Linux vs. windows for voting systems?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:14:21 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> resonator80 <w.edelstein RemoveThis @gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
>> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
>>
>> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
>> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
>
> Why not? You *DO* realise that OSS runs on Windows too don't you?

You DO realize that Windows source code is NOT open to everyone, don't
you?

>
>> Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
>> remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
>> Python, etc) is open.
>>
>> Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
>>
>> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
>> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
>> program that could alter the results?
>
> Yes.
>
> Here's another one : could someone compile their own kernel in Linux and
> do it even easier? Answer: yes.

Uh, no. Someone could put there own kernel in a distribution and have it
go un-noticed ... maybe.

____/ resonator80 on Sunday 15 July 2007 16:09 : \____

> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
>
> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
>
> Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
> remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
> Python, etc) is open.
>
> Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
>
> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
> program that could alter the results?
>
> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
> election without its effects being detected by examining the
> application program?
>
> Any other comments are welcom.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Edelstein
> Baltimore, MD

Hi Bill,

I see that you are posting from Google Groups. If you search
comp.os.linux.advocacy for "voting" or "evoting" you will find many references
to previous items from the news that cover exactly these points. Here is the
most recent bunch which you may or may not find helpful:

Avante's (Not Very Good) Offer to New York Voters

,----[ Quote ]
| Providing open source software is a start. That way others can see the
| defects in the system's design or view the intentional codes put in to rig an
| election (open source soft code would be open to the public and therefore
| would not need to be escrowed with the SBOE).  
|
| Avante doesn't want us to see how it has designed its voting computer to
| process and count our votes. If it did it would have used open source
| software, but it chose not to. It is only those vendors who choose to use
| secret proprietary source code that are required to escrow same so that at
| least the SBOE can see what is otherwise concealed from the public.    
|
| Having chose to use secret software to process and count the votes, which
| Avante cannot fully escrow because they relied on Microsoft software to
| create its voting system, Avante now argues that since Kodak or some other
| hardware supplier isn't going to give you the source code of the firmware for
| its scanners or printers either (it would be good to see this lower level
| firmware coding, but not nearly as important as seeing the software source
| code for the operating and tabulating functions of the computer), out should
| go the proverbial baby with the bathwater (and any ability to view the way
| the computer is programmed to tamper or not tamper with the vote).        
|
| [...]
|
| If New York chose an open source code optical scan system, we'd have a voting
| system in place tomorrow, not two years from now. What Avante claims is
| impossible to create actually already exists.  
`----

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andi_nov_070712_avante_s__28no...ery_g.h


HR 811: Separating Truth From Fiction in E-voting Reform

,----[ Quote ]
| States wanting even greater transparency could mandate broader
| disclosure requirements (see proposed Sec. 301(a)((B)(ii)(II)),
| including disposing of any non-disclosure requirement or even
| mandating the use of open source software. Moreover, vendors
| themselves could dispense with the non-disclosure agreement
| requirement, either by explicitly granting permission to share
| otherwise secret source code or by utilizing open source
| systems.
|
| [...]
|
| And once again, states may mandate any kind of additional disclosure,
| including an open source requirement, that they wish.
`----

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005308.php


Microsoft Muscles the NYS Legislature

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft's proposed change to state law would effectively render
| our current requirements for escrow and the ability for independent
| review of source code in the event of disputes completely meaningless
| - and with it the protections the public fought so hard for.
`----

http://nyvv.org/blog/bolipariblog.html


State legislators keep e-voting apps in public hands

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft, whose Windows software is used in some of the vendors' devices,
| sought to amend the law to avoid the strict escrow provisions.  
|
| [...]
|
| But Lipari had his worries before the matter was resolved. Earlier
| this month, in his blog, he called Microsoft the "800-pound gorilla
| of software development" as he called attention to its plans. Microsoft,
| he said, had been steadily lobbying legislators and circulating an
| unsigned document that would redefine the law.
`----

http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/062507-state-legislators-keep-e-vo...g-apps.


