Maricopa County Audit -- See Staff Note in OP

30,197 Views | 362 Replies | Last: 10 mo ago by Funky Winkerbean
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Every media outlet is running with the headline of "Hand count shows Biden won Maricopa County, Republicans now want AG to investigate."

Typical lying media. They tell one tiny piece of truth (recounting fraudulent ballots is going to give the same result as before) and simply ignore all the evidence of the fraud.

It's the same talking point that have been blasted out to every single commie NPC.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
blacksox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
*** Keep trolling and earn a vacation -- Staff ***
Post removed:
by user
Pookers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rendered Fat said:

Very frustrating. But even if Cyber Ninja is able to put this into a very easy to understand format that clearly evidences fraud, the media will suppress it. Just like Hunter's laptop. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the evidence is, if the media won't cover it, it basically didn't happen.


Media is irrelevant. This opens things up for lawsuits and whatnot.
geoag58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I believe in this case this old adage is appropriate;

"History is written by the victors"

The marxists have the levers of power and they control the narrative through their propaganda arm.
They have had their thumb on the scale in all of the investigations.

But as with every charade they perpetrated before, during and after the Trump administration the truth will eventually come to light.
Fight against the dictatorship of the federal bureaucracy!
Fat Black Swan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm just going to make the observation that eric76 and Malibu are two of the sharpest posters on here.

That said, 2000's eric76 would go eric76 on 2021 eric76. Your takes have diverged from the direction most classical liberals have taken over the past decade to the point where you're just being contrarian to be contrarian. It's quite possible 2000's eric76 was only classically liberal because the board was so neocon.

Malibu is a conundrum because he is one of the few honest long-time moderate posters on TexAgs. Like eric76, he only responds to threads that he disagrees with, and on TexAgs there are far more threads on the conservative side of the spectrum to disagree with. That naturally paints a poster into a corner.

What gets me is the attraction to the established narrative for posters with tendencies to the contrary. The slant of authority is acknowledged; the benefit of a slanted media to authority is acknowledged; the potential risks to society of these outcomes are acknowledged; but when it comes to acknowledging specific events in real time, the result is cognitive dissonance.
geoag58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No one will ever convince me that our elections are not rife with fraud as long as we have widespread use of mail in ballots no matter what the "official narrative" says.
Fight against the dictatorship of the federal bureaucracy!
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
91AggieLawyer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:



Trump's more rabid supporters are more similar to the BLM and Antifa than they realize.

Eric, when you say stupid things like this, you ruin your entire credibility and you shouldn't wonder why no one here takes you seriously. I have responded to these types of comments you've made -- disproven them all -- but you keep making them. You have them stuck in your head and you won't get them out, facts be damned.

There are no rabid Trump supporters out beating people up or spraying Bear spray in people's face;

There are no rabid Trump supporters out suggesting we defund an important part of society;

There are no rabid Trump supporters using racism to try and spread the myth that the US is a racist country;

There are no rabid Trump supporters enriching themselves at the expense of the low information/intelligence folks akin to the followers of antifa or BLM that blindly accept what their so-called leaders (and the media say).

Since you don't give any examples (and never have), this entire episode is a figment of your entire imagination. Its beginning to become a sickness, if you ask me.
Oak Tree
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If there was a large amount of factual evidence that Democrats committed widespread voter fraud to steal the presidential election...what would happen?

Absolutely nothing!

Democrats blatantly broke the law throughout Trump's presidency, leaving mountains of evidence, without any repercussions at all. How can anyone believe DC Republicans would suddenly start fighting for justice now?
FCBlitz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
eric76 said:

TheEternalPessimist said:

eric76 said:

It is impossible to take anyone seriously who refuses to discuss the facts and instead resorts to name calling, insults, and snide comments to make their points. If that is the extent of their intellectual capacity, then they have none.
....except for the Democrat establishment and your sychophants Antifa friends who constantly scream 'racist' and 'fascist' and 'Nazi' at us.

Get a mirror dude.

Democrats and their main stream media apologists/allies are the true enemy of the people.
Those aren't my friends at all.

Trump's more rabid supporters are more similar to the BLM and Antifa than they realize. Both are radicals who want to tear things down and rebuild them to fit their ideal image.



Had no idea that BLM and Antifa were constitutionalist.
Boy……there is egg on my face.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
91AggieLawyer said:

eric76 said:



Trump's more rabid supporters are more similar to the BLM and Antifa than they realize.

