Sequoia E-Vote Systems Found 'Hackable' in PA, Testing Shut Down After

(SORRY IF ITS A DUPE)



Machine Failures

Blogged by Brad on 3/30/2006 @ 6:18pm PT...

'Software Clearly Unstable,' Says Testing Official Who 'Transformed Handful of Votes into Thousands...in an Instant'!
Ten-Year Old E-Voting Systems from NV Planned for First Time Use in PA This Year


Meanwhile...in Pennsylvania's Allegheny County, where plans to use Diebold's hackable Electronic Voting Equipment have recently been nixed, Plan B seems to be failing too. The machines they'd hope to use instead, as made by Sequoia Voting Systems, have now been shown to be hackable as well.

Pittsburgh's Post-Gazette picked up on the story yesterday, and followed up today on the testing being run in Allegheny County by Dr. Michael Shamos, a Carnegie Mellon University professor, on the "new" Sequoia Voting Machines. The county had hoped to use these systems -- ten-year old Sequoia "Advantage" machines as purchased from Clark County, Nevada who is moving to a different Sequoia system -- in their upcoming Primary Elections in May. That plan, now may be in grave doubt.



http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002626.htm

They are a violation of the requirements for transparency by the Voting Rights Act, and probably the Constitution.

(excet as window-dressing for Little Nobodies)

Imperial Amerika is a nation ruled by Imperial Will...it is nearly as simple as that now, especially if your discount window-dressing papaering over predetermined outcomes.

Same here, mom cat :(

demonstrations in California about the time Nevada picked this damn machines ...04

in Illinois was pretty crappy, and a real election would be the ultimate demonstration.

What a jack ass.

Great post. Recommended...the poster and the post;)

Here's a haxor who can break any damn voting machine anywhere,
the inimitable JeffK

http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk/

Check it out, it will change your life.

That all these electronic vote-counting machines are made by companies with ties
to the Republican Party? And that EVERY time there is a glitch with one of them,
it ALWAYS favors the Republican candidate? And that every time these machines tally
an unexpected upset, that upset goes to the Republican candidate?

How convenient. Arrange this grand scheme, and then put the propaganda in place
when it becomes obvious: "you Democrats are just a bunch of paranoid conspiracy
freaks."

They were so greedy, it's their own fault. They had to have their machines give
the edge to the Republicans EVERY time, of course it was going to to be noticed,
what did they expect? If electronic voting machines suddenly started giving every
close election to the Democrats, how long do you think it would take for the radical
right to be howling about rigged machines? Ten seconds? Less?

Looking at the history of election fraud, there is no party monopoly. Looking at it in the past six years, it's a virtual Republican monopoly. You have to wonder if they're messing with Democratic primaries it's so pervasive.

Their greed has gotten the better of them. The centralized voter registration databases are an add on that they think will give them an indefinite lock, IMHO. It won't. It's a major task for data collection, database creation and management, and updating and checking. The quality assurance is challenging also. When tens of thousands of voters, maybe hundreds of thousands, find themselves rejected at the polls in 2006, it will be cataclysmic. Any close election will be challenged, the people will erupt because this will be clear fraud. I predict the worst responses in California where tests already show major problems.

It's easy to win when you break every rule all the time. It's easy to win when nobody notices. When people notice and you're breaking rules that you can't control, then you're cruising for some serious trouble.

Mar. 31, 2006
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pe...
(free registration required)

"Voting software vulnerable to hackersThe flaw affects Montco's central election computer. Officials are scrambling for a fix before the May primary. Elections officials in Montgomery County are working on contingency plans for the May 16 primary after a state expert said an updated voting system is vulnerable to hackers.

The primary vote could be held using the existing equipment provided by Sequoia Voting Systems, though that would not comply with federal handicapped-accessibility requirements, said Joseph Passarella, the county's director of voter services.

The problem arose not in individual voting machines, but in a central control unit that compiles votes from each precinct. Michael Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said in an interview he was able to hack in and change totals during a state test. The machines are also being purchased by Allegheny County.

"I found that by altering one file I could change vote totals from 10 to over 8,000," he said. "It easily let me do that, so the security mechanisms associated with county central are deficient." In another test involving a referendum question, the system would not allow a "no" vote."

Shamos was testing the Tabulators, using the WinEDS software. The Sequoia Advantage DRE does not use software. It uses Firmware. Its Z-80 CPU, which dates from the mid 1970's is at best an 8 Mghz version.

SO-- what we are talking about are tabulators, which Sequoia opscanners and both Sequoia DREs upload into. SO this effects the ENTIRE Sequoia product line.

I was AT the failed Sequoia exam in Harrisburg PA on Tuesday and Wednesday; the only person from Western PA (other than Shamos) who was there.

It was actually worse than Post-Gazette article makes it seem -- really a disaster.

Shamos said (on the video record, during the exam) that he was in the interesting position of having a hack to suggest to Harri Hursti, instead of the other way around.

Despite the 'calm' press, Allegheny County and the rest of the state is in a tizzy, as well they should be. Lots of counties aren't going to make the deadline, or if they do it will be by the skin of their teeth and maybe by way of another Cook County / Chicago meltdown.

Marybeth in PA
http://www.votePA.us

Marybeth, here's probably my best post ever and a sepcific election fraud tip on how to do it. Hope you can have time to see it and time to comment on this thread, there's 5-10 really key points in there, most of them new....

I'm asking for the first time for folks to see it, K&R it, *and* also to notify any friends who might enjoy it to do the same. There's about 10 key points in it for Election Fraud.

It's called Election Fraud Tip: Doomsday Device For Democracy...

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x420067#420104>

Who is this Michael Shamos, PhD, the seeming hero of election fraud research. He's a guy who has claimed that there are really no problems with voting machine security...that is until he actually conducted a test. This is just perfect. The industry flack does a pro forma test on Sequoia machines from 10 years ago and finds out that they can be rigged easily. Thank you Dr. Shamos, now how about an apology for being such a stooge for the industry all these years.


California voting summit shuts out voting reform advocates;
Panels appear stacked with electronic voting proponents
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/California_voting_summit_shuts_out_voting_1201.html

Miriam Raftery
Originally published on Thursday December 1, 2005


A California summit on voting equipment, where many of the speakers had apparent conflicts of interests, barred entry to consumer groups calling for election reform, RAW STORY has discovered.

A nonpartisan coalition representing 25 California election integrity groups held a press conference Monday outside the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Sacramento, where the "Voting Systems Testing Summit" was convened by Republican California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

<snip>

Michael Shamos, Co-Director of the Institute for e-Commerce and Director of the Center for Privacy Technology at Carnegie Mellon University, however, has downplayed concerns over e-voting security, claiming that "there has not been a single verified incident of tampering or exploitation of a security weakness" in the 25 years since e-voting was introduced. A former evaluator of voting systems for Texas and Pennsylvania, he dismisses concerns over hacking as "hypothetical rather than a real threat to the electoral process."

Activists shut out

When several members of CEPN applied for admission, they were denied - despite the fact that the event was not yet full. Correspondence from the Secretary of State's office denying the request has been posted at the CEPN website.

Its getting pretty hard to keep tabs on all these crooks, I remember talking with someone about Shamos but couldn't remember all the details. Shamos is definitely one to watch!

for a good while about the security of "machines" in general. Somebody will issue a "stop the check" order;)

is a meaningless term and miseadling term to use in computers. Shamos needs to explain. But can't. (if your quote is right on which I'm sure it is)

Did I ever mention how grateful I am for all your tireless, non-stop work on voting problems? If not, here goes: Thank you!