Dominion: "Allows staff to adjust tally based on review of scanned ballot images"

Here is straight-forward evidence in the words of Dominion themselves that admits they are capable of changing the tally with their machines:



Source: Agreement between Santa Clara and Dominion Voting Systems

What is even more interesting is the next clause 2.27 which claims you can identify these adjustments as well as identify the person who made the adjustment and the images of the scanned ballots. If they did plan to execute voter fraud they would likely have an algorithm that can cover their trails. But maybe they did not foresee that Trump et al would bring the blood hounds. Assuming the trail was not erased, if there was voter fraud, it should be able to be detected by an audit of the machines. If they can review scanned ballots, then there is likely a time trail to each scanned ballot so you could possibly detect fraudulent activity.

There will be a crash of all voting machines and the main databases before anyone gets their claws on them to identify the people who utilized the corruption in the programs. Of course, the destruction of the information will be blamed on Trump.

originally posted by: cooperton
Here is straight-forward evidence in the words of Dominion themselves that admits they are capable of changing the tally with their machines:

Source: Agreement between Santa Clara and Dominion Voting Systems

What is even more interesting is the next clause 2.27 which claims you can identify these adjustments as well as identify the person who made the adjustment and the images of the scanned ballots. If they did plan to execute voter fraud they would likely have an algorithm that can cover their trails. But maybe they did not foresee that Trump et al would bring the blood hounds. Assuming the trail was not erased, if there was voter fraud, it should be able to be detected by an audit of the machines. If they can review scanned ballots, then there is likely a time trail to each scanned ballot so you could possibly detect fraudulent activity.

What about the claim that the machines can have a 'weighted' algorithm applied, that would, for example, say that every vote for Biden is worth 1.25 votes, and every vote for Trump is worth 0.75 votes.

If the machines even have the ability for any numbers other than integers, something is fishy...

Yes, that doesn't mean anyone can just change votes as they see fit.

2. The System shall have the following capabilities, but under no circumstance will the capabilities violate the California Use Procedures:

California Use Procedures

It's a PDF, go ahead and read it.

a reply to: cooperton
Good find! The guy pretending to be from Dominion said on FoxNews yesterday that ballot totals could not possibly be adjusted. There was no way it could be done.

Fox News brought in this Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan contractor, to masquerade as a Dominion executive. Worse than CNN. More past crimes to hide.

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Yes, that doesn't mean anyone can just change votes as they see fit.

2. The System shall have the following capabilities, but under no circumstance will the capabilities violate the California Use Procedures:

California Use Procedures

It's a PDF, go ahead and read it.

Democrats didn't raise billions in campaign funds for nothing. Dominion, USPS, people to count ballots, people to bring in boxes of Biden ballots at 2 in the morning that were picked up from ballot harvesters, etc. These people all had to be paid.

a reply to: cooperton

If they did plan to execute voter fraud they would likely have an algorithm that can cover their trails.

So they're likely guilty whether guilty or not , no evidence of machine tampering equals undetectable secret cleaning algorithm , fact is the allegations of voter fraud are just a cover to protect the true guilty party in Trump's Election defeat ... Trump.

Low approval ratings throughout his Presidency mixed with the fact he lost the popular vote last time and did nothing to appeal to anyone other than his base this time sealed his fate , defeat was always on the cards.

a reply to: Gnawledge

6.1 Security controls highlights using NIST verified algorithms. They list AES256 for encryption and RSA and SHA256 for signatures and certificates. Only one of those 3 has not been publicly broken, which is AES256. There is a fairly high confidence that it has been broken at this time, just not publicly (e.g., State sponsored groups) disclosed.

6.2 shows data center controls, all of which are basic controls that all data centers should have. These controls do not make them fully secure, only that they are doing the bare minimum, however most breaches are from misconfigurations of a lot of these controls. I also see no provisions for data backup and retention, which if I were working in the third-party vendor department would cause me to ask questions and get that clarified and documented as a risk.

6.4 References SSL certificates, which have been capable of being broken for several years now. It also does not show how the voters PIN is encrypted at rest, only that it is, could be base64 for all I know.

6.5 User access, unless they have an IAM expert on staff that knows the ins and outs of the role based access controls, this is going to have been implemented incorrectly. I can count the number of times I've seen it done properly on one hand, and I've been doing this a while.

6.6 The audit logs seem extremely lite to me, no further information other than session ID, IP, and ballot ID are addressed. I would hope for a considerably larger number of fields here, once again if I was doing third-party vendor work for them I would question it and get it in writing that aspect needs to be more secure.

So I've read it, and I would reject the system outright based on security concerns alone. If you would like a more in-depth review on why this is a terrible process and system to use, I would want to start billing you my hourly rate, which was north of $750 an hour last time I looked (it's been a bit).

a reply to: gortex

Yea, it was only a few nutters who voted for him. Mostly people voted for Biden. Mostly.

a reply to: network dude

Yea, it was only a few nutters who voted for him.