Eric, when you say stupid things like this, you ruin your entire credibility and you shouldn't wonder why no one here takes you seriously. I have responded to these types of comments you've made -- disproven them all -- but you keep making them. You have them stuck in your head and you won't get them out, facts be damned.

There are no rabid Trump supporters out beating people up or spraying Bear spray in people's face;

There are no rabid Trump supporters out suggesting we defund an important part of society;

There are no rabid Trump supporters using racism to try and spread the myth that the US is a racist country;

There are no rabid Trump supporters enriching themselves at the expense of the low information/intelligence folks akin to the followers of antifa or BLM that blindly accept what their so-called leaders (and the media say).

Since you don't give any examples (and never have), this entire episode is a figment of your entire imagination. Its beginning to become a sickness, if you ask me.
You removed part of my quote. I said that both sides are radicals and want to tear things down and rebuild it in the way they want.

It's not that they want the same thing -- they don't -- but that they have the same approach to dealing with their issues without understanding without understanding that if you tear down this country, what replaces it is probably not what they want at all.

eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FCBlitz said:

eric76 said:

TheEternalPessimist said:

eric76 said:

It is impossible to take anyone seriously who refuses to discuss the facts and instead resorts to name calling, insults, and snide comments to make their points. If that is the extent of their intellectual capacity, then they have none.
....except for the Democrat establishment and your sychophants Antifa friends who constantly scream 'racist' and 'fascist' and 'Nazi' at us.

Get a mirror dude.

Democrats and their main stream media apologists/allies are the true enemy of the people.
Those aren't my friends at all.

Trump's more rabid supporters are more similar to the BLM and Antifa than they realize. Both are radicals who want to tear things down and rebuild them to fit their ideal image.



Had no idea that BLM and Antifa were constitutionalist.
Boy……there is egg on my face.
And you think that Trump's more rabid supporters are supporters of our Constitution? It seems me either group of radicals only want to go by the Constitution when it helps their cause.

Look at their desire to usurp the Constitutional procedures on January 6 to overthrow an election and keep Trump in power after he lost the election.
RoadkillBBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
eric76 said:

It's amazing how many people here apparently can take an afternoon off and watch a hearing on the Internet with no interruptions.
That's the result of years of hard work and owning your own successful company. It's a concept most liberals wouldn't understand.
Year of the Germaphobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm pretty sure the term "rabid supporters" is intended as a pejorative / ad hominem, and is expressly forbidden per staff on page 1. I personally don't care, because you're nothing more than a leftist sycophant.

You copy/pasted a leftist talking point that was trumpeted by drudge, and CNN.

Don't expect people to be nice when we all know you only exist to cherry pick information, and troll.

Let the adults actually skim the data, and discuss it amongst ourselves.
fredfredunderscorefred
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trump supporters dont want tontear down this country. They want to prevent the left from doing so. Anytime you see "enemy of democracy" from the left/media or a similar phrase, replace democracy with liberalism or socialism and youll get their true statement. Conservatives absolutely are enemies of those. And we stand in their way, which is why we are the enemy and have to be torn down. And yes, democratic socialists of america is literally socialism, even with the extra word that tricked idiots.
Its in the very name of conservatives and progressives - keeping status quo versus changing things. Quit deluding yourself into thinking that conservatives are anywhere near blm or antifa
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:

I'm pretty sure the term "rabid supporters" is intended as a pejorative / ad hominem, and is expressly forbidden per staff on page 1. I personally don't care, because you're nothing more than a leftist sycophant.

You copy/pasted a leftist talking point that was trumpeted by drudge, and CNN.

Don't expect people to be nice when we all know you only exist to cherry pick information, and troll.

Let the adults actually skim the data, and discuss it amongst ourselves.

Well said. We all know what his affliction is.
blacksox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why are non-conservative positions all talking points and trolls? Guy pointed out that conservatives might not have been acting in the best interest of the constitution when they tried to overturn an election. That's neither a taking point or a troll. It's a legitimate point.
Thermal Pope
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maricopa was live tweeting during the press conference.








Thermal Pope
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What you call "talking points" I like to call election professionals explaining election basics to unhinged conspiracy theorists that have no idea what they're doing.

This is their sandbox using their tools, they know the process. DQug LQgan and LOLan Pulitzer don't.
Thermal Pope
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not trolling to show the county's response to Doug Logan's confused report.
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blacksox said:

Why are non-conservative positions all talking points and trolls?


