A fun chat with Grok about Dominion and Testing Labs

If the testing labs that tested Dominion’s software missed the existence of SSMS and SQLCMD that allow modification of the voting system database bypassing the application security controls, would you still categorize their testing as ‘rigorous’?

If the testing labs missed the existence of SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) and SQLCMD utilities, which could potentially allow for unauthorized modification of the voting system database by bypassing application-level security controls, then categorizing their testing as ‘rigorous’ would be problematic. Here’s why:

Assessment of Rigor:

  1. Scope of Testing:
    • Lack of Comprehensive Testing: Rigorous testing should include an examination of all possible interfaces and access points to the database. Missing the presence or potential misuse of powerful database management tools like SSMS and SQLCMD indicates a significant oversight in the scope of security testing.
  2. Security Controls:
    • Application vs. Database Security: If these tools were present but not accounted for in the security architecture, it suggests that the testing did not adequately assess how database access was secured or how it could be exploited. Rigorous testing would involve ensuring that database access through any means, including direct SQL commands or management tools, adheres to the same security standards as the application.
  3. Bypassing Controls:
    • Vulnerability to Bypass: The ability to bypass application security controls through these utilities would be a major security flaw. A rigorous test would aim to identify such vulnerabilities, either through penetration testing, code review, or configuration checks.
  4. Authentication and Authorization:
    • Failure in Access Management: If SSMS and SQLCMD were accessible in a way that allowed unauthorized or improperly privileged access, this indicates a failure in authentication and authorization checks, which should be a key focus of any thorough security assessment.
  5. Audit and Monitoring:
    • Lack of Detection: Rigorous testing would also ensure that any use or attempted use of such tools would be logged, monitored, and alarmed, potentially preventing or at least detecting unauthorized access.

Implications:

In conclusion, if the testing labs overlooked these tools, the term ‘rigorous’ would not appropriately describe their testing process. It would suggest a need for a more comprehensive approach to security testing, especially in environments where system integrity is paramount.

If a professional testing lab missed software that was on the ‘Start Menu’, what does that say about their attention to detail and expertise?

If a professional testing lab missed software that was accessible from the ‘Start Menu’, it would raise significant concerns about their attention to detail and expertise in several ways:

Attention to Detail:

Expertise:

Potential Reasons:

Implications:

In summary, missing software on the ‘Start Menu’ in a professional testing context would suggest that there are gaps in the lab’s attention to detail and possibly in their expertise application. It would prompt a reevaluation of their testing practices to ensure they meet the high standards expected in professional software testing.

For a testing lab that is testing software that was deemed part of our national critical infrastructure, to miss such obvious things, should this testing lab be trusted at all at this point?

If a testing lab responsible for evaluating software critical to national infrastructure missed something as ostensibly straightforward as software listed on the ‘Start Menu’, it raises serious concerns about their reliability and competence. Here are several points to consider:

Trust Implications:

  1. Compromised Integrity:
    • Missed Vulnerabilities: If basic elements are overlooked, there’s a high likelihood that more complex or hidden vulnerabilities might also be missed. This is particularly alarming for national critical infrastructure where the consequences of failure can be catastrophic.
  2. Lack of Thoroughness:
    • Systematic Oversights: This incident suggests that the lab’s testing methodologies might be flawed or not comprehensive enough. For critical infrastructure, testing needs to be exhaustive, leaving no stone unturned.
  3. Expertise and Capability:
    • Professional Competence: Such an oversight questions the expertise of the testers or the lab’s overall capability to handle sensitive and high-stakes testing. Trust in their technical ability to safeguard national interests would be notably diminished.
  4. Security and Safety Concerns:
    • National Security: Missing software on the ‘Start Menu’ could imply that the lab might not have the necessary depth in security testing, potentially leaving the nation’s infrastructure exposed to cyber threats or operational failures.
  5. Public Confidence:
    • Trust Erosion: Public trust in the security and reliability of critical infrastructure relies on confidence in the systems that protect it. An oversight like this could erode that trust, particularly if it becomes public knowledge.

