On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:35:22 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:


Nov
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:31:25 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

This is scary stuff....

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...der-10-minutes

People always read the headline and not the article.

“While it is undeniable websites are vulnerable to hackers, election
night reporting websites are only used to publish preliminary,
unofficial results for the public and the media. The sites are not
connected to vote counting equipment and could never change actual
election results.”’

.......

Oh I read it, but don’t trust the eventual research.
IMO “if a man can make it, a man can break it.”

I have a relative who works for a huge Corp and is a professional computer hacker. He works with a team who daily try’s to tap into the companies security systems. Or look for weak spots and patch holes as they find them. They figure if they can, than a 15 yr old in a Romanian web cafe also can, just as easy....

This is not really that tough a problem to deal with. Just never
connect your voting machines to the internet and make sure the ones
the average operator uses is "medialess" (no ports or drives they can
plug anything into). Essentially dumb terminals.
Use a secure connection to the election servers and make sure they are
in a high security room. Again, no external media devices supported.
Remember, Stuxnet was loaded from a thumb drive.
Dial up is safer than the internet in every way but the real security
would be using encrypted connections over a leased line. That might
still be more than you need. Use dial up for unofficial results and
courier for the official counts if it is as close as we are dealing
with.