"Non-conservative" = liberal. Liberal policies and ideology are known to be failures, every time. This being a fact means that anyone pushing said failed policies can't be serious, and thus a troll.
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
txagbear said:

BigRobSA said:

I worked in PHX, for awhile, a a couple times, last year and earlier this year.

Anyone that actually believes Biden won there, with zero visible support against MASSIVE visible support for Trump shouldn't be taken seriously. And I'm as far from a Trump Supporter as you can get without TDS.

Laughable that people think Biden won there. Hysterically so.
bs you are a trumper and it is obvious


One would have to be a blithering moron to believe I was a "Trumper".


Noticing the obvious does not a supporter make.
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Cant Think of a Name
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://rsbnetwork.com/news/arizona-ag-prepared-to-take-all-necessary-actions-after-audit-results-exposes-major-voter-discrepancies/?fbclid=IwAR0CX1Fcm0cbzx_YkOkZ1Wd5qR5zqOaZ9BMPnfydl_2E9T****qnRTv9drk

F c u k goes in where the astresisks are. Weird filter.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:

I'm pretty sure the term "rabid supporters" is intended as a pejorative / ad hominem, and is expressly forbidden per staff on page 1. I personally don't care, because you're nothing more than a leftist sycophant.

You copy/pasted a leftist talking point that was trumpeted by drudge, and CNN.

Don't expect people to be nice when we all know you only exist to cherry pick information, and troll.

Let the adults actually skim the data, and discuss it amongst ourselves.
I copy/pasted nothing.

I'm no leftist sycophant. Far from it. I don't care to flatter anyone and I'm certainly not trying to curry favor with them.

The sycophants on here seem to be Trump sycophants. The funny thing is that no matter how much you flatter Trump, he's still not going to like you unless you are wealthy. He just sees it as his right to be flattered and fawned on by his adoring fans.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fredfredunderscorefred said:

Trump supporters dont want tontear down this country. They want to prevent the left from doing so. Anytime you see "enemy of democracy" from the left/media or a similar phrase, replace democracy with liberalism or socialism and youll get their true statement. Conservatives absolutely are enemies of those. And we stand in their way, which is why we are the enemy and have to be torn down. And yes, democratic socialists of america is literally socialism, even with the extra word that tricked idiots.
Its in the very name of conservatives and progressives - keeping status quo versus changing things. Quit deluding yourself into thinking that conservatives are anywhere near blm or antifa
Trump is no Conservative. Neither are his fans.
fredfredunderscorefred
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The audit: LBJ got more votes....but the deciding votes came from a box in precinct 13 that appeared one week after the election. All the ballots were in alphabetical order in the same ink and handwriting. And many of the people claim they didnt vote."

"The Parr weekly news is reporting that an audit confirms LBJ got more votes"

Thats where we are.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thermal Pope said:

Maricopa was live tweeting during the press conference.









When the so-called auditors talked about the computer security, I think that they may have had a minor point or two. However, it is hard to say for sure without more detail.

Specifically, they gave some examples of computers connecting to the Internet, but they didn't spell out precisely what those computers were used for in the election process. Sure, a server used to provide election information would have to be on the Internet. Hopefully that server did receive its OS updates and virus definitions.

(Note that in the case of the election web server, they were able to determine that it had been connected to the Internet from the logs without needing the router information to determine that.)

While it would be nice for the election machines themselves to have the security updates and virus definitions applied and up to date, that would pretty much require them being connected to the Internet. If they cannot be connected to the Internet, then they would have to have those through a thumb drive or something. Does Microsoft distribute updates on a thumb drive? Does any antivirus company distribute their virus definitions on a thumb drive? Even if they could download the security updates and virus definitions to a thumb drive, applying the definitions increases the risk since the thumb drive itself could have been compromised. I can certainly understand why the computers were unpatched and the virus definitions had not been updated. Them not being patched on a computer that is only used on a stand alone network, if any network at all, is not that much of a cause for concern.

The part about the logs being rolled over does need more explanation. That there were additional log entries is not, in and of itself, indicative of any wrongdoing.

They brought out an issue regarding username and password information. For a purpose such as this, it seems reasonable on the surface that each person logging into the machines have his own username and password, but that is not necessarily an issue for reasons of practicality. We should keep in mind that what is best practice for a situation in a corporate or university environment in which many different people may connect to servers on an as needed basis for a number of different purpose is not necessarily the same for a set of occasionally used single purpose machines not on a general network with limited access to them.