E-Voting Raises New Questions in Brazil

,----[ Quote ]
| Some Brazilians are lobbying the tribunal to switch from Windows CE to
| an open-source operating system for the voting machines, since Microsoft
| Corp., citing trade secrecy, won't allow independent audits to make
| sure malicious programmers haven't inserted commands to "flip" votes
| from one candidate to another.
|
| [...]
|
| Fontoura confirmed that Brazil is considering a move away from
| crosoft's proprietary code -- "We are studying the possibility of using an
| open-source program like Linux in future elections. This would make the
| entire process much more transparent and far less expensive," he said.
`----

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060929/brazil_electronic_voting.html?.v=2


E-voting vendor succumbs to California source code demands

,----[ Quote ]
| "... there are serious concerns regarding the motivations and apparent
| personal agendas of a number of the currently proposed examiners," ES&S
| exec StevenPearson wrote in a letter agreeing to turn over the source
| code.
`----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/28/evoting_source_code_disclosure/


John Edwards supports "open source" for voting systems

,----[ Quote ]
| John Edwards has become the first presidential candidate to support
| "open source code" for election systems.
`----

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2662


,----[ Quote ]
| "Nineteen machines had 21 screen freezes or system crashes, producing a
| blue screen and messages about an "illegal operation" or a "fatal
| exception error."
|
| "Especially with this blue-screen problem, you don't know whether it's
| the printer drivers, you don't know whether it's Diebold's own code or
| whether it's Windows,"
`----

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6257


,----[ Quote ]
| Problems found in an audit of Diebold tabulation records from an Ohio
| November 2006 election raise questions about whether the database got
| corrupted during the tabulation of election results...
|
| The database is built from Microsoft's Jet database engine. The
| engine, according to Microsoft, is vulnerable to corruption when a lot
| of concurrent activity is happening with the database, such as what
| occurs on an election night [and Microsoft advises againt using Jet in
| a complex environment]...
|
| The report mentions that election staff had trouble with the server
| crashing and freezing on election night....
|
| The report notes that with punch card machines election officials used
| to be able to determine definitively if all ballots had been counted
| in the results....
`----

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/diebold_vote_da.html

There are many more in the archives. The takeaway is very consistent. The only
thing preventing open source from being the natural choice and the norm is
lobbying (even misconceptions).

resonator80 <w.edelstein.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> writes:

> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
>
> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.

Why not? You *DO* realise that OSS runs on Windows too don't you?

> Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
> remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
> Python, etc) is open.
>
> Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
>
> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
> program that could alter the results?

Yes.

Here's another one : could someone compile their own kernel in Linux and
do it even easier? Answer: yes.

resonator80 wrote:

> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
>
> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.

Another advantage that linux offers is that it is extremely modular and
customisable. You can pick up any linux distro and throw away all the
components that you find useless, not to mention that anyone can just build
it's own custom distro.

On the other hand, no version of windows can claim that. In fact, it is
getting worse with each release. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken microsoft's
own line of defence in the company's US antitrust case based itself on the
inability to customise windows. Adding to that the fact that no one really
knows or is able to understand what is going on in windows's entrails, I
don't see how using windows on sensitive areas like voting systems is even
taken into account.


> Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
> remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
> Python, etc) is open.
>
> Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
>
> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
> program that could alter the results?

Isn't that the very basic mission of all malware that plagues the windows
world? Unfortunately there are more than plenty examples of that.


> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
> election without its effects being detected by examining the
> application program?

Let's put it this way. A whole lot more has been done with windows malware
for a far lesser reward.


Rui Maciel

In article <469a48aa$0$15004$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> Another advantage that linux offers is that it is extremely modular and
> customisable. You can pick up any linux distro and throw away all the
> components that you find useless, not to mention that anyone can just build
> it's own custom distro.
>
> On the other hand, no version of windows can claim that. In fact, it is
> getting worse with each release. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken microsoft's

You seem to have overlooked Windows CE.


