Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft United States Politics Technology

Microsoft Offers Software Tools To Secure Elections (apnews.com) 98

Posted by msmash from the marching-forward dept.
Alongside sharing updates on many of its platforms, Microsoft said at its Build developer conference today that is also getting ready to release several new tools to shore up security for political parties and candidates and at the ballot box. From a report: Microsoft announced an ambitious effort it says will make voting secure, verifiable and subject to reliable audits. Two of the three top U.S elections vendors have expressed interest in potentially incorporating the open-source software into their proprietary voting systems. The software kit is being developed with Galois, an Oregon-based company separately creating a secure voting system prototype under contract with the Pentagon's advanced research agency, DARPA. Dubbed "ElectionGuard," the Microsoft kit will be available this summer, the company says, with early prototypes ready to pilot for next year's general elections. CEO Satya Nadella announced the initiative Monday at a developer's conference in Seattle. Nadella said the project's software, provided free of charge as part of Microsoft's Defending Democracy Program, would help "modernize all of the election infrastructure everywhere in the world." Microsoft also announced a cut-rate Office 365 application suite for political parties and campaigns for what it charges nonprofits. Both Microsoft and Google provide anti-phishing email support for campaigns. Three little-known U.S. companies control about 90 percent of the market for election equipment, but have long faced criticism for poor security, antiquated technology and insufficient transparency around their proprietary, black-box voting systems.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Offers Software Tools To Secure Elections More

Microsoft Offers Software Tools To Secure Elections

Comments Filter:

  • EHEEHEHEHEHE... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:14PM (#58548224)

    Microsoft... secure elections... heheheeheheheheehehe...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I read it as securing the result you want/paid for.

  • is like Congress promising integrity. The best security we have for our current voting system is that it is wildly fragmented and antiquated. If there is one thing Microsoft has consistently proven is the inability to perceive how a "feature" can be abused and manipulated. The moment we endeavor to steamline the process the moment it become far easier to attack.

  • Need full os source code!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Even that wouldn't do any good. You have no way of knowing whether the code you can review is what's running on the voting machine. And even if the machine is somehow verified (which it can't be) the central count can't be. Why are people persisting with electronic voting of any kind?! It's a horrible, horrible idea!

      • that is why paper backup is needed with an forced audit if the votes at within X votes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        Having the source code is not the same as being able to read and grok the source code. It's probably a pile of spaghetti.

        • It's probably a pile of spaghetti.

          Not spaghetti, thicker, dark brown, smelly. You don't want to step in it.

      • Why are people persisting with electronic voting of any kind?! It's a horrible, horrible idea!

        To...reduce the administrative burden of fixing the result? *shrug*

  • OH, **HELL**, NO! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by ewhac ( 5844 )
    Bill, you keep your grubby, fumbling fingers out of our elections and electoral process and systems. You can't even administer a home PC without unrecoverably fucking it up. How lead-poisoned do you need to be to think you can contribute anything other than aggravation and heartache to an election system already under siege by foreign adversaries -- the same adversaries that you've demonstrated over the last several decades you're UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF EVEN SLOWING DOWN on hundreds of millions of compute

  • I said lick my erection (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:27PM (#58548318)

    not wreck my election.

    I would like to see an oversight body that does extensive analysis of any voting software/hardware to certify the devices before any deployment.

    New certifications would be required with any software or hardware updates, or once a year.

    • I would like to see an oversight body that does extensive analysis of any voting software/hardware to certify the devices before any deployment.

      New certifications would be required with any software or hardware updates, or once a year.

      I'd settle for one or two representatives from each party (ideally randomly chosen) and ID. Oh, I lost the blue states when I added ID.

    • Secure elections == paper ballots, counted by hand, in public view.

      Here's how I would implement this:
      1. Every ballot is an optical scan template (like the SAT, where you fill in an oval with black pen);
      2. After voting, every voter puts their ballot through a slot into a locked box;
      3. When the polls close and all ballots are in the box, the box is opened;
      4. The scanner is turned on, and connected to a large screen;
      5. One by one, a poll worker holds up each ballot and shows it to the public (both sides, if ne

  • Cautiously optimistic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <mike@mikesmYEATS ... n.com minus poet> on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:27PM (#58548320) Homepage
    I like that they are open sourcing this project (MIT license) and that I can adapt it for my own purposes - I work with a group that likes to use Star Voting, and this might be amenable to that. So, on paper, this is all good. Off paper, I am still thinking about that old Microsoft strategy: embrace, extend....