(I may have something more to say about this issue, but unless I can find a transcript, I'll have to go back and try to find where they talked about a certain point in the presentation.)

This part of the presentation bothered me more when watching the presentation than it does now after having a day to think about it. Suppose that you have 1,000 voting machines sitting in storage between elections and you hire a new employee who might need to logon to the machines at some point. Do you take each machine out of storage, one at a time, and start them up so that you can add a username and password for that employee? Of course not. That would be a nightmare. Also, when an employee leaves or is moved to another department, then would you have to take them out of storage, one at a time, and start them up to remove his access.

It's not like it would be reasonable to suspect that the election machines are all sitting in a big room, plugged in and running, and ready for someone to walk up and start logging into them.

Looking at it this way, it seems that it might be better to keep a log of who has access to the machine at what time and their purpose for needing the access. They said in the presentation that there is a video of an employee on the machine. so that would certainly help.

Also, there are certainly situations in which people do legitimately share usernames and logins for other purposes. For example, on our external router provided by AT&T, there is one login for AT&T to use with their own password and one login for me to use with my password. I have downloaded the configuration of that router and have seen the login entry (the password itself is encrypted). It would be silly to expect everyone at AT&T who might need to access the router to have their own username and password on the router.

Historically, on UNIX machines it has been normal to have one shared username at the most privileged level -- root. If you needed to grant someone access to the machine for things like configuration, adding and removing users, ..., then you gave them the root password and they logged on as root.

The sudo package can kind of get around this depending on the settings. You identify which users need access to root in a configuration file (if I remember correctly, /etc/sudoers) and the type of access. One option is to require them to enter the root password for every command they enter. Another option is to require no password. You can also limit particular users to certain commands.

So, on the surface, it seems like this might be a problem, but I'm not sure that it is when you think about it more carefully.

What does strike me as a possible problem is that it sounded like they were using the same passwords set by Dominion. Here, the issue is with who determined the passwords. Unless the password used are determined by the proper people at the election board, they should probably change the passwords when they receive the equipment in case Dominion uses the same passwords for multiple customers. I doubt that they do this, though.

This part of the presentation bothered me a lot more watching that portion of the presentation than it does after thinking about it overnight. When watching a presentation, there is no time to think about the issue in more detail. You are going at the presenter's speed, not your own speed. Your options are to either accept what is said or reject it outright, especially when unable to ask questions. This is precisely why I don't like to gather information on weighty matters by video and strongly prefer to read it where I can read at my own pace and take time to gather additional information from other sources or to think about it in more detail.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Historically, on UNIX machines it has been normal to have one shared username at the most privileged level -- root. If you needed to grant someone access to the machine for things like configuration, adding and removing users, ..., then you gave them the root password and they logged on as root.

The sudo package can kind of get around this depending on the settings. You identify which users need access to root in a configuration file (if I remember correctly, /etc/sudoers) and the type of access. One option is to require them to enter the root password for every command they enter. Another option is to require no password. You can also limit particular users to certain commands.
Sudo is not used to "kind of get around this", it is the preferred way. With root, there is no traceability on who made what change. I do not even have root on any of my machines, but have sudo on all of them.

Surely these dudes didn't hand out root passwords to a plural set of people for a voting system. That would be beyond idiotic.
We fixed the keg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh boy, this is so bad it has to be slapped....


Quote:

When the so-called auditors talked about the computer security, I think that they may have had a minor point or two. However, it is hard to say for sure without more detail.

* Grossly understated, but after reading your full reply, it is clear you are commentating well outside of your capabilities. Let's take these in line.

Quote:

Specifically, they gave some examples of computers connecting to the Internet, but they didn't spell out precisely what those computers were used for in the election process. Sure, a server used to provide election information would have to be on the Internet. Hopefully that server did receive its OS updates and virus definitions.

* Wholly irrelevant. These machines are, by design, SOP, and certification, NEVER supposed to be connected to ANY public network, especially the Internet. Dominion told us they weren't, MCBE said they weren't, Pro V&V said they weren't, and SLI said they weren't. They lied, and the "so called auditors" found and provided proof even while the MCBE did their best to delete, hide, and prevent them from doing so.

Quote:


(Note that in the case of the election web server, they were able to determine that it had been connected to the Internet from the logs without needing the router information to determine that.)

* "Election web server" (1) there is no mention of this anywhere in the two Dominion voting packages, (2) and there wouldn't be for a set of machines designed to operate on a secure, air-gapped network.


