2018 United States general election Associated Press Business By FRANK BAJAK California Chicago Colorado Eastern Europe Elections Europe General news Government and politics Hacking Illinois Industrial technology Kansas Midterm elections Nebraska News North America Omaha Russia State elections Technology Technology issues United States United States General Election Voting

US election integrity depends on security-challenged firms

Associated Press Photo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Associated Press Photo

CORRECTS FROM TOM BURT TO BRYAN HOFFMAN, AND ADDS ID OF MAC BEESON – On this July 14, 2018, photograph, Election Methods & Software program (ES&S) VP’s of Gross sales, Bryan Hoffman, proper, and Mac Beeson take a look at a number of the firm’s election gear within the vendor show space at a Nationwide Affiliation of Secretaries of State conference in Philadelphia. Specialists say prime election distributors have lengthy skimped on safety in favor of comfort and use proprietary techniques, making it harder to detect election meddling. (AP Photograph/Mel Evans)

It was the type of safety lapse that provides election officers nightmares. In 2017, a personal contractor left knowledge on Chicago’s 1.eight million registered voters — together with addresses, delivery dates and partial Social Safety numbers — publicly uncovered for months on an Amazon cloud server.

Later, at a tense listening to , Chicago’s Board of Elections dressed down the highest three executives of Election Methods & Software program, the nation’s dominant provider of election gear and providers.

The three shifted uneasily on folding chairs as board members grilled them about what went flawed. ES&S CEO Tom Burt apologized and repeatedly careworn that there was no proof hackers downloaded the info.

The Chicago lapse offered a uncommon second of public accountability for the intently held companies which have come to function front-line guardians of U.S. election safety.

A trio of corporations — ES&S of Omaha, Nebraska; Dominion Voting Methods of Denver and Hart InterCivic of Austin, Texas — promote and repair greater than 90 % of the equipment on which votes are forged and outcomes tabulated. Specialists say they’ve lengthy skimped on safety in favor of comfort, making it harder to detect intrusions corresponding to occurred in Russia’s 2016 election meddling.

The companies additionally face no vital federal oversight and function underneath a shroud of monetary and operational secrecy regardless of their pivotal position underpinning American democracy.

In a lot of the nation, particularly the place tech experience and budgets are skinny, the businesses successfully run elections both immediately or via subcontractors.

“They cobble things together as well as they can,” College of Connecticut election-technology professional Alexander Schwartzman stated of the business leaders. Constructing really safe methods would doubtless make them unprofitable, he stated.

The prices of insufficient safety may be excessive. Left unmentioned on the Chicago listening to: The uncovered knowledge cache included roughly a dozen encrypted passwords for ES&S worker accounts . In a worst-case state of affairs, a classy attacker might have used them to infiltrate firm methods, stated Chris Vickery of the safety agency Upgard, which found the info lapse.

“This is the type of stuff that leads to a complete compromise,” he stated. ES&S stated the passwords have been solely used to entry the corporate’s Amazon cloud account and that “there was no unauthorized access to any data or systems at any time.”

All three of the highest distributors declined to debate their funds and demand that safety considerations are overblown. ES&S, for example, stated in an e-mail that “any assertions about resistance to input on security are simply untrue” and argued that for many years the corporate has “been successful in protecting the voting process.”

STONEWALLING ON SECURITY

Many voting methods in use as we speak throughout the greater than 10,000 U.S. election jurisdictions are susceptible to safety issues. Educational pc scientists started hacking them with ease greater than a decade in the past, and never a lot has modified.

Hackers might theoretically wreak havoc at a number of levels of the election course of. They might alter or erase lists of registered voters to sow confusion, secretly introduce software program to flip votes, scramble tabulation methods or knock results-reporting websites offline.

There’s no proof any of this has occurred, at the least not but.

The distributors say there’s no indication hackers have penetrated any of their methods. However authorities acknowledge that some election mischief or malware booby traps might have gone unnoticed.

On July 13, U.S. particular counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian army intelligence operatives for, amongst different issues, infiltrating state and native election methods. Senior U.S. intelligence officers say the Kremlin is well-positioned to rattle confidence within the integrity of elections throughout this yr’s midterms, ought to it select to.

Election distributors have lengthy resisted open-ended vulnerability testing by unbiased, moral hackers — a course of that goals to determine weaknesses an adversary might exploit. Such testing is now commonplace for the Pentagon and main banks.

Whereas the highest distributors declare to have stepped up their cybersecurity recreation, specialists are skeptical.

In an April 2014 assembly with Colorado elections officers, ES&S objected to a brand new state requirement for vulnerability testing as a result of it didn’t permit for the outcomes to be stored secret, Colorado Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert stated in an interview. She stated the corporate finally didn’t search certification as a result of the system it was providing didn’t meet state necessities.

ES&S didn’t immediately reply to a question about this incident. An organization spokeswoman stated a assessment of firm correspondence discovered no signal that it resisted the testing requirement, though it did “ask clarifying questions.”

“The industry continues to stonewall the problem,” stated Bruce McConnell, a Division of Homeland cybersecurity czar in the course of the Obama administration. Election-vendor executives routinely challenge assurances, he stated, however don’t encourage outsiders to examine their code or supply “bug bounties” to researchers to hunt out flaws of their software program.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has lengthy criticized what he calls the business’s “severe underinvestment in cybersecurity.” At a July listening to, he accused the businesses of “ducking, bobbing and weaving” on a collection of primary safety questions he’d requested them.

ES&S informed The Related Press that it permits unbiased, open-ended testing of its company methods in addition to its merchandise. However the firm wouldn’t identify the testers and declined to offer documentation of the testing or its outcomes.