Actions to Consider:

Conclusion:

At this point, the trust in this testing lab would be seriously compromised unless they can demonstrate a strong corrective action plan and show that this was an isolated incident due to exceptional circumstances rather than indicative of systemic issues. For national critical infrastructure, where the margin for error is extremely low, any lab with such an oversight would need to prove its reliability through actions, not just assurances. If confidence cannot be restored, it might be prudent for stakeholders to consider alternative testing entities until trust is reestablished.

If the installation program of the Dominion EMS server opened firewall ports and allowed connections from all ip addresses instead of limiting those connections to particular subnets or specific IP addresses, in a system that is deemed CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, could that be considered criminal negligence of the highest degree?

If the installation program for the Dominion Election Management System (EMS) server indeed opened firewall ports allowing connections from all IP addresses without any restrictions, in a system classified as critical infrastructure, this could potentially be considered criminal negligence, depending on several factors:

Analysis:

  1. Security Implications:
    • Open Ports to All IP: Allowing connections from all IP addresses would expose the system to a vast array of potential threats including unauthorized access, cyber-attacks, and data breaches. For critical infrastructure, this is highly risky as it increases vulnerability to cyber threats exponentially.
  2. Industry Standards and Best Practices:
    • Security Protocols: Best practices in cybersecurity, especially for critical infrastructure, dictate that access should be restricted to specific, trusted IP addresses or subnets, following the principle of least privilege. Opening ports to all IP addresses would violate these standards, suggesting a significant lapse in security configuration.
  3. Legal and Regulatory Framework:
    • Criminal Negligence: For an act or omission to be considered criminal negligence, it must show a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Here, the act of leaving critical infrastructure open to the entire internet could be seen as such a deviation, especially if:
      • There was knowledge or should have been knowledge of the risks involved.
      • No reasonable steps were taken to prevent such risks.
  4. Intent and Awareness:
    • Negligence vs. Intent: Criminal negligence would not require intent but would hinge on the foreseeability of harm and the failure to act to prevent it. If the developers or installers were aware or should have been aware of the security implications and failed to address them, this could constitute negligence.
  5. Impact on Critical Infrastructure:
    • Potential for Harm: Given the nature of election systems as critical infrastructure, where security failures could affect national elections, public trust, and democracy itself, the potential for harm is immense. This context elevates the severity of any security oversight.
  6. Response and Mitigation:
    • Post-Install Actions: If there was an immediate and effective response to rectify this issue after it was discovered, the perception of negligence might be mitigated. However, the initial setup and lack of default security measures would still be highly criticized.

Legal Considerations:

Conclusion:

While opening all firewall ports to all IP addresses in such a critical system would certainly be seen as gross negligence from a cybersecurity perspective, whether it constitutes “criminal negligence of the highest degree” would depend on legal interpretation, the specifics of how this occurred, and the response to the issue. It would likely be subject to a thorough investigation by legal, cybersecurity, and possibly election oversight bodies to determine if criminal negligence had taken place, considering both the intent and the impact on national security and electoral integrity.

If a testing lab, tasked with the job of testing critical infrastructure such as this were to also miss this, would their credibility suffer another extreme blow?

If a testing lab, already tasked with evaluating software for critical infrastructure like the Dominion EMS server, missed an issue where the installation program leaves firewall ports open to all IP addresses, their credibility would indeed suffer another extreme blow for several reasons:

Reasons for Credibility Loss:

  1. Previous Oversights: If this incident follows any previous mistakes or oversights, especially those involving basic security configurations, it would compound doubts about the lab’s competence and reliability. Each new oversight adds to a pattern of negligence or incompetence.
  2. Critical Nature of the Infrastructure: The importance of securing critical infrastructure cannot be overstated. Missing a fundamental security flaw like open firewall ports indicates a failure to appreciate or address the severity of risks involved, which is contrary to the expectations set for testing such systems.
  3. Scope of Testing: This kind of oversight suggests that the lab might not be testing with the appropriate scope or depth, potentially focusing on functionality at the expense of security, which is a critical aspect of testing for infrastructure deemed vital to national interest.
  4. Public and Stakeholder Trust: The public and stakeholders, including government bodies, rely heavily on the assurance that systems critical to democracy and national security are thoroughly vetted. Each missed vulnerability erodes this trust, especially in an era where cybersecurity threats are a top concern.
  5. Professional Standards: The lab’s adherence to professional standards, best practices in cybersecurity, and specific guidelines for testing election systems would come into question. This could lead to repercussions like loss of certifications, legal challenges, or exclusion from future critical infrastructure projects.
  6. Reputational Damage: Beyond immediate professional consequences, the reputational damage could be long-lasting. Other clients might reconsider their association with the lab, fearing similar oversights in their projects.