We fixed the keg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

While it would be nice for the election machines themselves to have the security updates and virus definitions applied and up to date, that would pretty much require them being connected to the Internet. If they cannot be connected to the Internet, then they would have to have those through a thumb drive or something. Does Microsoft distribute updates on a thumb drive? Does any antivirus company distribute their virus definitions on a thumb drive? Even if they could download the security updates and virus definitions to a thumb drive, applying the definitions increases the risk since the thumb drive itself could have been compromised. I can certainly understand why the computers were unpatched and the virus definitions had not been updated. Them not being patched on a computer that is only used on a stand alone network, if any network at all, is not that much of a cause for concern.

* You can update patches and virus scanning software on machines not connected to the Internet, but it is not as critical if (and wait for it) (1) they are not connected to any external network, and (2) unauthorized devices and/or non-election, non-certified code is not allowed on the network or the voting systems. Now, if all the other guidelines are followed, this would not be as big of a risk and you should have this documented in acceptable procedures.

Quote:

The part about the logs being rolled over does need more explanation. That there were additional log entries is not, in and of itself, indicative of any wrongdoing.

* …and you continue to go off the rails. (1) a subpoena was issued to secure among many things, log files, (2) someone loaded a script on a machine and executed the script over 30,000 times to other machine(s) which was identified to magically be the number to "roll" the logs. Any legitimate reason to clear the log file would dictate the user log on directly to that machine and clear the logs, not to be running destructive scripts from a different machine with bogus requests. If you, in any way think this is acceptable, I pray for the company you work for and the equipment they let you near.

Quote:

They brought out an issue regarding username and password information. For a purpose such as this, it seems reasonable on the surface that each person logging into the machines have his own username and password, but that is not necessarily an issue for reasons of practicality. We should keep in mind that what is best practice for a situation in a corporate or university environment in which many different people may connect to servers on an as needed basis for a number of different purpose is not necessarily the same for a set of occasionally used single purpose machines not on a general network with limited access to them.

* It most certainly is an issue, a major issue. You have no way to control access nor log 'who did what' when you share usernames or passwords. This is one of the most basic procedures of IT security and best practices. WOW!


We fixed the keg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

(I may have something more to say about this issue, but unless I can find a transcript, I'll have to go back and try to find where they talked about a certain point in the presentation.)

* I almost can't wait to read whatever else you come up with because you are batting .000 so far.

Quote:

This part of the presentation bothered me more when watching the presentation than it does now after having a day to think about it. Suppose that you have 1,000 voting machines sitting in storage between elections and you hire a new employee who might need to logon to the machines at some point. Do you take each machine out of storage, one at a time, and start them up so that you can add a username and password for that employee? Of course not. That would be a nightmare. Also, when an employee leaves or is moved to another department, then would you have to take them out of storage, one at a time, and start them up to remove his access.

* Dominion delivers two flavors of their system but both include the voting equipment, switches, and a Dell server responsible for DHCP, database services, device/printer management, and "wait for it" AD for authentication services. These machines were not brought out of storage and put back in…. once they were pulled from storage, they were setup as they should be used during the election, and then handed over to Pro V&V and SLI Compliance to certify. So, even though you haven't been paying attention to the research provided months ago, you still missed the boat and have come up with a ridiculous hypothetical in an attempt to make a point.

Quote:

It's not like it would be reasonable to suspect that the election machines are all sitting in a big room, plugged in and running, and ready for someone to walk up and start logging into them.

* It is not just reasonable, but how they were situated so they could be certified and then used for the election. I would also be shocked if in Dominion's own process, once these machines are joined to the network and authenticated, the default admin user and password are to be deleted, changed, or disabled.

Quote:

Looking at it this way, it seems that it might be better to keep a log of who has access to the machine at what time and their purpose for needing the access. They said in the presentation that there is a video of an employee on the machine. so that would certainly help.

* All handled by Active Directory and available for auditing when (1) used and (2) not deleted.

Quote:

Also, there are certainly situations in which people do legitimately share usernames and logins for other purposes. For example, on our external router provided by AT&T, there is one login for AT&T to use with their own password and one login for me to use with my password. I have downloaded the configuration of that router and have seen the login entry (the password itself is encrypted). It would be silly to expect everyone at AT&T who might need to access the router to have their own username and password on the router.