Dominion’s vice chairman of presidency affairs, Kay Stimson, stated her firm has additionally had unbiased third events probe its methods however wouldn’t identify them or share particulars. Hart InterCivic, the No. three vendor, stated it has carried out the identical utilizing the Canadian cybersecurity agency Bulletproof, however wouldn’t talk about the outcomes.

ES&S employed its first chief info safety officer in April. Not one of the massive three distributors would say what number of cybersecurity specialists they make use of. Stimson stated that “employee confidentiality and security protections outweigh any potential disclosure.”

SLOPPY SOFTWARE AND VULNERABILITY

Specialists say they could take the business’s safety assurances extra significantly if not for the ample proof of sloppy software program improvement, a serious supply of vulnerabilities.

Throughout this yr’s main elections, ES&S know-how stumbled on a number of fronts.

In Los Angeles County, greater than 118,000 names have been left off printed voter rolls. A subsequent outdoors audit blamed sloppy system integration by an ES&S subsidiary throughout a database merge.

No such audit was carried out in Kansas’ most populous county after a unique type of error in newly put in ES&S methods delayed the vote rely by 13 hours as knowledge importing from thumb drives crawled.

College of Iowa pc scientist Douglas Jones stated each incidents reveal mediocre programming and inadequate pre-election testing. And voting gear distributors have by no means appeared safety acutely aware “in any phase of their design,” he stated.

As an example, business chief ES&S sells vote-tabulation methods outfitted with mobile modems, a function that specialists say refined hackers might exploit to tamper with vote counts. A couple of states ban such wi-fi connections; in Alabama, the state needed to pressure ES&S to take away them from machines ordered for one among its counties earlier this yr.

“It seemed like there was a lot more emphasis about how cool the machines could be than there was actual evidence that they were secure,” stated John Bennett, the Alabama secretary of state’s deputy chief of employees.

California conducts a number of the most rigorous scrutiny of voting techniques within the U.S. and has repeatedly discovered continual issues with the preferred voting methods. Final yr, a state safety contractor discovered a number of vulnerabilities in ES&S’s Electionware system that would, for example, permit an intruder to erase all recorded votes on the shut of voting.

ES&S referred the AP to a quick California report that discovered “two out of the three initially identified vulnerabilities” have been fastened and that a third can be dealt with in “future ES&S releases.” The corporate didn’t say whether or not the third drawback was ever resolved.

In 2014, the identical contractor, Jacob Stauffer of the safety agency Coherent Cyber, discovered “multiple critical vulnerabilities” in Dominion’s Democracy Suite that would permit expert hackers to compromise an election’s consequence.

“These systems are Frankenstein’s monster, essentially,” Stauffer stated.

The federal Division of Homeland Safety started providing confidential vulnerability testing to distributors over the summer time. However just one vendor has submitted to such testing, stated an company official who spoke on situation of anonymity as a result of the official was not approved to debate the matter publicly.

STALLED INNOVATION

Extra competitors may assist, however business limitations to smaller distributors are “absolutely enormous,” stated Larry Moore, president of upstart Clear Poll. Its auditable voting system took two and a half years to win federal certification at a price of $1 million.

Startups are hard-pressed to disrupt an business whose essential gamers rely closely on proprietary applied sciences. ES&S and different distributors have jealously guarded them in courtroom — and in addition unleash legal professionals towards election officers who buy rivals’ merchandise.

In October, ES&S sued Prepare dinner County, Illinois, in search of to void its $30 million, 10-year contract with a competitor. It additionally just lately threatened Louisiana and Douglas County, Kansas, with lawsuits for selecting different suppliers.

Prepare dinner County elections director Noah Praetz stated litigious conduct solely chills modernization. Competitors and innovation are already hampered in an business with “really low” margins, particularly contemplating restricted authorities funding for election gear.

“The market isn’t functioning real well,” he stated.

LIMITED OVERSIGHT

Elections are run by the states, whose oversight of suppliers varies. California, New York and Colorado are amongst states that maintain an in depth eye on the distributors, however many others have cozier relationships with them.

And the distributors may be recalcitrant. In 2017, for example, Hart InterCivic refused to offer Virginia with a paperless e-Slate touchscreen voting machine for testing, stated Edgardo Cortes, then the state election commissioner.

On this yr’s midterms — as within the 2016 election — roughly 1 in 5 voters will use such digital machines. Their tallies can’t be verified as a result of they produce no paper document.

Cortes determined to decertify all such methods. If anybody tried to interrupt in and alter votes, he concluded, “there was really no way for us to tell if that had happened.” Hart InterCivic’s vice chairman of operations, Peter Lichtenheld, didn’t dispute Cortes’ account in July Senate testimony, however stated its Virginia clients have been already shifting to newer machines.

On the federal degree, no authority accredits election distributors or vets them or their subcontractors. No federal regulation requires them to report safety breaches or to carry out background checks on staff or subcontractors.

Election distributors don’t even should be U.S. corporations. Dominion was Canadian-owned till July, when a New York personal fairness agency purchased a controlling curiosity.

Federal oversight is restricted to the little-known Election Help Fee, a 30-employee company that certifies voting gear however whose suggestions are strictly voluntary. It has no oversight energy and can’t sanction producers for any shortcomings.

“We can’t regulate,” EAC chairman Thomas Hicks stated throughout a July 11 congressional listening to when the query got here up. Neither can DHS, regardless that it designated the nation’s election methods “critical infrastructure” in early 2017.

___

Frank Bajak on Twitter: https://twitter.com/fbajak

About the author

Admin

Categories