Slashdot Mirror
US Voting Server At Heart of Russian Hack Probe Mysteriously Wiped (theregister.co.uk)
A computer at the center of a lawsuit digging into Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has been wiped. "The server in question is based in Georgia -- a state that narrowly backed Donald Trump, giving him 16 electoral votes -- and stored the results of the state's vote-management system," reports The Register. "The deletion of its filesystem data makes analysis of whether the system was compromised impossible to ascertain." From the report: There is good reason to believe that the computer may have been tampered with: it is 15 years old, and could be harboring all sorts of exploitable software and hardware vulnerabilities. No hard copies of the votes are kept, making the electronic copy the only official record. While investigating the Kennesaw State University's Center for Election Systems, which oversees Georgia's voting system, last year, security researcher Logan Lamb found its system was misconfigured, exposing the state's entire voter registration records, multiple PDFs with instructions and passwords for election workers, and the software systems used to tally votes cast. Despite Lamb letting the election center knows of his findings, the security holes were left unpatched for seven months. He later went public after the U.S. security services announced there had been a determined effort by the Russian government to sway the presidential elections, including looking at compromising electronic voting machines.
In an effort to force the state to scrap the system, a number of Georgia voters bandied together and sued. They asked for an independent security review of the server, expecting to find flaws that would lend weight to their argument for investment in a more modern and secure system. But emails released this week following a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that technicians at the election center deleted the server's data on July 7 -- just days after the lawsuit was filed. The memos reveal multiple references to the data wipe, including a message sent just last week from an assistant state attorney general to the plaintiffs in the case. That same email also notes that backups of the server data were also deleted more than a month after the initial wipe -- just as the lawsuit moved to a federal court. It is unclear who ordered the destruction of the data, and why, but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government.
In an effort to force the state to scrap the system, a number of Georgia voters bandied together and sued. They asked for an independent security review of the server, expecting to find flaws that would lend weight to their argument for investment in a more modern and secure system. But emails released this week following a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that technicians at the election center deleted the server's data on July 7 -- just days after the lawsuit was filed. The memos reveal multiple references to the data wipe, including a message sent just last week from an assistant state attorney general to the plaintiffs in the case. That same email also notes that backups of the server data were also deleted more than a month after the initial wipe -- just as the lawsuit moved to a federal court. It is unclear who ordered the destruction of the data, and why, but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government.
Bet you'll find plenty of insecure voting machines around. There is absolutely no reason to have those things connected to the Internet.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hillary's server was wiped, and the circumstances under which is was wiped (and who decided to do what when) was thoroughly investigated and no one was charged (though the admin probably should have been), and the files were recovered.
Hopefully this server wiping is as thoroughly investigated.
I stole this Sig
Black box voting machines make it easy for election officials to throw the results however they pleased. Let's skip the Russian conspiracy theories when good ol' domestic corruption is more than enough to explain suspiciously wiped servers.
Voting Machines: https://xkcd.com/463/
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
Hopefully this server wiping is as thoroughly investigated.
I won't hold my breath.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Move along. Ignore the man behind the curtain. Electronic voting systems are perfectly safe. There's no need to keep any paper records because the machines never make mistakes and are secure from intrusion.
There's never been a case where voting machines have been compromised. How do we know? Because we say so.
Oh please shut up with your petty partisan politics.
Election rigging has a long history in the US, and neither major party has shown much interest in reforming the system.
What, like with a rag?
Liar, moron, or just didn't even read the summary?
The data was wiped AFTER the suit was filed.
How would the Democrats gain access to the voting computer? The Republicans won that state so they control it.
Why would it have to be mentioned? The Georgia Secretary of State is responsible for elections there, top-to-bottom (he's a Republican). The Governor of Georgia is a Republican. The state legislature is controlled by Republicans. The Attorney General of Georgia is a Republican. Republicans control every single state-wide lever of power.
The server was wiped after voting rights activists filed a lawsuit against the Republican Secretary of State. The reason for the lawsuit? To force the Republican Secretary of State to have the server independently analyzed.
