Wifi access is not the same as Direct Access unless you’re claiming a vulnerability enables an attacker access that they would not otherwise have remotely.
Wireless access IS direct access if you know what youre doing.
It doesn't require vulnerabilities or 0day. Do you even know what a RAT (remote admin tool) is?
A RAT and wireless access gives a remote user full control over the entire system. Attacker can even remotely take over your mouse control and act like he was physically sitting at the terminal
Connecting to a hotspot does not necessarily mean anything at all about security vulnerabilities of either system. A property maintained system should have no issue, either for the network system itself being connected to or especially the systems connected to the internet through it.
This is a different thing entirely if what is being connected to is a local intranet network although from what I'm reading, that's not what is being described here. Such a connection would leave you open to much more vulnerabilities but a simple internet connection doesn't give you backend access to a device unless it's specifically set up that way.
Regardless, these machines shouldn't be connected to the internet at all, that way vulnerabilities become almost non-existent outside of some crazy CIA trojan that would phish for a specific device. They did this to disrupt nuclear reactors in Iran by destroying some Siemens devices hooked up to them, eventually an Iranian scientist hooked up to the local network with an infected laptop and it was unleashed on the broader system that wasn't connected to the internet.
I agree, A ssid implies it is talking IEEE 802.11 something something. It doesn't imply it is on anything more than a LAN tho. Still suspicious. However, doesn't say it was a ballot machine, and also all the machines in WI had paper prints that people could verify and audit. Were they in this case?
A remote admin tool gives you access to the voting information system exactly how? Is a remote admin service actually listening? Is said remote admin service (port) actually responding to your source IP address?
I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Remember, my problem with this post is that it was declared that wireless access alone was enough to compromise the voting system. That is not necessarily the case. It would be NO DIFFERENT than an open wireless system being used to provide network connectivity between your workstation and your bank. Encryption via TLS does occur and a SEPARATE authentication is necessary to the bank’s web server in order to view and make changes. Just because the Wi-Fi access is open doesn’t necessarily mean anything as far as access to the information system.
If a PC has any type of internet connection (WIFI / 4G / Cable) then a RAT can give a remote attacker full control...full control as if you were physically sitting in front of the keyboard. Once the attacker has full control the rest is easy.
And yes the RAT method is just one way this could happen. Packet sniffing the open WIFI would probably also be used.
They could also use unknown exploits and backdoors which the NSA has already admitted they create with direct help of Microsoft.
Now I am wondering why the WIFI was set to 'open (no password)'. All modern WIFI gear comes with passwords already setup for you. They would surely have had to go in and change it to 'unsecure' manually.
Just shaking my head. Yes, the voting machine could be hacked. The voting machine could be manipulated completely if configured that way. That is not my point at all.
My point is that the OP claimed, please read the title of the post, that the mere fact that no password was required for the voting machine to get on Wi-Fi that the voting machine data could be altered. This is not a correct assertion. That is all. This has NOTHING to do with the security of the voting machines. This has NOTHING to do with if voting machines should have Internet access.
Wifi access is not the same as Direct Access unless you’re claiming a vulnerability enables an attacker access that they would not otherwise have remotely.
You are talking out of your ass.
Wireless access IS direct access if you know what youre doing.
It doesn't require vulnerabilities or 0day. Do you even know what a RAT (remote admin tool) is?
A RAT and wireless access gives a remote user full control over the entire system. Attacker can even remotely take over your mouse control and act like he was physically sitting at the terminal
This is all correct and doesn't even mention man in the middle attacks.
Voting machines don't need WiFi. They only need to count...
Connecting to a hotspot does not necessarily mean anything at all about security vulnerabilities of either system. A property maintained system should have no issue, either for the network system itself being connected to or especially the systems connected to the internet through it.
This is a different thing entirely if what is being connected to is a local intranet network although from what I'm reading, that's not what is being described here. Such a connection would leave you open to much more vulnerabilities but a simple internet connection doesn't give you backend access to a device unless it's specifically set up that way.
Regardless, these machines shouldn't be connected to the internet at all, that way vulnerabilities become almost non-existent outside of some crazy CIA trojan that would phish for a specific device. They did this to disrupt nuclear reactors in Iran by destroying some Siemens devices hooked up to them, eventually an Iranian scientist hooked up to the local network with an infected laptop and it was unleashed on the broader system that wasn't connected to the internet.
I agree, A ssid implies it is talking IEEE 802.11 something something. It doesn't imply it is on anything more than a LAN tho. Still suspicious. However, doesn't say it was a ballot machine, and also all the machines in WI had paper prints that people could verify and audit. Were they in this case?
A remote admin tool gives you access to the voting information system exactly how? Is a remote admin service actually listening? Is said remote admin service (port) actually responding to your source IP address?
I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Remember, my problem with this post is that it was declared that wireless access alone was enough to compromise the voting system. That is not necessarily the case. It would be NO DIFFERENT than an open wireless system being used to provide network connectivity between your workstation and your bank. Encryption via TLS does occur and a SEPARATE authentication is necessary to the bank’s web server in order to view and make changes. Just because the Wi-Fi access is open doesn’t necessarily mean anything as far as access to the information system.
To your first rhetorical question:
It's not about "oh just anyone can do it", but rather "the ones who were given the keys could do it"
Who was given the keys?
If a PC has any type of internet connection (WIFI / 4G / Cable) then a RAT can give a remote attacker full control...full control as if you were physically sitting in front of the keyboard. Once the attacker has full control the rest is easy.
And yes the RAT method is just one way this could happen. Packet sniffing the open WIFI would probably also be used.
They could also use unknown exploits and backdoors which the NSA has already admitted they create with direct help of Microsoft.
Now I am wondering why the WIFI was set to 'open (no password)'. All modern WIFI gear comes with passwords already setup for you. They would surely have had to go in and change it to 'unsecure' manually.
Just shaking my head. Yes, the voting machine could be hacked. The voting machine could be manipulated completely if configured that way. That is not my point at all.
My point is that the OP claimed, please read the title of the post, that the mere fact that no password was required for the voting machine to get on Wi-Fi that the voting machine data could be altered. This is not a correct assertion. That is all. This has NOTHING to do with the security of the voting machines. This has NOTHING to do with if voting machines should have Internet access.