Our findings serve as a concrete illustration of the common wisdom against Internet voting, and of the importance of transparency to the legitimacy of elections.” ![]() We additionally find that Voatz has a number of privacy issues stemming from their use of third party services for crucial app functionality. “We find that Voatz has vulnerabilities that allow different kinds of adversaries to alter, stop, or expose a user?s vote, including a sidechannel attack in which a completely passive network adversary can potentially recover a user?s secret ballot. Last November, Senator Ron Wyden wrote to the Pentagon to raise concerns about Voatz?s security and to ask for a full audit of the app.Ĭriticism of the company grew much louder this week after MIT researchers released a paper (pdf) showing how Voatz’s technology has some fairly basic problems that would let an attacker intercept votes as they?re transmitted from mobile phones to the voting company?s server - without anybody being the wiser: The West Virginia effort has been handed over to internet voting vendor Voatz, whose smartphone voting system had already been criticized for being risky and insecure. From West Virginia to Washington State, the quest for great inclusivity in voting access often results in people ignoring these warnings in the belief that they’re helping. Despite this there’s an endless chorus of political leaders, cities, and states who continue to insist they know better. ![]() There’s just too many potential attack vectors as your voting data floats from your personal device, across the internet, and into the final tally repository. You’d be pretty hard pressed to find a single respected cybersecurity expert that thinks voting via smartphone is a good idea.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |