E-voting Can be More Secure When Done Right

In the comments of my last post, bkwatch reminds me that paper ballots are from from perfect. I totally agree. I’m also not against e-voting just on principle. Or against all e-voting. I’m just against insecure electronic voting. Which, based on what I’ve seen, is true of many, if not most, current implementations. Here’s what I said: Here”s why I don’t think the risk is overblown. First of all there are only a few manufacturers of voting machines. The problems we see are systemic to those manufacturers and systems. Thus the potential exits for a single attack to potentially work on a massive scale- maybe a number of states. Second, the attacks can be much harder to detect and not require as much collusion as attacks on paper systems. A single technician, programmer, or hacker (for networked systems) can succeed. The normal physical controls we have to reduce election fraud are less effective, or even worthless. There are also availability issues- paper is much more resilient to power outages and system crashes. It’s a lot easier to lose a single memore chip with thousands (or more) votes than a big ballot box with equivalent numbers (which, on occasion, also happens). Thus the scope and scale of the problems is dramatically different. I actually think smart e-voting can improve the electoral process and reduce voter fraud. I”m not against e-voting itself, just many of the current implementations. Electronic voting can be improved by: Requiring independent security lab certification. Not a weak certification like Common Criteria, but something more akin to the testing done on gambling machines. A voter verified paper trail- not something a voter takes home, but something they can visually certify and drop in a ballot box before walking out the door. Eliminating network connectivity. Except for maybe local networking over physical cabling, but even that might be too risky. These won’t eliminate fraud, but they’ll reduce it. The potential is even there to build a system more secure than paper. Share:

Read Post

Site Updates This Weekend

I’ll be updating the look and feel of the site slightly, and performing some other system updates. There shouldn’t be any outages, but if you do notice anything strange or some HTML/CSS issues please let me know Share:

Read Post

Don’t Panic: Bluetooth 0Day on Mac: Probably Patched

I have no details, but am investigating. I know there are some Bluetooth 0days floating around for various platforms, but this one wasn’t on my list. This was presented at a conference in Europe. A copy of the presentation is here. In the presentation it looks like the flaw is patched, but I’m checking with the author to find out for sure. Right now nothing to panic about, but I do stand by my advice to start limiting wireless use in public areas. I still use my wireless, but I leave it off when I don’t need an active connection. Which you probably already do for battery life, right? Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.