I did forward-facing systems security connecting to disparate systems with varying degrees of egress (DMV, Law Enforcement, Judicial) for 21 years and any script kiddie could have gained access to a Dominion server.
Comments (176)
sorted by:
I did forward-facing systems security connecting to disparate systems with varying degrees of egress (DMV, Law Enforcement, Judicial) for 21 years and any script kiddie could have gained access to a Dominion server.
Because the machines require a standard to be met to be eligible to be voting machines. By demonstrating multiple vectors of attack, they've demonstrated the machines are not eligible for the election. They would either a) throw the election out and give electors to Trump or b) do a signature and voting machine audit to verify the results from the error prone machines. In Michigan for example the machines are required to have an error rate below a fraction of a percent, when an audit was done they found an error rate of 68%. The machines were not supposed to connect to the net, and Col. Waldren provided sworn testimony they did, as well as several others stating they were able to remotely control the machines. This is enough proof. You don't need to even have video evidence (which we do). You just need to prove the machines were set up in a way that could allow them to be easily hacked and hard to detect.
Why would you need a signature audit to verify results from a machine that does not check signatures?
You're also completely wrong about the Michigan forensic audit, there is no "requirement" of any error rate, only voluntary guidelines, and the 68% is a completely different type of error rate than the one stated in those voluntary guidelines. Phil Waldron has no relevant qualifications, and the people who wrote the Michigan report have established their incompetence in their other affidavits (literally claiming Minnesota counties are in Michigan).
If it was "enough proof" a case using that report would've already been filed and on track to overturn the election.