August 5, 2021

Voting Machine Hashcode Testing: Unsurprisingly insecure, and surprisingly insecure

By Andrew Appel and Susan Greenhalgh

The accuracy of a voting machine is dependent on the software that runs it. If that software is corrupted or hacked, it can misreport the votes.  There is a common assumption that we can check the legitimacy of the software that is installed by checking a “hash code” and comparing it to the hash code of the authorized software.  In practice the scheme is supposed to work like this:  Software provided by the voting-machine vendor examines all the installed software in the voting machine, to make sure it’s the right stuff.

There are some flaws in this concept:  it’s hard to find “all the installed software in the voting machine,” because modern computers have many layers underneath what you examine.  But mainly, if a hacker can corrupt the vote-tallying software, perhaps they can corrupt the hash-generating function as well, so that whenever you ask the checker “does the voting machine have the right software installed,” it will say, “Yes, boss.”  Or, if the hasher is designed not to say “yes” or “no,” but to report the hash of what’s installed, it can simply report the hash of what’s supposed to be there, not what’s actually there. For that reason, election security experts never put much reliance in this hash-code idea; instead they insist that you can’t fully trust what software is installed, so you must achieve election integrity by doing recounts or risk-limiting audits of the paper ballots.

But you might have thought that the hash-code could at least help protect against accidental, nonmalicious errors in configuration.  You would be wrong.  It turns out that ES&S has bugs in their hash-code checker:  if the “reference hashcode” is completely missing, then it’ll say “yes, boss, everything is fine” instead of reporting an error.  It’s simultaneously shocking and unsurprising that ES&S’s hashcode checker could contain such a blunder and that it would go unnoticed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s federal certification process. It’s unsurprising because testing naturally tends to focus on “does the system work right when used as intended?”  Using the system in unintended ways (which is what hackers would do) is not something anyone will notice.

Until somebody does notice.  In this case, it was the State of Texas’s voting-machine examiner, Brian Mechler.  In his report dated September 2020 he found this bug in the hash-checking script supplied with the ES&S EVS 6.1.1.0 election system (for the ExpressVote touch-screen BMD, the DS200 in-precinct optical scanner, the DS450 and DS850 high-speed optical scanners, and other related voting machines).  (Read Section 7.2 of Mr. Mechler’s report for details).

We can’t know whether that bug was intentional or not.  Either way, it’s certainly convenient for ES&S, because it’s one less hassle when installing firmware upgrades.  (Of course, it’s one less hassle for potential hackers, too.)

Another gem in Mr. Mechler’s report is in Section 7.1, in which he reveals that acceptance testing of voting systems is done by the vendor, not by the customer.  Acceptance testing is the process by which a customer checks a delivered product to make sure it satisfies requirements.  To have the vendor do acceptance testing pretty much defeats the purpose.  

When the Texas Secretary of State learned that their vendor was doing the acceptance testing themselves, the SoS’s Election Division took an action “to work with ES&S and their Texas customers to better define their roles and responsibilities with respect to acceptance testing,” according to the report. They may encounter a problem, though: the ES&S sales contract specifies that ES&S must perform the acceptance testing, or they will void your warranty (see clause 7b)

There’s another item in Mr. Mechler’s report, Section 7.3.  The U.S. Election Assistance Commission requires that “The vendor shall have a process to verify that the correct software is loaded, that there is no unauthorized software, and that voting system software on voting equipment has not been modified, using the reference information from the [National Software Reference Library] or from a State designated repository. The process used to verify software should be possible to perform without using software installed on the voting system.”  This requirement is usually interpreted to mean, “check the hash code of the installed software against the reference hash code held by the EAC or the State.”

But ES&S’s hash-checker doesn’t do that at all.  Instead, ES&S instructs its techs to create some “golden” hashes from the first installation, then subsequently check the hash code against these.  So whatever software was first installed gets to be “golden”, regardless of whether it’s been approved by the EAC or by the State of Texas. This design decision was probably a convenient shortcut by engineers at ES&S, but it directly violates the EAC’s rules for how hash-checking is supposed to work.

So, what have we learned?

We already knew that hash codes can’t protect against hackers who install vote-stealing software, because the hackers can also install software that lies about the hash code.  But now we’ve learned that hash codes are even more useless than we might have thought.  This voting-machine manufacturer

  • has a hash-code checker that erroneously reports a match, even when you forget to tell it what to match against;
  • checks the hash against what was first installed, not against the authorized reference that they’re supposed to;
  • and the vendor insists on running this check itself — not letting the customer do it — otherwise the warranty is voided.

As a bonus we learned that the EAC certifies voting systems without checking if the validation software functions properly. 

Are we surprised?  You know: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  Every time that we imagine that a voting-machine manufacturer might have sound cybersecurity practices, it turns out that they’ve taken shortcuts and they’ve made mistakes.  In this, voting-machine manufacturers are no different from any other makers of software.  There’s lots of insecure software out there made by software engineers who cut corners and don’t pay attention to security, and why should we think that voting machines are any different?

So if we want to trust our elections, we should vote on hand-marked paper ballots, counted by optical scanners, and recountable by hand.  Those optical scanners are pretty accurate when they haven’t been hacked — even the ES&S DS200 — and it’s impractical to count all the ballots without them.  But we should always check up on the machines by doing random audits of the paper ballots.  And those audits should be “strong” enough — that is, use good statistical methods and check enough of the ballots — to catch the mistakes that the machines might make, if the machines make mistakes (or are hacked).  The technical term for those “strong enough” audits is Risk-Limiting Audit.


Andrew W. Appel is Professor of Computer Science at Princeton University.

Susan Greenhalgh is Senior Advisor on Election Security at Free Speech For People.

