SUB SCAM

[TruthIsAll]

SUB SCAM

N_REGISTERED = 10,000
N_VOTES = N_REGISTERED
N_EXTRA = 100

FOR I = 1 to N_VOTES + N_EXTRA
INPUT NewVote
If NewVote = "K" then Kerry = Kerry + 1
IF NewVote <> "K" then Bush = Bush +1
NEXT I

BUSH_TOTAL = Bush
KERRY_TOTAL = Kerry

END SCAM

[Syrinx]

1. do I understand?

Bush got his votes, plus a vote for each third-party vote?

[Ellipsis]

2. Cool!

[Syrinx]

5. what's cool?

:shrug:

[gulogulo]

3. OMG OMG

You found this inside one of the machines?

No?

Ah well.... Thanks for showing us you know a bit of BASIC.

[New Earth]

6. ahem

[RevCheesehead]

25. somethin' caught in your throat, dear?

:)

[Syrinx]

7. go back to f

Aw shit, I just spilled a Dr. Pepper on my keyboard, sorry.

[Straight Shooter]

4. Now you've got to write some code that will "eat itself" when completed

This is what Clint Curtis testified to at the hearing, that the code would eat itself and there would be no trace.

Can anyone comment on the validity of that assertion? In what language would such a code be written, and what level of expertise would be necessary to implant such a code?

Thanks.

[gulogulo]

8. in Windows systems

the program (an .exe file) is locked when it is running. That means that the program cannot delete its own .exe file. It would have to call another program, then terminate, then that other program would have to delete the original program and/or substitute another file in its place.

Then you're faced with the necessity of deleting that copying program. Of course the .exe that you replaced the original with can take care of that, but then you're left with that code that deletes the copying program still in the file.

Note: the above applies to any .exe, no matter in what language it was written.

Of course, if the OS is not Windows, that is another matter.

Another thing: it is hard to erase something in a way that a computer forensic expert would not be able to recover later. You would be amazed how information can be retrieved even after it has been written over a few dozen times.

(edit: spelling)

[KaliTracy]

9. yeah those 0s and 1s are a hard bunch to erase...

[gulogulo]

13. As I said,

you'd be amazed.

[jsamuel]

10. you do realize that they have been taking out parts of the tabulators

in every Ohio county. You know as well as I, that if you just take the hard drive out of the machine, the evidence is gone...

[gulogulo]

12. That is true, but that is not the question

that I was answering. I answered the question on the possibility of the code "eating itself".

[KaliTracy]

15. we know they are doing something...

I wish we had hard evidence of what they have "taken"

AND WHY -- after the first TRIAD guy in Green got called out by the person in charge -- WHY are BOEs still allowing them to go in to "do things" to the Machines???? Why isn't there a restraining order or something? Why isn't there a detailed account of exactly "what" they are doing to the machines (they shouldn't be doing anything!)

AND -- does anyone know if in those areas that have been counted if they have MORE than one machine doing the tabulating if more than one district is with the precinct? I do not recall much being said about recounts, but it seems, if there were 4 or 5 precincts in one area, and the theory is that the ballots were counted in the wrong machine, then when they are counted in the RIGHT machine, the numbers should go up considerably -- that is, if the ballots have precinct markings on them from the DAY of the election....

[Straight Shooter]

11. I'm not an IT person, but that "eat itself code" had me intrigued

it is hard to erase something in a way that a computer forensic expert would not be able to recover later. You would be amazed how information can be retrieved even after it has been written over a few dozen times.

Ah, yes, I was quite aware of this, and yet people are amazed when I tell them that "ghost images" of supposedly erased data can be retrieved.

We need those machines, don't we? I suppose that's what all the switching out of parts is about, where Triad comes in to do "maintenance." Of course, then there has to be chain of custody that tracks parts within the company, and then we'll have more cover-up, leading to more investigation and deeper suspicion, until finally the fraud is revealed. At least, that's the road I hope we're on.