  • All votes will be deleted (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    as soon as the voting machine stops working for an hour to update to the new version of the software, initiated by a remote connection.

    I trust Microsoft Windows to play games, nothing more. And even that it can't do reliably sometimes.

  • Because the quality of Microsoft Windows does not seem to be as good as it once was, I have to wonder... how will this election software be tested for quality control?

    • End Users will beta test it in 2020.

    • Boeing?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      ...not as good as it once was...I just cannot get my head around that. It always was a pile of shit, adding more shit only makes more of the pile.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The US gov? The US mil? A company? A project?
      Some people in the US gov/mil that do innovation?
      US government "partners"?
      Think tank? NGO? Charity?
      For global use?

      Will a nation like India want US software doing its election?
      Would India like US social media staff working on who in India can comment on election politics?
      A US charity involved with US social media in India to modernize the way India does democracy?
      US human rights workers in the US have the power to ban Indian social media use that

  • Democrats don't want it (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They like to claim they won the popular vote. That won't happen if votes are counted properly.

  • Why is this needed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:58PM (#58548548) Journal

    Voting machines should never be connected to any network. There is no need to have them connected. If an update needs done, or the machine needs configured, someone from the company should show up and do the work.

    This does not need to be done over the wire.

    Apparently the idea is to take what is a simple process, making a mark next to your candidate, and turn it into the most convoluted, time-consuming, digitally vulnerable process possible.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Lots of people all around the USA went to vote.
      They voted.
      Giving speeches all over the USA on topics that win elections cannot be the reason why an election was won.
      Now everyone who could not win a US election has to have a reason for their loss.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Over the network is better than the alternative - having mass storage devices attached to the machine.

      There must be a way to get firmware on to the machine, and to get election results and accounting data off it. Having a USB port or a floppy drive is far worse than having a network port.

      The network port is much easier to secure. No incoming connections accepted at all, only outgoing connection allowed is a VPN to a secure server. It's a well tested and proven configuration.

      It's also more robust, as votes c

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And absolutely NO accountability. No thanks, I'd prefer to stick with a method that includes a paper trail.

  • Why do we need voting machines in the first place? I was a little shocked when I showed up to vote in San Jose and there's literally one voting machine for those with disabilities. For everyone else, you fill out a paper ballot and go on your way. The advantages of said system are simplicity, traceability, and secure. Without a central point to attack, rigging elections would involve rigging every single polling place -- which is hard and you'd probably get caught.

    For competent engineers, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a principle of design. And then there's Microsoft.

  • great until.. (Score:3)

    by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Monday May 06, 2019 @04:49PM (#58548816)
    Securing elections is a funny topic. We need tons of security against cyber fraud because Russia but we also need zero security against local fraud like requiring IDs. How people say it with a straight face is beyond me.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by meglon ( 1001833 )

      We need tons of security against cyber fraud because Russia....

      Yes, because everyone NOT a hyper-partisan idiot knows they fucked with our election. Some of us, we'll call ourselves Americans, prefer to not have a hostile country help choose our president. Obviously those hyper-partisan tribal idiots who don't, don't actually give a fuck about the US, just about their tribe... so they don't mind a hostile country helping "their" choice for president.

      .....but we also need zero security against local fraud like requiring IDs.

      We've never had zero security for election. And the "local" fraud that would be, supposedly, dampened by requiring s

      • Yes, because everyone NOT a hyper-partisan idiot knows they fucked with our election.

        I took the time to look over your posts. You are definitely hyper-partisan. Not to say that I've never done such things, we all have our views. However you are definitely the pot calling the kettle black if you want to complain about partisan thinking clouding perception.

        Some of us, we'll call ourselves Americans,

        To be fair conservatives are far more proud of being American as a group regardless of the administration. For the purpose of your argument you need a better label.

        ... prefer to not have a hostile country help choose our president. Obviously those hyper-partisan tribal idiots who don't, don't actually give a fuck about the US, just about their tribe... so they don't mind a hostile country helping "their" choice for president.

        Back to the hyper partisan slur. It's naive to think that other powers

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by meglon ( 1001833 )
          You shouldn't have bothered responding, as you're either incapable of understanding the written word, have your head buried too far up your ass to see what's going on around you, or are just another conspiracy theory conservative shill who would prefer to be intentionally stupider than fuck rather than live in reality...... or all of those. Guess which my money is on.