Potential Consequences:

Conclusion:

Missing something as fundamental as open firewall ports in critical infrastructure testing would severely undermine the lab’s credibility. It would not only reflect poorly on their technical capabilities but also on their understanding of the implications of such vulnerabilities in systems vital to national security. This incident would likely be the catalyst for significant changes within the lab or even its replacement by competitors with a stronger track record.

Even if the vendor tries to claim that it isn’t a problem because these systems are ‘not supposed to be on the internet’, what are the potential issues considering this is a system deemed as critical infrastructure?

Even if a vendor claims that these systems are “not supposed to be on the internet,” there are still significant potential issues with critical infrastructure like election management systems (EMS) that open firewall ports to all IP addresses:

Potential Issues:

  1. Physical Security Breaches:
    • Local Network Access: While the system might not be directly connected to the internet, if it’s accessible via any network (even an isolated one within a facility), an attacker with physical access could still exploit this vulnerability. Physical security breaches can lead to network access.
  2. Misconfiguration or Human Error:
    • Unintended Connectivity: Systems might inadvertently connect to broader networks or the internet due to misconfiguration, human error, or through the use of other networked devices (like printers or USB drives with network capabilities). This could expose the system to external threats.
  3. Social Engineering and Insider Threats:
    • Internal Threats: Employees or insiders might be tricked or coerced into connecting the system to the internet or another network, either intentionally or accidentally, thus exposing it. The open ports would then become a significant vulnerability.
  4. Network Segmentation Issues:
    • Compromise of Adjacent Systems: If the EMS is on a network with other systems that do have internet access, a breach in one system could lead to lateral movement by attackers into the supposedly isolated EMS.
  5. Legacy Systems or Updates:
    • Integration with Other Systems: Election systems often need to integrate with other systems for data transfer, updates, or maintenance. If these connections are not managed securely, they could provide a pathway for external access.
  6. Future Connectivity Needs:
    • Scalability and Maintenance: There might be future needs or upgrades where internet connectivity becomes necessary for software updates, remote diagnostics, or other purposes. If the system is already configured to accept connections from any IP, this could be exploited before proper security measures are implemented.
  7. Testing and Development Environments:
    • Development Leaks: Systems might be tested or developed in environments that do have internet access. If these configurations carry over to production without proper review, the vulnerability persists.
  8. Third-Party Services or Vendors:
    • Vendor Access: Sometimes, vendors or third-party services need remote access for support or maintenance. If this is not tightly controlled and the system is set to accept connections from any IP, unauthorized access could occur.
  9. Emergency Situations:
    • Crisis Management: In emergencies, there might be a rush to connect systems to get quick access to data or to manage the situation, potentially bypassing established security protocols.
  10. Regulatory and Compliance Failures:
    • Audit and Compliance: Even if not connected to the internet, having such a configuration could fail audits or compliance checks, leading to legal, financial, or reputational damage.

Implications for Critical Infrastructure:

In conclusion, even with claims of isolation from the internet, the configuration of open ports to all IP addresses in critical infrastructure like an EMS represents a severe security flaw with numerous potential vectors for exploitation. It’s a scenario that necessitates immediate remediation and would likely prompt a significant overhaul of security practices and policies.

If a vendor created software with even these few issues and they knew their software was deemed part of critical infrastructure, what type of severity would this violation be?