[zann725]

27. That's what bothered me about Clint's testimony...

It just sounded too simplistic that the code would just eat itself, and there's nothing we can do. If he is of the caliber of expert he attests, surely there would be a way...as suggested above.

While I'm also not a computer expert, I've been reading a lot...and as said above, it seems there ARE ways to read 'shadows.'

Instinctively I feel there are. And that the more they tinkered after the Election to cover things up, the more trail they left.

But I am worried about their unfettered access to the machines the last six weeks. Though I do keep hoping that a 'good guy (or guys)' managed to confiscate at least one of the machines after the Election, and BEFORE they were tampered with further.

[Ellipsis]

29. white hats! wouldn't that be nice.

and Christmas is coming. You know one of the reasons some companies are successful in computer design, they virtually render them, before, they make them. You don't need the machine. Ingenuity. If there is fraud, where money is no object, you can make what ever you want. But in voting years, the opposite of computer years, your stuck in the past. "Curtis" is the "germination" of a next generation idea executed in near perfect fashion.

k

[iconoclastic cat]

16. Even the 52-pass Gutmann (sp?) method won't do it?

Crap!

[gulogulo]

17. Here you go

Q: Is the Gutmann method the best method?

A: No.

Most of the passes in the Gutmann wipe are designed to flip the bits in MFM/RLL encoded disks, which is an encoding that modern hard disks do not use.

In a followup to his paper, Gutmann said that it is unnecessary to run those passes because you cannot be reasonably certain about how a modern hard disk stores data on the platter. If the encoding is unknown, then writing random patterns is your best strategy.

In particular, Gutmann says that "in the time since this paper was published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding techniques. As a result, they advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and EPRML drives even though it will have no more effect than a simple scrubbing with random data... For any modern PRML/EPRML drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do".


Edit: to add to the above, if you code the Gutmann erasure method (or any other erasure method more sophisticated than DeleteFile) into your program, NOW you have to hide the Gutmann or other code as well, since there is no justification for having it there except for nefarious reasons.

[gulogulo]

18. Your post made me research this a little further

http://rixstep.com/2/20030314%2C00.html

"There is no such thing as 'DOD' or 'NSA' secure delete for hard drives. There never has been and there never will be. On this the DOD and the NSA are unequivocal: The only secure delete for permanent media such as computer hard drives is incineration."

Fun, isn't it?

[Straight Shooter]

21. gulogulo, I know everyone says "email Arnebeck, email Conyers"

but I've got to say this:

Have you, in fact, emailed what you know or can reasonably surmise about this situation? After reading your conclusion about "incineration," I had an image of a Triad facility bursting into flames, the result of spontaneous combustion of refinishing the floors with a volatile varnish or some other "tragic but explainable" cause.

[gulogulo]

22. Straight Shooter -

what I know or can reasonably surmise is not rocket science. It is something that anyone who has been a programmer for more than a few years knows (I have been one for 26, but who's counting). Trust me that Arnebeck and Conyers know this stuff, if they asked anyone who has expertise with computers. So - if they did ask, they know this. If they did not ask, just how incompetent are they?

[Straight Shooter]

23. You would be amazed at what happens in the process of delegation

"I didn't do it. I thought you were doing it."

"Nope, not me. I thought you had it taken care of."

You made a good point, at least for those of us on DU who now have learned something we didn't consider before. See, I'm not IT, and now I've learned something which I can use in conversations with those who think there's nothing can be done at this stage.

I believe Arnebeck and Conyers are competent. And if I weren't up so late past my usual bedtime, I'd be mentally competent, too, and wouldn't have mentioned emailing them :silly:

[Ellipsis]

26. Windows lays on top of DOS, yes?

[gulogulo]

28. No. n/t

[Must_B_Free]

32. put it on a ram disk, turn machine off, POOF

[electropop]

36. I mostly agree but...

It is possible to program "down to the bare metal" even in a Windows system and leave little or no trace of the erasure proram. There are thousands of security holes in Windows, which is especially open to a program actually executing in RAM. The program could run a little code in its data segment, or something like that. It could hide itself in a disk sector not properly listed in the FAT. It could be run from a network connection - trivially easy to delete a file when you have NetBUI access.