So, please explain why and how "Dems are burning the evidence" in this case? And how did they manage to get a server, and all of its backups simultaneously wiped when they were under Republican control.
You are welcome on my lawn.
7 years? If he gets through this term; if he gets re-elected.
If the USA votes Trump in for a second term then your decline into irrelevance will fall off a cliff. Such insanity should be punished.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
Voting results for federal elections -- at the individual ballot level -- must be kept for 22 months after the election. The servers got wiped after just 8 months.
I'm thinking this is a clear violation of election law. IANAL but, given the timing of the destruction of the records -- mere days after the lawsuit was filed -- I wonder whether it's also obstruction of justice.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"but all Trump has to do is fire Mueller, and that investigation is over." So what you're saying is you're a moron. See you at the gallows, traitor lol. Bring your long necktie! #Winning!
Firing the guy investigating you is basically the next thing to admitting guilt, particularly when the reason given was that they felt bad how they treated Hillary. I actually talked to a guy at work. He believed that you had to successfully stop an investigation for it to be obstruction of justice. That is not the law. Here is the quote from wikipedia.
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Note that it doesn't say success. Mueller is spotless. There is no plausible reason to fire him other than to obstruct justice. I think at that point enough republicans might support impeachment, since getting rid of him asap allows them to recover sooner.
I wouldn't be at all disappointed if Trump fired enough people until he could get rid of Mueller. I think it would signal his end, with all the evidence Mueller and the Senate/House collected used to speed along his removal. Firing Comey should have been enough to start the process, but the republicans wanted power more than they wanted to do what was right. Note that I don't agree that Comey should have revealed all he did, when he did, but to think Trump fired him because he disapproved is beyond nonsense.
Also, just think. Comey prepared for the day of his possible firing, though didn't really expect it. Just think how prepared Mueller must be now...
Come to think of it, Trump's attempts to influence the outcome of the investigation by calling it all fake news, and attempting to discredit everyone who disagrees, could be seen as a form of obstruction.
p.s. sorry quantaman, of course that wasn't directed at you, but the AC you replied to.
I don't believe anything of a significant size has been recovered from a single random wipe (even then, requiring an electron microscope), and three passes is more than enough.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Hillary's server was wiped
Like with a cloth or something?
* I've lived over 1/2 a century & NEVER in my life have I seen such utter STUPIDITY over a Presidential Election in the USA!
Alzheimer's is a bitch.
Yes, lets equate emails with voting records and use this news to flog a dead horse. Distract and dodge. Works every time, and the best bit is, you don't even need to do it yourself, an army of tribal supporters are willing to do your work for you on internet discussion spaces everywhere.
The non-clickbaity side of the story (a statement from Center for Elections Systems at Kennesaw State University, who had possession of the server) is here:
"In March 2017, a Center for Election Systems’ server involved in an alleged data breach was turned over to the FBI. While the server was in the possession of the Bureau, a forensic image or copy of all the data on the server was made and held by the agency. Following the notification from the FBI that no data was compromised and the investigation was closed, the server was returned to the University’s Information Technology Services group and securely stored. In accordance with standard operating procedures, an after-action report was prepared. This report outlined hardware improvements for the Center, including repurposing the impacted server and surplusing servers that had exceeded end of life. As part of the report, the original server that had been investigated by the FBI was designated to be repurposed, and the drives on the server were erased and the server made available for alternative uses."
"As noted by the subpoena filed today by the Attorney General’s Office, the data and information that was on the server in question has been and is still in the possession of the FBI and will remain available to the parties in the event it is determined to be relevant in the pending litigation."
So (a) the feds already investigated and found no evidence the server was compromised, and (b) they still have their forensic image of the server. This seems a lot more like litigants and journalists huffing and puffing than it does a real issue.
One statement does not contradict the other. If the FBI never served a formal request to investigate the physical server, it won't have had access to it. And still the DNC never had denied the FBI access to the server.