Given that the software in question is part of critical infrastructure, particularly in the context of election management systems, the severity of the issues described would be categorized as follows:

Severity Classification:

  1. Critical Severity:
    • Open Firewall Ports to All IPs: This issue is of critical severity because:
      • Impact: It directly affects the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system. Any unauthorized access could lead to data manipulation, system compromise, or disruption of election processes.
      • Exposure: By allowing connections from all IP addresses, the system is exposed to every potential attacker on the internet or within any network it might be connected to, even unintentionally.
      • Risk to Critical Functions: For a system integral to democracy, where security is paramount, this vulnerability could lead to catastrophic outcomes, including election tampering, which undermines national security and public trust.
  2. High Severity:
    • Misconfiguration or Human Error Leading to Internet Exposure: Assuming this is a known risk or has been observed in practice, this would be considered high severity because:
      • Potential Impact: While not immediately exploitable without further action (like connecting to the internet), the configuration leaves the system open to such risks if any part of the network becomes internet-facing.
      • Systemic Vulnerability: It indicates a systemic issue in the software’s default setup or documentation, showing a lack of understanding or concern for the security requirements of critical infrastructure.
  3. High Severity:
    • Lack of Proper Network Segmentation or Security Controls: If the software does not enforce or guide users towards proper network isolation or segmentation, this is also high severity due to:
      • Indirect Exposure: Even without direct internet access, poor network segmentation could allow an attacker to move laterally from another compromised system to the EMS.

Justification for Severity:

Conclusion:

These issues, particularly in the context of critical infrastructure like election systems, would be classified as critical or high severity vulnerabilities. They demand immediate attention, remediation, and potentially a complete overhaul of the software’s security architecture. The vendor would likely face severe scrutiny, potential litigation, and a significant reputational hit if these issues were exposed or exploited.

and what violations would there be for the testing lab?

If a testing lab, responsible for evaluating software for use in critical infrastructure, missed these severe security issues, they could potentially be held accountable for several types of violations or failures:

Violations and Failures:

  1. Failure to Comply with Testing Standards:
    • Non-adherence to Protocols: Labs are often required to follow specific protocols and standards for testing, especially for critical infrastructure. Missing critical vulnerabilities like open firewall ports would indicate a failure to meet these standards, potentially violating agreements or certifications with bodies like the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
  2. Negligence in Security Assessment:
    • Security Oversight: If the lab did not include or adequately perform security testing that would have revealed these vulnerabilities, this could be seen as professional negligence. This is particularly severe when dealing with systems that manage national elections.
  3. Breach of Contract:
    • Contractual Obligations: Testing labs typically have contractual obligations to thoroughly test and verify the security of software. Failing to identify such basic yet critical flaws could lead to breach of contract claims from clients or the government.
  4. Regulatory Non-Compliance:
    • Regulatory Violations: Depending on the jurisdiction, there might be specific regulations regarding the testing of software for critical infrastructure. Missing these vulnerabilities could lead to violations of laws or regulations aimed at protecting national security, data integrity, or election processes.
  5. Professional Ethics and Standards:
    • Ethical Violations: Professional bodies might view such an oversight as a violation of ethical standards or professional conduct, potentially leading to sanctions, loss of accreditation, or professional membership.
  6. Loss of Certification:
    • Certification Revocation: If the lab holds certifications from bodies like ISO/IEC 17025 (for testing and calibration labs), missing critical security flaws might lead to an investigation and possibly the revocation or suspension of these certifications.
  7. Public Trust and Accountability:
    • Public Accountability: There could be public or governmental inquiries, especially in the context of elections, leading to accountability measures or even legal action if public trust is significantly undermined.
  8. Financial Liability:
    • Damages: If the missed vulnerabilities lead to actual harm or breaches, the lab could be financially liable for damages, especially if it can be proven that their negligence directly contributed to the security failure.

Specific Violations:

Conclusion:

The severity of these violations would depend on the specifics of their contract, the regulatory environment, and the actual impact of their oversight. However, the lab’s credibility would be severely compromised, potentially leading to legal, financial, and reputational consequences. They would need to undertake significant steps to restore trust, including revising testing methodologies, retraining staff, and possibly facing external audits or certifications to re-establish their competence in testing critical infrastructure software.

and what violations would there be for election officials that were put on notice that some or all of these issues existed, yet still conducted the 2024 election using these systems?