Still, I share your optimism that the fraud software will eventually be dug out of machines of every major brand. It's just so tough to cover every track in every machine nationwide.

[Ellipsis]

14. can it live in the firmware? n/t

[Red State Blues]

31. I'd like to know this myself but

I'm curious as to why you're so curious about the eproms? At least 2 threads yesterday and now this comment.

I'm NOT calling you a freeper. You just strike me as someone with either a personal axe to grind or you learned just enough about computers to be dangerous.


There's so many places that this can be done and they've already tainted the machines/3% recount so the only thing left to do is a full hand recount.

[Ellipsis]

35. your right the latter dangerous...

I have been around for a long, long time. I once hooked up a bi-synchronous mainframe to a local talk one network.

I have stated this in an earlier posts. That is why I ASK. Mis- information especially in technology is a dangerous thing. In work, I am surrounded by the brilliant. I have picked up much through osmosis. No offense to techs, They have tendency to be rigid thinkers. Throw a dangerous fuzzy thinking liberal arts guy into the mix, one balances out the middle. My familiarity with EPROM's started when working with old Radius monitors. It was a tech who reminded me about the ultraviolet light box. Something went Ding!

I got to say this though it hurts me to do so, I think different. Oooh that hurt! Outside the box thinking... ow ! ow! ow!

I have no Axe to grind, ( I'd be out chopping wood, trying to keep the children warm,)


k

[Red State Blues]

37. Fair Enough.

Philosophy major computer programmer here. I've felt like people trying to figure out what the triad guy "did" is sort of a red herring.

I've felt like you've been asking, "Well he could have done this! would that be nefarious?"

For me that question has already been answered. I don't know what he did. I do know that there were many many nefarious things that he would have had the time, equipment and ability to do.

[dzika]

19. Is this a test?

You've got me. I can't figure it out.

Does this sub-routine run in the voting nachine or the tabulator?

Where is the input from "INPUT NewVote" coming from? If this is running in a voting machine then I would guess that NewVote is the voter's choice for president.

It looks like you are asking to input NewVote in a loop. The loop will continue asking for new votes until it has reached the number of registered voters + 100.

If there is a potential for election fruad in this code, I'm not seeing it.

Please give us the answer.

Sorry if it has already been posted and I missed it.

[TruthIsAll]

20. No test. Just having a little fun. Don't take it too serious.

tia

[Red State Blues]

30. No test on it later.

This appears to be just a simple bit of code that TIA wrote to show how simple election fraud can be.

What it does:
This would give every vote to Kerry marked Kerry.
This would give every vote to Bush that was marked Bush, 3rd party, no vote and just for good measure pad it out with an added 100 more at the end.

Most meaningful thing that I (not necessarily TIA) think the non-programmers here could draw form this:

Election fraud can be easy.
Election fraud can be done in ways that would go under the noses of good upstanding people running the machines.

What not to draw from this: (I'm sure I'm not saying anything here that TIA doesn't already know)

It will NOT be this simple. (the actual fraud (if any) will be simple, I mean, hey, you're just counting) But it will be hidden much more carefully.
This is the only sort of way that this could be done.


Some other comments:

I'd like to know how these machines are patched. A "live" patch could wreak much havoc.
What's being said about computer forensics is correct but are they going to do any sort of testing on that "level"? With everything being proprietary I thought we would be lucky to even see everything that is on one of the drives "now". Forensics would get into seeing what was on the drive and what used to be on the drive, but is anyone going to be in a position to run that sort of test on the machines? tabulators?

There's so many places that this can be done and they've already tainted the machines/3% recount so the only thing left to do is a full hand recount.

[sabra]

34. Your program doesn't run on my linux machine :-)

[TruthIsAll]

24. Code complete. Stress test it. n/t

.

[TruthIsAll]

33. No vote = Bush vote n/t

.