New remote voting risks and solutions identified
The upcoming presidential election in the middle of a pandemic has many jurisdictions exploring new technologies. They’re not secure.
The upcoming presidential election in the middle of a pandemic has many jurisdictions exploring new technologies. They’re not secure.
Election security researchers at the University of Michigan and MIT have found vulnerabilities in an internet voting and ballot delivery system either being used or planned for use in 14 states.
Their work is the first public, independent analysis of the security and privacy risks of Democracy Live’s OmniBallot system. In a recently released report, they outline security holes and offer recommendations for both election officials and voters.
Delaware, West Virginia, and New Jersey have either deployed OmniBallot or plan to do so for fully online voting, also referred to as “electronic ballot return.” Other states including Colorado, Florida, Oregon, Ohio and Washington, the New York Times reports, use it to deliver blank ballots to registered voters who can mark them and return them by fax, email or mail. Neither of these uses are adequately secure, the researchers found.
“OmniBallot’s design is overly simple, and ignores 30 years of research about building E2E-verifiable online voting. The voter’s identity and ballot choice are just sent to a server in Amazon’s cloud, which generates a ballot that officials can download. As a result, there’s no way for voters, officials, or Democracy Live to be sure votes aren’t modified,” J. Alex Halderman, professor of computer science and engineering at U-M and an author of the report, said in a Twitter thread.
“There are important risks even when OmniBallot is used only for delivering blank ballots, including the risk that ballots could be misdirected or subtly manipulated in ways that cause them to be counted incorrectly.”
Michael Specter, a doctoral student at MIT who worked on the report with Halderman, says the team’s goal is “to provide election officials and citizens the information they need to ensure that elections are conducted securely.”
For individual voters, the researchers recommend these steps, as outlined in a blog post by MIT CSAIL:
In The News
Politico
January 8, 2020
Ballot-marking devices are still vulnerable to hacks, according to a study from EECS-CSE professor Alex Halderman.
Bloomberg
January 8, 2020
The latest study from EECS-CSE professor Alex Halderman shows vulnerabilities in ballot-marking devices.
The New York TImes
January 10, 2020
While American election defenses have improved since 2016, many of the vulnerabilities exploited four years ago remain. Comments by Prof. J. Alex Halderman.
For election officials, they recommend these steps, as tweeted by Halderman:
“States are adopting OmniBallot for laudable reasons: to help overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and those who can’t safely go to the polls due to COVID-19,” Halderman says. “But, as we learned in 2016, elections face serious security threats. That’s especially true for online voting.”
OmniBallot’s ballot delivery and marking modes have the potential to be valuable tools for helping voters participate, if used with specific security precautions and changes recommended in the study, the researchers say. Some of those recommendations can be followed directly by individual voters but many will also require action by election officials.
“On the other hand,” the researchers added, “as online ballot return represents a severe danger to election integrity and voter privacy that no available technology can adequately mitigate, we recommend that Democracy Live and jurisdictions discontinue this feature.”