Your words not mine , disagreeing with peoples politics does not mean I think they're "nutters" ... well not all of them anyway.

If this, and I say ''IF'' this is such a big huge and problematic means of fraud in our election process, then why the hell didn't Trump and his team of experts at everything find it until now?

Trump has been whining about fraudulent elections for over four years claiming that the only way he could be beaten is if the opponent cheated, right? Right.

He also claims to want to protect American democracy and insure that the votes of all Americans are secure. Has he not? Yes he has.

So why, in four years as the President of the United States has he not sent a team of experts, cuz we know that he claims to know all the experts, to secure our voting process? Why.??

I'll tell you why I think he has not. Because he is a whiny little baby boy who is either so incompetent or fraudulent himself that he couldn't care less about the security of our election system.

edit... Except when it benefits him personally.

The adjustments could go either way, could they not.....?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It's much easier to prosecute a crime that's been committed rather than a conspiracy to commit a future crime.

a reply to: cooperton

Answer this question...

The two counties in Wisconsin that is in question by the Trump campaign what system do they use? Seriously
the only two they have a "problem with"...
Here's a hint, it ain't Dominion...

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
If this, and I say ''IF'' this is such a big huge and problematic means of fraud in our election process, then why the hell didn't Trump and his team of experts at everything find it until now?

In order to catch the cheater, you have to let them cheat. Pretty simple concept.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Yes, that doesn't mean anyone can just change votes as they see fit.

2. The System shall have the following capabilities, but under no circumstance will the capabilities violate the California Use Procedures:

California Use Procedures

It's a PDF, go ahead and read it.

Democrats didn't raise billions in campaign funds for nothing. Dominion, USPS, people to count ballots, people to bring in boxes of Biden ballots at 2 in the morning that were picked up from ballot harvesters, etc. These people all had to be paid.

What about all the dead people? Did they get paid too?

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Gnawledge

6.1 Security controls highlights using NIST verified algorithms. They list AES256 for encryption and RSA and SHA256 for signatures and certificates. Only one of those 3 has not been publicly broken, which is AES256. There is a fairly high confidence that it has been broken at this time, just not publicly (e.g., State sponsored groups) disclosed.

6.2 shows data center controls, all of which are basic controls that all data centers should have. These controls do not make them fully secure, only that they are doing the bare minimum, however most breaches are from misconfigurations of a lot of these controls. I also see no provisions for data backup and retention, which if I were working in the third-party vendor department would cause me to ask questions and get that clarified and documented as a risk.

6.4 References SSL certificates, which have been capable of being broken for several years now. It also does not show how the voters PIN is encrypted at rest, only that it is, could be base64 for all I know.

6.5 User access, unless they have an IAM expert on staff that knows the ins and outs of the role based access controls, this is going to have been implemented incorrectly. I can count the number of times I've seen it done properly on one hand, and I've been doing this a while.

6.6 The audit logs seem extremely lite to me, no further information other than session ID, IP, and ballot ID are addressed. I would hope for a considerably larger number of fields here, once again if I was doing third-party vendor work for them I would question it and get it in writing that aspect needs to be more secure.

So I've read it, and I would reject the system outright based on security concerns alone. If you would like a more in-depth review on why this is a terrible process and system to use, I would want to start billing you my hourly rate, which was north of $750 an hour last time I looked (it's been a bit).

Impressive quoting but, no thanks. I know the results of this election already.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

If that is how you want to look at it then go right ahead and look at it that way.
But another way to look at it, the way I looked at it in that post is simpler still.

If you have a faulty wire powering a lamp in your home, and you know that that wire is faulty and a threat to electrical fire and do nothing about it then you got no one to blame but your own self when your house burns down.

According to Trump from over four years ago, he knew about it and did nothing about it. See? Simple.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I believe it wasn't until the 2016 election, that it became glaringly clear how much fraud there was.

Up until that point, it was accusations or perhaps the fraud wasn't in a pattern easily recognizable?

I was part of the 2016 recount. We were shut down, after finding too many fraudulent Hillary votes.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
If this, and I say ''IF'' this is such a big huge and problematic means of fraud in our election process, then why the hell didn't Trump and his team of experts at everything find it until now?

In order to catch the cheater, you have to let them cheat. Pretty simple concept.

Yep, that's simple. So basically from the standpoint of that premise, the entire 2020 election is nothing more than one huge ''sting'' operation orchestrated by the Trump administration.
But what about this premise. You know that the brakes on your car are slipping and don't work sometimes. So what do you do? Do you then drive down a steep and winding mountain road until they fail completely, or do you take that car to the shop and have them fixed before you make that drive.... See? That's a simple concept as well.