Election Crisis final election summary

What’s the charge of Electioncrisis.org?

The US 2020 General Election was unique in many ways, with so many pushing for unsolicited mail-in ballots and adjustments called for due to the COVID19 pandemic.  It had us looking closer at systems that have been problematic for years. Other challenges related to how elections were and are conducted were exposed in the process.

There are 5 categories of nonfeasance or malfeasance observed in the Maricopa County 2020 General Election and the site includes supporting evidence:

  1. Non-Compliance with Election Security Protocols
    1. Poor adherence to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) protocols which serve as a baseline for election security standards.
    2. No risk assessment was conducted, especially around the supply chain risks of Dominion Voting Systems
  2. Network Insecurity
    1. Mobile communications are permitted in the tabulation center and around equipment.
    2. Closed network attacks are increasingly common.
    3. Closed networks, once compromised, often have fewer protections to stop the spread of attack or lateral movement.
    4. Closed networks rarely stay ‘closed.’
    5. Potential state sponsored attackers have the means and methods to attack election systems with precision.
    6. Uncovered numerous vulnerabilities of ‘Closed’ network of Maricopa County.
  3. Conflicts of Interest
    1. Audits, certification of hardware, and certification of software are all handled by the same two companies.
    2. Dominion commented on a process that is specifically outlined in the contract between Dominion and Maricopa County.
    3. Public officials have been compensated by various election companies and elected officials have created laws to use Dominion Voting Systems’ products
  4. Deceptive Practices
    1. Intentional deception
    2. Activities that compromise election transparency
    3. Intentional voter manipulation
  5. Dominion Voting Systems’ Company and Machine Issues
    1. Voting machines in general pose voting integrity challenges
    2. History of vulnerabilities
    3. Flaws that resulted in voting errors that question the accuracy and integrity of election results.
    4. Direct quotes from Dominion injecting themselves into the tabulation process raising questions of impartiality.
    5. Political organizations tied to foreign actors that have influence on the finances and infrastructure and possibly the source code of Dominion’s system(s).
    6. Supply chain risks are numerous and well-documented.
      • There are Dominion developers in Serbia.
      • Dominion has systems likely exposed to the CCP.
      • Dominion has and likely did provide remote support from Serbia in the 2020 Maricopa County General Election.
      • It is well established that many hardware components used for remote access and internally are sourced directly from China.
      • History of vulnerabilities

Conclusion:

Electioncrisis.org has definitively set the foundation for the supposition that the Maricopa County voting and election processes are flawed to the point that we have little confidence in election integrity. We have established that Maricopa County staff has practiced non-compliance with security policy and processes. Not only do voting machines need a complete re-evaluation on their use, but how electronic voting machines should even operate.  The vendors contracted must be re-evaluated. Machine use must be reviewed, and the County staff conducting elections must be re-educated and re-trained. The entire process must be re-examined for non-partisanship support of election integrity.

Electioncrisis has outlined and provided evidence of forms of potential election fraud.  Within the site any assertion that nefarious activity occurred is supported extensively and irrefutably validates our claim that fraud was an integral element that affected the outcome of the Maricopa County 2020 General Election.

Full PDF report

Recent Developments

Maricopa County does not have an admin account on their Dominion equipment. The routers appear to be tied to upstream equipment "connected" that is likely connected to the internet. There appear to be no admin accounts with access to local equipment only. There is a real question of how any system, election, school, or otherwise, would be adequately protected in their custody.

Is Dominion sharing passwords with multiple jurisdictions?  Why else would you not give out a password then just reset it on equipment in use?

“Releasing Dominion’s intellectual property to an unaccredited, biased, and plainly unreliable actor such as Cyber Ninjas would be reckless, causing irreparable damage to the commercial interests of the company and the election security interests of the country,” Dominion’s statement said. “No company should be compelled to participate in such an irresponsible act.”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/arizona-senate-republicans-sign-lease-to-continue-vote-audit/2021/05/13/04c59a24-b426-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html

Stay Tuned

Electronic Voting machines may not go away; so our hope is that security of these systems is handled differently.  We want to see these systems independently and thoroughly tested.

We will release a whitepaper on this subject, but let's look at a few things that should be done ASAP.

  • Independent vulnerability tests: Since the closed network and the open network will share USB drives,  both networks where election systems are used should be tested semi-annually.
  • Election systems should avoid conflicts of interest like ownership by spouses of or politicians.  Ownership outside the US.  Providing gifts or bribes to government employees.
  • Both networks where election equipment is used should have detection capabilities and log collection on a separate system.
  • Source code reviews should be handled by organizations not tied to organizations that vulnerability test.
  • equipment should be purpose built for election systems so standards of security can be adopted throughout the supply chain.
  • Use better standards for encryption technologies to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the voter data.
  • Use an EDR product that can help manage Firewall to create proper firewall policies that limit communication to very specific pathways and provide tamper resistance.
  • Accountability for negligence of creating an insecure environment.  Such as blatant lack of policy enforcement.  Creating outside internet connections. Intentionally misleading the public.
  • Recorder should produce and post the number of registered voters at registration cut off.

These recommendations should apply retroactively.  No individual who allowed conditions to exist that could compromise elections should be allowed anywhere near elections.  There must be consequences before any voting can be trusted.  It is very difficult to secure your way out of insider threat when you have top down corruption and those entrusted with oversight are derelict in their duties or a participant in fraud.

Government assures us everything is fine

Security experts outside of the EAC have been sounding the alarm for years.  We have security reports from all over the world saying many of the same things.  We had better start listening, we need to demand these systems removed or secured properly with independent verification.