Regardless of your political position, the upcoming voting recounts and e-voting audits are almost certain to spurn some feelings in every American. I personally don't have a dog in this fight, but I find the prospect of a post election audit of e-voting machines to be fascinating.
Every four years we criticize the security of the e-voting machines without actually doing anything about it. And security pundits talk about the risks. Some even demonstrate how the machines can be hacked (side note, I think the Cylance demo just days before the election was a reckless publicity stunt). Despite all the talk, to my knowledge we've never had a post-election audit of the e-voting system. Now that's a possibility and I for one couldn't be happier. I could even argue that with the US intelligence community openly blaming Russia for attacks, there's never been a better time to perform such an audit.
I'm most interested in the prospect of doing forensics on the voting machines and the computers that program, read, and report results from those machines. Many talk about how the voting machines are airgapped. But they all receive commands and ballots from some other machine on the network (many via PCMCIA cards). And let's not kid ourselves about the security of the machines used to program the ballots on the e-voting machines. Michigan can't even get the lead out of the water in Flint. How much attention and budget do you think they've been paying to the computer security of their election commissions? I'd bet the money in my pocket that I can be on the controller of at least one election district machine before the week is over. Any competent nation state can do it too.
This week, I'll blog about some of the complications of the audit from a DFIR and CTI standpoint.
For now I think it's interesting to consider a more important point of attribution. Suppose that the audit uncovers widespread compromise of e-voting machines or their controllers. What then? Cyber attack attribution is difficult in the best of circumstances. But in this case we've telegraphed our intention to audit the systems and in doing so have given any potential adversary time to cover their tracks. As we regularly tell clients at Rendition Infosec, it's nearly impossible for an adversary to completely cover their tracks and make it appear that an intrusion never took place. But anti-forensics techniques definitely complicate attribution.
Do you have some thoughts on how attackers might have covered tracks? Unique DFIR or CTI angles I haven't considered? Hit me up on Twitter using the hashtag #DFIRrecount and get the conversation going.
Every four years we criticize the security of the e-voting machines without actually doing anything about it. And security pundits talk about the risks. Some even demonstrate how the machines can be hacked (side note, I think the Cylance demo just days before the election was a reckless publicity stunt). Despite all the talk, to my knowledge we've never had a post-election audit of the e-voting system. Now that's a possibility and I for one couldn't be happier. I could even argue that with the US intelligence community openly blaming Russia for attacks, there's never been a better time to perform such an audit.
I'm most interested in the prospect of doing forensics on the voting machines and the computers that program, read, and report results from those machines. Many talk about how the voting machines are airgapped. But they all receive commands and ballots from some other machine on the network (many via PCMCIA cards). And let's not kid ourselves about the security of the machines used to program the ballots on the e-voting machines. Michigan can't even get the lead out of the water in Flint. How much attention and budget do you think they've been paying to the computer security of their election commissions? I'd bet the money in my pocket that I can be on the controller of at least one election district machine before the week is over. Any competent nation state can do it too.
This week, I'll blog about some of the complications of the audit from a DFIR and CTI standpoint.
For now I think it's interesting to consider a more important point of attribution. Suppose that the audit uncovers widespread compromise of e-voting machines or their controllers. What then? Cyber attack attribution is difficult in the best of circumstances. But in this case we've telegraphed our intention to audit the systems and in doing so have given any potential adversary time to cover their tracks. As we regularly tell clients at Rendition Infosec, it's nearly impossible for an adversary to completely cover their tracks and make it appear that an intrusion never took place. But anti-forensics techniques definitely complicate attribution.
Do you have some thoughts on how attackers might have covered tracks? Unique DFIR or CTI angles I haven't considered? Hit me up on Twitter using the hashtag #DFIRrecount and get the conversation going.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.