TLDR: if there's a recount, parties get to review the software, and they can say their opinions about it, but they can't reveal any "proprietary information" about the code (i.e. including actual formulas or source code).
That would be sloppy, there are better ways of doing it.
Once enough damage is done, or certain signal is not received, it deletes itself.
Easy to code and implement.
The NSA used to hack cables near cables they wanted to hack and eavesdrop using electrical interference from the cables being physically close to each other. I think they did that in the 90's. Better things now.
Doesn’t matter, republicans will have access to the version/code used during recount. If it’s a “clean” version then it will count the votes correctly and Trump wins. If it’s the same version used on election night, they’ll find the algorithm. Either way we win.
There is not "one" version when they are patching glitches and making corrections throughout the night. There are N number of versions equal to the number of deployments onto the machine. Even if they are declared to be the "same" version, only a full diff or a properly-implemented checksum would be able to confirm if this is true. Developers should also prove through their work what bugs were corrected and where they changed the code to correct the issues at hand and auditors should ask themselves whether their changes make any sense given the context of the election and also demand to see what tests were performed to ensure that their products were working properly.
If the machine was potentially exposed to an external source that could have been used to manipulate the count or the software itself (USB attacks, unsecured or open-gated access to the internet, etc), then the number of deployments made is completely immeasurable and unreliable to use in an election setting.
That is assuming the person receiving the subpoena has the code in question. An employee(s) could have rolled it out without saving it to a repository, possible even compiled on a personal computer and only put on the update server as a binary.
they should create a hash the compiled exe on the machine and compare it to a hash of a compiled version of the code they recieve to make sure it is the same code.
Bingo. A hash compare would tell if the code was the same. They should have hashes for all of their compiled code anyway to verify what is on the actual voting machines to begin with. If even one character is different the hash would be completely different.
I wonder if the demonrats have any kind of plan, for example knowing that people would find out, then while noones watching add more ballots/votes post-election. Then recounts make things look fine. Not even sure if this is likely...
Guess what happens if there's a recount in Wisconsin?
https://www.wisciviljusticecouncil.org/2020/05/11/dominion-voting-systems-inc-v-wisconsin-elections-commission-voting-software-confidentiality/
TLDR: if there's a recount, parties get to review the software, and they can say their opinions about it, but they can't reveal any "proprietary information" about the code (i.e. including actual formulas or source code).
Did I read that right?
1000% the malicious code is inserted on election night then removed.
That would be sloppy, there are better ways of doing it.
Once enough damage is done, or certain signal is not received, it deletes itself.
Easy to code and implement.
The NSA used to hack cables near cables they wanted to hack and eavesdrop using electrical interference from the cables being physically close to each other. I think they did that in the 90's. Better things now.
So does that mean nothing could be done about this? This code talk is out of my league
Doesn’t matter, republicans will have access to the version/code used during recount. If it’s a “clean” version then it will count the votes correctly and Trump wins. If it’s the same version used on election night, they’ll find the algorithm. Either way we win.
Unless votes were systematically destroyed.
Don't fall into this trap.
There is not "one" version when they are patching glitches and making corrections throughout the night. There are N number of versions equal to the number of deployments onto the machine. Even if they are declared to be the "same" version, only a full diff or a properly-implemented checksum would be able to confirm if this is true. Developers should also prove through their work what bugs were corrected and where they changed the code to correct the issues at hand and auditors should ask themselves whether their changes make any sense given the context of the election and also demand to see what tests were performed to ensure that their products were working properly.
If the machine was potentially exposed to an external source that could have been used to manipulate the count or the software itself (USB attacks, unsecured or open-gated access to the internet, etc), then the number of deployments made is completely immeasurable and unreliable to use in an election setting.
Werent wayne county machines miraculously connected.to the internet at 4am??
the code would have already been there, if anyone hacked it, it might have been the nsa watching it
Like with a cloth?
Yeah but that protection wouldn't help if there was evidence of crimes...
I wonder how many 3 letter agencies are involved?
Fixed that for you
Yes.
All.
I would bet they show a code release that doesnt contain the "glitch" so that it looks fine.
They might be willing to steal a national election, but I can't imagine that they would provide a decoy code to a court - that's just inconceivable.
But seriously, this is exactly why we need to be hearing about Roger Stone -style raids on Dominion's offices and servers like yesterday.
That is assuming the person receiving the subpoena has the code in question. An employee(s) could have rolled it out without saving it to a repository, possible even compiled on a personal computer and only put on the update server as a binary.
But then it would work... So far sounds like it doesn't.
they should create a hash the compiled exe on the machine and compare it to a hash of a compiled version of the code they recieve to make sure it is the same code.
Bingo. A hash compare would tell if the code was the same. They should have hashes for all of their compiled code anyway to verify what is on the actual voting machines to begin with. If even one character is different the hash would be completely different.
I highly doubt that adding votes is "proprietary information"
It's certainly their secret formula!
You'll quickly see WI be conceded by the Biden team to avoid this.
Too late.
Biden bought the ticket, now he gets to take the ride.
Holy fuck pede!!!!!
I wonder if the demonrats have any kind of plan, for example knowing that people would find out, then while noones watching add more ballots/votes post-election. Then recounts make things look fine. Not even sure if this is likely...