Comments

  1. Douglas W. Jones says:

    Regarding the local officials conducting acceptance testing: The fundamental problem with this is that most counties do not have the expertise to do this. Large urban counties with hundreds of precincts should have an election staff that includes people with real expertise. I’ve been in the election offices in Washington DC, Miami, Phoenix, Cleveland and places like that, and they really do have people on staff with the ability to do such testing. On the other hand, for each large urban county, there are tens of rural counties, many with just a handful of precincts. Those counties generally have no technical expertise in house and must outsource essentially everything technical, and they typically have no expertise to oversee their outsourcing contractor or contractors. They naturally gravitate to a vendor offering “one stop shopping.” The acceptance testing issue demonstrates why this is a big mistake, but we need to find an alternative.

    Back when I was chairing the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems, I suggested that small counties should for consortia, sharing an election office between enough counties that they could afford staff with real expertise. They do this with things like maintenance depots for trucks and snow plows, why can’t they do it for voting machines? My suggestions in this regard fell on deaf ears.

    We have 8 states and several territories with populations below a million. The populations of Wyoming and Vermont are each smaller than the Des Moines metro area. It’s impolite to wonder if those states have the necessary technical staff at the state level to do a competent job of acceptance testing. The District of Columbia is only slightly larger, but its election office combines both state-level and local election offices in one organization, and they do have significant technical staffing.

    Having significant technical staffing does not imply that that staff is up to the job. I was consulting with the DC election office very shortly before Alex Halderman’s students hacked the DC Internet Voting system during their public demo. At the same time I was observing the presence of significant technical expertise, he was demonstrating the kinds of things those experts were mismanaging, as he gained control of the Internet routers in the election office and the security cameras in the server room. My impression was that the DC election office was about as good as it gets, while Halderman and his students demonstrate that that really isn’t good enough.

  2. What if the hashing function were itself implemented in hardware? Fundamentally there’s no reason to implement a hashing algorithm in software, so you could make a dedicated piece of silicon that would calculate the hash fingerprint of the entire contents of the rewritable store where the actual voting firmware were held, which could itself by connected a fixed, tamper-evident bus; at that point an auditor could push a button, read the resulting hashed bytes straight off a dedicated register, and compare that to a hash of the voting firmware from the manufacturer. A separate dedicated module could do the same thing using a different hashing algorithm; keep adding discrete modules and hashing algorithms until sufficiently comfortable that whatever is on the firmware disk is either the manufacturer’s software or someone has supply-side hacked multiple silicon foundries.

    There are plenty of excellent reasons not to move to electronic voting, but I’m pretty sure we can establish that the current state of the bytes on some storage medium is identical to some other known and trusted state of bytes without relying on hackable software. Personally my bigger worry would be the auditors and authorities, all of whom are considerably more difficult to secure from corruption.

  3. David Jefferson says:

    Excellent article. Thank you very much for publicizing this ludicrous situation.

    The article says that Brian Mechler found a bug in the hash checking script, but I presume that does not cover the embedded hash algorithm it calls. Any such algorithm used for calculating the hash values in the National Software Reference Library should be a well-known *cryptographic* hash, but it does not sound like the EAC requires that. It is not clear to me what ES&S actually implemented. Also, the entire hash-checking process should be open source, even if all of the rest of the code is closed. It is hard to find any justification for keeping that short piece of code proprietary, and there is no way to trust the verification process if the hash algorithm code itself is secret.

    In the end, as you say, it is crucial not to base our trust in elections on any kind of trusted software, but on strong and robust post-election risk-limiting audit process.

  4. Susan Greenhalgh says:

    IIRC the VVSG requires that the algorithm be a specific NIST cryptographic hash. To your second point, the hash script and the hashing process are included in the vendor’s Technical Data Package or TDP. And, unsurprisingly, the whole TDG is considered proprietary and is not public.

  5. Susan Greenhalgh says:

    An interesting addendum – the EAC’s negligence here looks even worse when cast against a recommendation and warning that the GAO issued several years ago, specifically warning that the EAC should be defining test parameters and requiring testing of the software validation scripts. The GAO wrote:

    “…the EAC has not established procedures and review criteria for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of manufacturer-provided voting system comparison tools. The Program Director told us in September 2012 that the commission requires voting system test laboratories to evaluate such tools and ensure they operate as intended by the manufacturer. However, the commission does not require that manufacturers or testing laboratories apply a standard set of evaluation criteria or test procedures to the tools and the commission has not developed any. Consequently, election jurisdictions still lack an independent framework for determining the accuracy, reliability, security, and usability of manufacturers’ software verification tools. The absence of both of these elements of a robust software verification program means that state and local jurisdictions still lack the means to effectively and efficiently verify that voting systems used in federal elections are the same as those certified by EAC.”

    P.S. Thanks David!

  6. Eric Valk says:

    Hash checking can give a high level of security if implemented properly; EAC didn’t even come close to a secure implementation. For example, Apple does a very good implementation on its handsets and computers. Micrsoft and IBM are also using this technology.
    These things have to be part of such a solution
    *Hash checking of the operating system code (SW) has to be done before the operating system is loaded. (This may have to be done in stages)
    *Hash checking code, and other security keys must be stored in a “secure enclave”, memory which cannot be modified or read except by a few SW commands not available to the operating system itself.
    *The reports of the checking have to be in an encrypted message which includes sequence, date and time (created by code in the secure enclave) so that the receiver can determine if the message has been copied and replayed.

  7. While the technical aspects are interesting, the fact that the voting public does not possess the ability to independently verify the functioning of the voting system is itself problematic.

  8. Jennifer Hofmann says:

    Thank you so much for this thorough report. We’ve turned it into an action asking the EAC to address these concerns and again advocate for hand-marked paper ballots. This will go out on Sunday to about 50,000 Americans (AmericansofConscience.com), but feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you!