* Not remotely a valid argument, you should not have split management on ANY of your edge network devices. This is something which only makes sense when AT&T is providing mee-maw access to the Internet from her house. In the business world, a circuit comes into a provider managed device which you should never have access to and they hand off to your router, which they should never have login access to. Then, they provide you configuration information for how to setup your router.
Quote:


Historically, on UNIX machines it has been normal to have one shared username at the most privileged level -- root. If you needed to grant someone access to the machine for things like configuration, adding and removing users, ..., then you gave them the root password and they logged on as root.

The sudo package can kind of get around this depending on the settings. You identify which users need access to root in a configuration file (if I remember correctly, /etc/sudoers) and the type of access. One option is to require them to enter the root password for every command they enter. Another option is to require no password. You can also limit particular users to certain commands.
* Again, WOW. Access to login as root is one of the very first things you disable. Root can exist and run services but shouldn't be used as a means to SSH or login at the console. The reason SUDO exists.
Quote:

So, on the surface, it seems like this might be a problem, but I'm not sure that it is when you think about it more carefully.

* Wrong on the surface, and even more wrong when you think about it carefully.

Quote:

What does strike me as a possible problem is that it sounded like they were using the same passwords set by Dominion. Here, the issue is with who determined the passwords. Unless the password used are determined by the proper people at the election board, they should probably change the passwords when they receive the equipment in case Dominion uses the same passwords for multiple customers. I doubt that they do this, though.

* You got one right!

Quote:

This part of the presentation bothered me a lot more watching that portion of the presentation than it does after thinking about it overnight. When watching a presentation, there is no time to think about the issue in more detail. You are going at the presenter's speed, not your own speed. Your options are to either accept what is said or reject it outright, especially when unable to ask questions. This is precisely why I don't like to gather information on weighty matters by video and strongly prefer to read it where I can read at my own pace and take time to gather additional information from other sources or to think about it in more detail.

* Oh, MCBE damn sure should have to respond to all of this, but you need to prepare yourself for the fact that none of what you wrote about is excusable as acceptable process.


We fixed the keg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTmAg said:

Quote:

Historically, on UNIX machines it has been normal to have one shared username at the most privileged level -- root. If you needed to grant someone access to the machine for things like configuration, adding and removing users, ..., then you gave them the root password and they logged on as root.

The sudo package can kind of get around this depending on the settings. You identify which users need access to root in a configuration file (if I remember correctly, /etc/sudoers) and the type of access. One option is to require them to enter the root password for every command they enter. Another option is to require no password. You can also limit particular users to certain commands.
Sudo is not used to "kind of get around this", it is the preferred way. With root, there is no traceability on who made what change. I do not even have root on any of my machines, but have sudo on all of them.

Surely these dudes didn't hand out root passwords to a plural set of people for a voting system. That would be beyond idiotic.
All my servers run OpenBSD where doas is preferred over sudo.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We fixed the keg said:

Oh boy, this is so bad it has to be slapped....


Quote:

When the so-called auditors talked about the computer security, I think that they may have had a minor point or two. However, it is hard to say for sure without more detail.

* Grossly understated, but after reading your full reply, it is clear you are commentating well outside of your capabilities. Let's take these in line.

Quote:

Specifically, they gave some examples of computers connecting to the Internet, but they didn't spell out precisely what those computers were used for in the election process. Sure, a server used to provide election information would have to be on the Internet. Hopefully that server did receive its OS updates and virus definitions.

* Wholly irrelevant. These machines are, by design, SOP, and certification, NEVER supposed to be connected to ANY public network, especially the Internet. Dominion told us they weren't, MCBE said they weren't, Pro V&V said they weren't, and SLI said they weren't. They lied, and the "so called auditors" found and provided proof even while the MCBE did their best to delete, hide, and prevent them from doing so.


It appears that the so-called auditors were including machines not used in the voting process that were intended to be on the Internet.

So yes, we do need more detail about which computers were ACTUALLY used in the voting process that are not to be on the Internet. Were any of the voting machines connected to the Internet?

Quote:

Quote:


(Note that in the case of the election web server, they were able to determine that it had been connected to the Internet from the logs without needing the router information to determine that.)

* "Election web server" (1) there is no mention of this anywhere in the two Dominion voting packages, (2) and there wouldn't be for a set of machines designed to operate on a secure, air-gapped network.



Just maybe REWEB1601 was not a Dominion machine.

The quesiton is why the presenters would devote time to talking about a non-election machine used as a web server other than as an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.