Election officials who were aware of these critical security issues in election management systems (EMS) but chose to proceed with the 2024 election using them could potentially face a range of violations, depending on jurisdiction, specific laws, and the context of their decisions:

Potential Violations:

  1. Breach of Election Integrity Laws:
    • Legal Requirements for Election Security: Many jurisdictions have laws or regulations stipulating that elections must be conducted securely to ensure the integrity of the vote. Using known vulnerable systems could be seen as a direct violation of these laws.
  2. Negligence or Gross Negligence:
    • Duty of Care: Election officials have a duty to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Knowing about critical vulnerabilities yet proceeding without remediation could be construed as negligence, especially if any harm or doubt about the election’s integrity results.
  3. Misuse of Public Office or Misconduct:
    • Public Trust: Holding public office implies a responsibility to act in the public’s interest. Using compromised systems could be seen as misconduct or an abuse of power, particularly if it leads to or could lead to the manipulation of election results.
  4. Violation of Election Administration Regulations:
    • Certification and Compliance: Election systems often need certification or must comply with certain standards. Deploying systems with known vulnerabilities could violate these certifications or compliance requirements.
  5. Criminal Liability:
    • Criminal Negligence: In extreme cases, where there’s evidence that officials knew of the risks and ignored them, leading to significant harm (like affecting election outcomes), they could face criminal charges for negligence or endangerment.
  6. Civil Liabilities:
    • Lawsuits: Candidates, voters, or advocacy groups could sue election officials for negligence or malfeasance if they can prove that the use of insecure systems compromised the election or their rights.
  7. Violations of State or Federal Election Laws:
    • Specific Legislation: There might be state or federal laws that explicitly require secure voting systems. Using known insecure systems could be a direct violation, potentially leading to both civil and criminal penalties.
  8. Ethical Violations:
    • Professional Ethics: Election officials are expected to adhere to high ethical standards. Proceeding with elections using systems known to have security flaws might be considered an ethical violation by oversight bodies or professional associations.
  9. Failure to Protect Voter Data:
    • Data Protection Laws: If the vulnerabilities involve the risk of voter data exposure, officials could be in violation of data protection regulations, which are increasingly stringent regarding personal information.
  10. Non-Compliance with Cybersecurity Directives:
    • Federal or State Directives: There might be specific cybersecurity directives from bodies like CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) or state equivalents that election officials must follow. Ignoring these could lead to legal repercussions.

Considerations:

Conclusion:

Election officials using known insecure systems for an election could face a combination of civil, criminal, and administrative violations, depending on the specifics of the case. The public and legal consequences could be severe, potentially leading to the invalidation of election results, personal liability, and a significant loss of public trust in the electoral process.

what are the potential and minimum and maximum legal consequences for each entity involved?

Here are the potential legal consequences for each entity involved in using or failing to secure election management systems (EMS) for the 2024 election, categorized by minimum and maximum scenarios. Note that these are general possibilities and would vary based on jurisdiction, specific laws, and the details of each case:

Vendor (Software Developer):

Minimum Consequences:

Maximum Consequences:

Testing Lab:

Minimum Consequences:

Maximum Consequences:

Election Officials:

Minimum Consequences:

Maximum Consequences:

Additional Notes:

In summary, while the minimum consequences might involve fines, reputational damage, or administrative penalties, the maximum could involve criminal charges, significant financial penalties, and career or business-ending repercussions.

And now answer the same but for criminal penalties.

Here are the potential criminal penalties for each entity involved in the scenario where they knowingly used or allowed the use of insecure election management systems (EMS) for the 2024 election:

Vendor (Software Developer):

Minimum Criminal Penalties:

Maximum Criminal Penalties:

Testing Lab:

Minimum Criminal Penalties:

Maximum Criminal Penalties:

Election Officials:

Minimum Criminal Penalties:

Maximum Criminal Penalties:

Additional Considerations:

In summary, criminal penalties could range from misdemeanor charges with fines and short jail time to felony convictions with substantial prison sentences and fines, especially if the actions are seen to undermine the democratic process or national security.

×