posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Indigo5
It would be the easist hack. The touch screen hardware/software interface is seperate from the software internals which record input with various
required security protocols etc. Just a laymans guess.
I'm pretty sure it would be the hardest hack. The touch screen is most likely controlled by its own microcontroller which has its own software on a
type of flash memory (EEPROM). The software would only be responsible for translating output (display) and input (touch) to and from the separate
voting software and computer hardware.
If you were to manipulate the software for the microcontroller to report faulty touch positions (x,y) to the voting software, it would do so on every
screen of the voting software, not just on one screen (the Presidential selection screen). It would be noticed as a faulty touch screen.
There would be no way for the microcontroller's software to determine what screen is visible on the voting software without some large change in the
code which analyzes the display data byte by byte to search for key words which are displayed on the screen, which would be an extremely difficult
task with a simple slow clock speed microcontroller. Also the amount of available flash memory for the microcontroller is more than likely limited,
so large changes in code might not even fit.
It would be much easier to hack the voting software. Actually, it could be a simple 1 byte change in code, and even if it was encrypted would still
Just wanted to add. The above assumes the display and touch (output and input) are controlled with the same controller. In reality, the touch screen
is most likely controlled separately from the display, and there would be no way for the touch screen controller's software to know which screen is
currently shown. The touch screen controller is most likely only outputting touched locations (x,y) to the main computer, and has no means of
communication otherwise with the main computer that controls the voting software. So the above gives you the benefit of doubt.
6-11-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)