--
--Tim Smith

resonator80 wrote:

> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
> program that could alter the results?

Sure, this can happen, no matter if you use closed source or open source
programs. The advantage with the open source is that you have a chance to
inspect the application, while the closed source won't give you any chance at
all to detect the change.


> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
> election without its effects being detected by examining the
> application program?

Programs that alterers the memory directly can do this, like all the popular
anti-virus programs for microsoft, many viruses for microsoft can affect the
voting, even if the program isn't meant to temper with the voting application,
it may affect it anyhow.


--

//Aho

On 2007-07-15, J.O. Aho <user.RemoveThis@example.net> wrote:
> resonator80 wrote:
>
>> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
>> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
>> program that could alter the results?
>
> Sure, this can happen, no matter if you use closed source or open source
> programs. The advantage with the open source is that you have a chance to
> inspect the application, while the closed source won't give you any chance at
> all to detect the change.

Neither open source nor closed source software truly comes out ahead
here. Sure, if you're using open source software then you can
inspect the purported _source code_ of the application or operating
system. However, you generally have no way of knowing that this
source code (and not some fraudulent modified version) is precisely
the same text which has been compiled into the software on the black
box sitting in front of you, when you show up to vote on Election
Day.

For the voter's purposes, anything on the order of complexity of a
computer -- even a computer whose software's source code we
ostensibly have in hand -- is effectively a black box. (Even if the
application and operating system are fine, how do we know we can
trust the hardware?) That's no basis for a system of government.

Voters need an absolutely transparent election system if they are to
be able to trust the outcomes of elections. That means punch cards,
that means manually marked ballots -- above all, it means something
that leaves a paper trail.

Tabulating elections by hand has worked just fine for this country
for more than 200 years. There's no reason to stop now just because
a few companies see a profit to be made in selling expensive black
boxes.

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

Hadron wrote:

> Here's another one : could someone compile their own kernel in Linux and
> do it even easier? Answer: yes.

Yes, but the code would be open to examination by all...

C.

Mark Shroyer wrote:

> Neither open source nor closed source software truly comes out ahead
> here. Sure, if you're using open source software then you can
> inspect the purported _source code_ of the application or operating
> system. However, you generally have no way of knowing that this
> source code (and not some fraudulent modified version) is precisely
> the same text which has been compiled into the software on the black
> box sitting in front of you, when you show up to vote on Election
> Day.

Checksums and the like can demonstrate the sanctity of the code.

> For the voter's purposes, anything on the order of complexity of a
> computer -- even a computer whose software's source code we
> ostensibly have in hand -- is effectively a black box. (Even if the
> application and operating system are fine, how do we know we can
> trust the hardware?) That's no basis for a system of government.

True. Also, "one man one vote" is a truly stupid way of electing a
government!

> Voters need an absolutely transparent election system if they are to
> be able to trust the outcomes of elections. That means punch cards,
> that means manually marked ballots -- above all, it means something
> that leaves a paper trail.

Agreed.

> Tabulating elections by hand has worked just fine for this country
> for more than 200 years. There's no reason to stop now just because
> a few companies see a profit to be made in selling expensive black
> boxes.

Completely agreed. However this silly "equal" voting system has got to go.
Most countries /claim/ to be meritocracies - let's have votes based on
wealth, property ownership, education and so on.

C.

On 2007-07-15, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark Shroyer wrote:
>
>> Neither open source nor closed source software truly comes out ahead
>> here. Sure, if you're using open source software then you can
>> inspect the purported _source code_ of the application or operating
>> system. However, you generally have no way of knowing that this
>> source code (and not some fraudulent modified version) is precisely
>> the same text which has been compiled into the software on the black
>> box sitting in front of you, when you show up to vote on Election
>> Day.
>
> Checksums and the like can demonstrate the sanctity of the code.