You're nearly 30 years out of date. On '80s era HDs, it's true, a single overwrite of the data would leave traces sufficient that given some very expensive equipment and a very expensive analysis, the data could be recovered. On modern drives, even a single overwrite with zeros is sufficient to make the data irretrievable.
You are fake news.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
>The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
>“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.
No, winning elections would only allow them to control political offices. I doubt the hands-on operations or operational policies are enforced by political operatives.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yawn... Hillary lost the election old news.
Because having a madman in charge of the country is much better then a lady who poorly managed her IT.
At this point it isn’t about Clinton or Trump. We had been played for suckers by the Russians. They had shown to push both sides of the political spectrum to be more radicalized just to destabilize the US. So they can wield more power. If Clinton won there would be so much hatred on the right that she would be facing massive battles to push any agenda. Trump is just too stupid to be able to push an agenda even with his party in power.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why not all three?
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Having seen Trump on TV, on the news the other night in relation to a couple of Republicans publicly 'censuring' him, I did find myself pondering this very question...
Who will run for the Democrats in the next election?
The question spawned a host of others, about the DNC, terms of office, chances of re-election, and so on, though most are somewhat imponderable at this stage.
What gave me pause though was the thought that, as someone not hugely interested in US politics beyond the broad, global, geopolitical picture, what does it say that I'd even think the question when it's been less than a year since the last presidential race?
I'd still be curious as to answer to the first question though...
I am a volunteer poll worker in Virginia. NO vote-tallying equipment is connected to the Internet, anywhere in the U.S. We are not idiots. We have about 230+ years' worth of experience with people trying to throw an election, and we understand -- and mitigate -- the risks.
This server in Georgia did NOT hold vote counts. It held voter registration records, instructions, and voting equipment passwords.
Each precinct tallying the votes keeps an independent record of their machines. There are paper backups of voting totals in the form of printed counts and hand-copied summary sheets.
In my state, we have switched over to machine-counted paper ballots in all precincts. Those scanners do not even have wireless hardware in them, they can only be accessed via ethernet cable. Once a machine is tested and certified for voting, a cover is placed over the ethernet socket and it is sealed with a plastic band.
I do advocate the use of paper ballots, but not because then humans could do a hand-count of them. Humans are lousy at repetitive tasks. A hand-count of millions of votes would have a margin of error 10x the size of the margin of error of machine-counted votes. In Virginia, when there is a recount, we bring in a completely different set of scanners than were used to originally count the votes, and run the same paper ballots through them. That is a excellent independent count.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
a lady who poorly managed her IT
What? You bought her "aw shucks, gee whiz" performance?
With malice of forethought she NEVER, EVER logged in or in any way touched a government email account in her entire term as Secretary of State because, being so backwards technically, she found it easier to hire her own IT consultant, have a server built and managed on her own dime, and have to tell everyone she worked with her email was not hrc@state,gov but instead Hillary@hrc45.com?
Hillary somehow "for simplicity sake" abandoned her official email that she used as a US Senator opting for one run by a guy that does IT work on the side when she stepped into Obama's Cabinet?
As an Ivy League educated lawyer, who was on the wrong side of dozens and dozens of "he said, she said" lawsuits and investigations, you honestly believe she has no idea how emails can derail a political career?
Ken
Seriously, expect the Democrats to run another "novelty" candidate. They learned when they ran Obama that it was a trivial exercise to label all opposition to his proposals as "racially-motivated", and with Hillary's stunning defeat in 2016 (herself another novelty candidate, this time the first female candidate), Democrats are desperately working to make her loss about anything other than the obvious result of a poorly-run campaign that literally ignored a handful of key strong democrat states by choice, only to find itself scrambling for a reason, any reason other than their candidates strong negatives in much of America and a poorly-run election.
