities are correct. He must have not even bothered to wear any kind of disguise, because convenience store cameras are usually so bad you can't even tell whether a perp is human.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Honestly ... by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is why I'm against electronic gambling. Not because of some moral "gambling is of the devil" thing... but because it would be trivial to rig these machines and then erase all evidence that anything fraudulent happened.

      There was a case in Australia* with an a gaming machine based on a horse race scenario. Someone started winning big on it, and when the investigation was done it was discovered that when the game was not actively being played, it displayed a "demonstration" game .. that turned out to be the next real game that would be played (or some such). So all you had to do was to wait until the demo came on, then then when it finished, bet on the horse that one the demo.

      A perfect example of stupidity in the place of malice. So while your reasoning is potentially valid (and with a nod to Dennis Ritchie and his paper on trusting compilers), there is a broader set of reasoning to be against electronic gaming.

      * Writing from memory because I can't be bothered hitting google.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    9. Re:Honestly ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another reason you don't see it more often, is that most lotteries don't use a software RNG. Many use labeled ping pong balls, in a transparent container, that are selected in front of a live audience, and broadcast on TV in real time. That is more difficult to rig.

    10. Re:Honestly ... by IronChef · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked for years in a slot machine company, and the scenario you propose would be difficult to execute. That sort of thing was easier in the old days when machines used socketed ROMs ... but today it's increasingly server managed and cryptographically signed and there is simply no way for the owner of a machine to flip a switch and rig the game.

      A game will have several payout selections, like 95.6%, 98%, etc. and you can choose among them, but that is about it.

      Slot manufacturers are under the microscope and will not jeopardize their licenses by making it easy for owners to rig games--at least in the US. The industry is HIGHLY regulated and multiple third party labs are involved in certifying the products.

    11. Re:Honestly ... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I filled it with new balls all with the same number.... I CANT LOSE!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Honestly ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't believe any slot machine only takes 2% house odds.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Honestly ... by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Promotional machines/settings; they can set individual machine odds.

      A new cluster of machines come in they set the game to payout well, to get people addicted, so it becomes some people's favorite machine.

      After a couple weeks/months they slowly lower the percentage, while moving the machine out of the prime spot, with the addicts following it, and they set up the next new game...

    14. Re:Honestly ... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not entirely, if you can trust that his interests and yours are aligned then you can generally trust him. Actually, I was reading some interesting articles on Rockefellar and the railroads recently, where they came up with an ingenious price fixing scheme where Rockefellar was a colluding customer whose interests were aligned with the conspirators.

      Basically price fixing often has a loophole.....rebates. Colluding companies can still compete by offering secret rebates to customers, thus reducing the effective rate while appearing to honor the collusion agreement.

      Enter the colluding customer. Rockefellar was in a uinique position as he owned several companies and nobody really knew what all companies he owned and didn't. He was given what were called "Drawbacks", that is rebates for every barrel of oil which shipped, whether he was the customer or not! This allowed him to ship under any name and still get his rebate without admitting which companies were his.

      In this way, colluding entities were prevented from defecting by aligning incentives to create a kind of trust.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. This happened back in the day... by GerbilSoft · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but instead of hacking a random number generator, they injected paint into the ping-pong balls used for the live drawing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

    1. Re:This happened back in the day... by GerbilSoft · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And now for a follow-up question: Why exactly was a "highly locked-down computer" set to automatically execute code from flash drives?

  3. Re:Completely dumb by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are all criminals dumb, or do we just catch the dumb ones?

    That's something I've always wondered.

    --
    Harald
  4. Erm.. Why a computer? by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is the point of using an expensive and highly locked down computer in place of a dead simple machine filled with pingpong balls?

  5. Re:Completely dumb by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably the latter. The selection bias here is huge. The really smart criminals aren't caught.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  6. Who controls the cameras? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do people who have access to the computer also have the ability to control the cameras?

    Splitting responsiblity this way is such a basic and obvious security measure.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  7. Re:Completely dumb by Rande · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The really smart criminals get into politics. Then, even if you are caught, nothing happens to you...unless you've pissed off another higher ranked politician, in which case it doesn't matter if you've actually done what you've been accused of.

  8. Circumstantial much by guruevi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's got the winning lottery ticket, there was a malfunction with the camera's. So far I haven't seen any 'evidence' that that person actually did it. He might have been in cahoots with his co-workers. Splitting the ticket 2-5-ways is still pretty lucrative.

    If he did it, he was pretty dumb to think he could get away with it. He should've
    1. Remained anonymous (if possible, some lotteries allow it, some don't), let his lawyer pick up the money
    2. Gone for a lot lower number (winning low enough so you can get a cash payout at the shop (~$600/week is still a nice bonus))
    3. Allowed enough time for the evidence to be destroyed (video camera's probably overwrite old stuff every n months) then played and collected. If you implement your own RNG, you could easily predict numbers in advance.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  9. He should have... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...put the cameras on a 30 minute loop and hired an acrobat to lower into the room from the roof after hours and change the system. Then do the Lotto Commissioner's wife to keep him distracted.

    Just be sure to check for a new logo on the floor.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.