But checksums can't demonstrate any such thing to voters during an
election. Picture this: you're standing at an electronic voting
machine. It's powered on and you're interacting with its UI. How
do you perform a checksum on the software while the computer is
running? How could you possibly trust that the voting machine won't
lie about the checksum itself?

The only way to perform such a check is by reading the voting
machine's non-volatile memory using an independent, trusted
computer. That means shutting down the voting machine, ripping out
its hard drive or flash memory, and connecting it to your laptop.
Elections officials generally frown up on such behavior.

> [...]
>
> Completely agreed. However this silly "equal" voting system has got to go.
> Most countries /claim/ to be meritocracies - let's have votes based on
> wealth, property ownership, education and so on.

Voting power based on wealth, property, and education: that's not
meritocracy, that's plutocracy. At the risk of taking this thread
completely off-topic, I have to ask -- do you truly believe this
would lead to a better society? When has an official policy of
making the powerful more influential, and sweeping the destitute
even further under the rug, ever worked out for the betterment of
all?

Allowing the best to rise to the top isn't a function of government,
it's a function of the economy. All the government has to do is
provide a level playing field -- for the rich and poor, educated and
uneducated alike.

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

J.O. Aho wrote:
> resonator80 wrote:
>
>> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
>> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
>> program that could alter the results?
>
> Sure, this can happen, no matter if you use closed source or open source
> programs. The advantage with the open source is that you have a chance to
> inspect the application, while the closed source won't give you any chance at
> all to detect the change.
>
>
>> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
>> election without its effects being detected by examining the
>> application program?
>
> Programs that alterers the memory directly can do this, like all the popular
> anti-virus programs for microsoft, many viruses for microsoft can affect the
> voting, even if the program isn't meant to temper with the voting application,
> it may affect it anyhow.
>
>
Indeed. BUT to do that need permissions that the average user level
program hasn't got, and that includee e.g. a browser.

All Unix style nastiness has happened by exploiting bugs in programs
running with root level permissions - the original Internet Worm did
that with sendmail..

Rick wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:14:21 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> resonator80 <w.edelstein DeleteThis @gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
>>> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
>>>
>>> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
>>> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
>>
>> Why not? You *DO* realise that OSS runs on Windows too don't you?
>
> You DO realize that Windows source code is NOT open to everyone, don't
> you?
>

You do realize that voting machines are not possible with GPL3 code in some
countries?
Just to put a different tag to the discussion.
Since the voting machines have to be made to enforce that only "allowed"
code gets executed, the same thing as with TiVo suddenly rears its ugly
head. Thus GPL3 can be actually a NoNO for voting machines

I know, now the GPL3 supporters come out and tell us to just use GPL2 in
that case. As in all the other cases, where GPL3 makes life somewhat
inconvenient.
--
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:18:59 +0000 (UTC), Mark Shroyer <usenet-mail RemoveThis @markshroyer.com> wrote:


>On 2007-07-15, J.O. Aho <user RemoveThis @example.net> wrote:
>> resonator80 wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
>>> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
>>> program that could alter the results?
>>
>> Sure, this can happen, no matter if you use closed source or open source
>> programs. The advantage with the open source is that you have a chance to
>> inspect the application, while the closed source won't give you any chance at
>> all to detect the change.

>Neither open source nor closed source software truly comes out ahead
>here. Sure, if you're using open source software then you can
>inspect the purported _source code_ of the application or operating
>system. However, you generally have no way of knowing that this
>source code (and not some fraudulent modified version) is precisely
>the same text which has been compiled into the software on the black
>box sitting in front of you, when you show up to vote on Election
>Day.

>For the voter's purposes, anything on the order of complexity of a
>computer -- even a computer whose software's source code we
>ostensibly have in hand -- is effectively a black box. (Even if the

We're not talking about a word processing program, or a system for tracking
a thousand incoming aircraft.

Counting votes is a rock stupid appliaction. There is no reason it should
require more than a few thousand lines of code.