The next candidate will be as opposite to Hillary as possible, I predict a young, Hispanic, male will be the "chosen" by DNC "Super Delegates" (not the primary voters) to run against Trump - and he will lose to Trump because the entire Democrat Party is 100% focused on re-litigating the 2016 election, attacking the sitting President, and never putting forward any serious legislative ideas.
When asked about the budget, healthcare reform, tax reform, etc Democrats say they'll vote against it all because they don't like Trump, despite agreeing that all are in need of serious reform. They put party ahead of country, and proudly say so at every press conference and sunday morning show appearance, in terms even the slowest liberal can understand, and the think this is how they'll win over undecided voters in 2018/2020?
Ken
Manipulating voter registration records can also affect the outcome of an election, particularly in a situation where you are performing mass voter roll purges -- which I believe Georgia did. Tweaking the purge in the partisan way is one of the things that could be hidden by this.
Many voters who are denied a ballot may not choose to cast a provisional ballot, or come out to vote next time. Although this may seem like they get what they deserve if they're not sufficiently dedicated, voting can be more of a sacrifice for some people, particularly those with limited time to vote and where the polling stations are located inconveniently. If you're risking late for work you might choose just to leave. There have been documented attempts to manipulate turnout by inconveniently locating polling places.
As far as paper ballots, the obvious choice is optically scanned paper ballots. That said, I have never seen any evidence that human recounters don't perform acceptably. They are not perfect, but neither are machines -- for that matter how could you possibly know if a machine is perfect? In any case human limitations can be dealt with using statistics, to any desirable level of confidence.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So two groups of people did illegal things. That doesn't diminish this case one bit.
I really wonder if the Republican party will even back him for re-election or officially support a different candidate. It has happened before.
I would call it one group. They are the people who, if they delete emails and computer records, are not held accountable.
Then there is the rest of us.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
First: The FBI made and has retained a full copy of the drive previous to the lawsuit. The FBI has stated it is available to the participants in the lawsuit.
Second: The computer was at Kennesaw State University when it was degaussed by a low level technician.
These are the facts. What are you talking about? Everything you stated is irrelevant in light of these facts.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
When asked about the budget, healthcare reform, tax reform, etc Democrats say they'll vote against it all because they don't like Trump, despite agreeing that all are in need of serious reform.
What the hell are you talking about? They've said over and over again that they would be happy to work with Trump or republicans (look at the Chuck Schumer deal for god's sake). It's just that they have their opinions about how the government should work, and they will only work with Republicans on legislation that is compatible with their goals.
Trump will get through this term just fine. Despite all the ramblings from foolish democrats they are not going to impeach him. Really democrats, you should write these representatives and tell them knock it off. It used to be funny, now its just sad.
As for Trump going for a full 8 years, I predict there is a 50/50 chance of that happening. I'm betting there is a 50% chance he will not run again in 2020. Then again, Trump has to much of a ego not to do round two.
Now lets poke some SJW. If Trump does run in 2020 as he currently stands he will win by a land slide. Simple because once you separate the personality from the president he is doing a pretty decent job.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
When asked about the budget, healthcare reform, tax reform, etc Democrats say they'll vote against it all because they don't like Trump, despite agreeing that all are in need of serious reform. They put party ahead of country, and proudly say so at every press conference and sunday morning show appearance, in terms even the slowest liberal can understand, and the think this is how they'll win over undecided voters in 2018/2020?
This exactly. There may be a few democrats that are willing to put the country ahead of the party but those are always shouted down by the democratic party leadership. It's ether that loon Maxine Waters up there frothing "Impeach Impeach", or Nancy Pelosi doing every thing she can to block all cooperation.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
she found it easier to hire her own IT consultant, have a server built and managed on her own dime, and have to tell everyone she worked with her email was not hrc@state,gov but instead Hillary@hrc45.com?
... Look, without taking sides here (I have an opinion, I'm just not expressing it): Yes. Of course.
Frankly, your argument is weird. Of course it's easier to keep using the email that you've got than to start giving out a new one and get everyone to switch over. You should know this, everyone who has ever used email knows this.