In the run-up to the USA's upcoming national election event:
The FBI has uncovered evidence that foreign hackers penetrated two state election databases in recent weeks, prompting the bureau to warn election officials across the country to take new steps to enhance the security of their computer systems, according to federal and state law enforcement officials.
[...] [three days later] the FBI Cyber Division issued a potentially more disturbing warning, entitled "Targeting Activity Against State Board of Election Systems." The alert, labeled as restricted for "NEED TO KNOW recipients," disclosed that the bureau was investigating cyberintrusions against two state election websites this summer, including one that resulted in the "exfiltration," or theft, of voter registration data. "It was an eye opener," one senior law enforcement official said of the bureau's discovery of the intrusions. "We believe it's kind of serious, and we're investigating."
[...] six states and parts of four others (including large swaths of Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state in this year's race) are more vulnerable because they rely on paperless touchscreen voting, known as DREs or Direct-Recording Electronic voting machines, for which there are no paper ballot backups.
[...] the FBI warning seems likely to ramp up pressure on the Department of Homeland Security to formally designate state election systems as part of the nation's "critical infrastructure" requiring federal protection — a key step, advocates say, in forestalling the possibility of foreign government meddling in the election.
The reason designating election systems "critical infrastructure" requiring federal protection is important is that designation means the Feds devote resources to protecting it and threaten a heightened response to entities messing with "critical infrastructure."
[Continues...]
Related / more info:
Have you considered the impact on the US if the election for president is disrupted, with the winner unknown because the results are dependent upon the votes in one or more of the states with electronic-only voting systems? Some people might find it beneficial if the US election is disrupted or contested.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @12:11AM
That's not a bad first assumption, but given the reaction to revelations of these security issues, it no longer is the simplest assumption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:13AM
> That's not a bad first assumption, but given the reaction to revelations of these security issues, it no longer is the simplest assumption.
Help us out here, could you describe the reaction you are talking about?
Because the reactions I've seen have been entirely consistent with ignorance, apathy and profit margins. And denial. But that's easily explained by short term thinking.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:39PM
Help us out here, could you describe the reaction you are talking about?
Because the reactions I've seen have been entirely consistent with ignorance, apathy and profit margins. And denial. But that's easily explained by short term thinking.
How about that time when Michael Connell [wikipedia.org] was going to testify about election fraud related to the 2004 election, his lawyer requested security on the grounds that they had been informed of threats made by Karl Rove, the security request was denied, and Michael Connell subsequently died in a plane crash before being able to testify? Does that sound like ignorance, or conspiracy?