          I get it though, you're one of those "patriots" who don't give a fuck about this country, you just care about yourself. That's the GOP; pa

          • You shouldn't have bothered responding

            You're likely right, but I am curious if you are ever going to make a convincing argument or just call names and swear.

            ... as you're either incapable of understanding the written word, have your head buried too far up your ass to see what's going on around you, or are just another conspiracy theory conservative shill who would prefer to be intentionally stupider than fuck rather than live in reality...... or all of those. Guess which my money is on.

            Given that none of those are correct I hope you didn't wager too much.

            I get it though, you're one of those "patriots" who don't give a fuck about this country, you just care about yourself. That's the GOP; party before country.

            While I do care about myself, I also care about the country. I pay more taxes than the average person and don't break the law. If a country were smart, they would want me as a citizen. I'm a good customer so to speak. I'm also a good neighbor, I help out where I can, and I'm usually friendly. As for GOP before count

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by meglon ( 1001833 )
              It doesn't matter what arguments i make, or how much they're supported by reality; willfully stupid people like you have your heads too far up your ass to ever learn anything that your tribal bullshit doesn't cover up immediately. If you compare what you've posted to what's actually happened these past few years, anyone with any basic common sense would simply say you're a fucking idiot, or a fucking liar. You don't learn by events happen, you certainly won't learn when someone tries to teach you... becau

              • It doesn't matter what arguments i make, or how much they're supported by reality; willfully stupid people like you have your heads too far up your ass to ever learn anything that your tribal bullshit doesn't cover up immediately. If you compare what you've posted to what's actually happened these past few years, anyone with any basic common sense would simply say you're a fucking idiot, or a fucking liar. You don't learn by events happen, you certainly won't learn when someone tries to teach you... because you do not want to learn.... you do not want to acknowledge that the shit you say is fucking stupidity or fucking naivety. It is a waste of my time to teach you things you should, if you had basic intelligence, learn through living. You don't. You have your partisan bullshit dogma. I'm not here to hold your hand and teach you. You want to be willfully stupider than shit; i'm here to tell you: congrats, you've succeeded, you're willfully stupider than shit.

                So ... no real arguments. Good thing I'm so stupid or you'd unleash your mighty intellect on me and dazzle us all with your brilliance. If only we were worthy. I guess I really do see the little man behind the curtain. It's ok if you post or not. If you want to have the last word that's fine. Cheers

    • those are two separate issues, IDs can be used to fight voter fraud, this is for election fraud.

  • Microsoft offering to "protect" your elections to go unharmed is like the friendly visitor from the Mafia offering "protection" for your restaurant. Companies like Microsoft are what endangers elections in the first place. And they certainly won't go without danegeld for their "operating system", or whatever they call their malware by now.
  • Having MS do voting security sounds about as problematic as getting the latest update the moment it is released.

  • From the article:

    ElectionGuard democratizes the ability to verify election results by enabling direct public confirmation of the accuracy of those results. Voters are able to verify the correct recording of their votes, and anyone – including voters themselves – can verify that all of the recorded votes are correctly counted. As with current election systems, voters will remain unable to disclose their recorded votes to protect their privacy.

    ElectionGuard verification is accomplished in two ways

  • I'd much rather have some pit bosses and casino security come up with a secure system, you know those guys don't fuck around.

  • Chipotle offers sanitation tools to avoid Shigella and E. Coli

  • The Democrats have a hard enough time accepting LEGITIMATE election results.

    That's all we need is a bunch of "convenient" BSODs to muddy things further...

  • It looks like you're trying to rig an election.
    Would you like to:

    * Allow people who died before WW1 to vote.
    * Block voters because their ID looks a bit fake.
    * Paint a totally made up number on a bus.
    * Subtlety is for cucks, send armed thugs to all opposition-leaning districts now!

  • Relevant XKCD. [xkcd.com]

    Seriously, though, it shouldn't be hard to design an "electronic voting system." First, don't have it on a network. Each machine would tally votes cast on it and these would be sent after the fact. We don't need to get real-time election results at the expense of opening security holes. Secondly, each vote would be printed on a piece of paper that the person would look at to confirm their votes were correct and then would put in a bin. Alternatively, have people fill out scantron sheets. The k

  • " to shore up security for political parties and candidates and at the ballot box."

    Come on. Use a dang comma. Either replace the first "and" with a comma, or place one before the second.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close