Incident: Georgia Voting Machines Display Glitch: Pre-election Software Fix Needed

Published Date: 2020-09-29

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident with the glitch in the state's new voting machines happened during preelection testing last week, as mentioned in the article [105511]. 2. Published on 2020-09-29. 3. The software failure incident with the glitch in the voting machines occurred in September 2020.
System 1. Dominion Voting Systems' new election system 2. Android operating system 3. Voting machines' display system 4. Database system 5. Third-party vendor testing system 6. USB drive loading system 7. County election officials' reprogramming system 8. Preelection testing system
Responsible Organization 1. Georgia election officials 2. Dominion Voting Systems 3. Local election officials 4. Third-party vendor 5. Activists and lawyers representing election integrity concerns 6. University of Michigan professor and election security expert J. Alex Halderman
Impacted Organization 1. Election officials in two counties were impacted by the software failure incident [105511].
Software Causes 1. The software failure incident was caused by a glitch in the display for a high-profile U.S. Senate race on the new touchscreen voting machines, where not all candidates' names would fit on a single screen [105511]. 2. The issue was related to the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, requiring a minor software change to address the problem [105511].
Non-software Causes 1. Misunderstanding on the part of local election officials regarding the tabulation of absentee ballots in one county [105511]. 2. Issue with write-in candidates due to a candidate having a number in his name while there are only letters on the keyboard in another county [105511].
Impacts 1. The software failure incident led to a display problem on the touchscreen voting machines where not all candidates' names could fit on a single screen during a high-profile U.S. Senate race [105511]. 2. The incident raised concerns about the security and readiness of the voting machines for the upcoming election, with activists arguing that the machines are not secure and should be replaced with hand-marked paper ballots [105511]. 3. The software failure required a software change to address the issue, which needed to be tested, approved by a third-party vendor, loaded onto USB drives, delivered to counties, installed on voting machines, reprogrammed, and undergo preelection testing, creating a time-sensitive and labor-intensive process [105511]. 4. The incident prompted debates and legal challenges regarding the constitutionality of the state's voting machines, with arguments about the potential risks of last-minute software changes introducing serious consequences and security vulnerabilities [105511].
Preventions 1. Thorough and comprehensive testing of the software before deployment could have potentially prevented the software failure incident [105511]. 2. Involving election integrity activists and experts in the software development and testing process could have helped identify and address potential issues earlier [105511]. 3. Implementing a more robust and secure communication protocol between the voting machines and the underlying operating system could have prevented the display issue related to the U.S. Senate race candidates' names [105511].
Fixes 1. A software change to address the display issue for the U.S. Senate race candidates on the touchscreen voting machines could fix the software failure incident [105511].
References 1. Georgia election officials 2. Bryan Tyson, attorney representing the state 3. Lawyers representing election integrity activists 4. U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg 5. Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems 6. David Cross, lawyer representing several voters 7. J. Alex Halderman, University of Michigan professor and election security expert 8. Bruce Brown, attorney representing the Coalition for Good Governance and individual voters

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident related to the glitch in the state's new voting machines in Georgia has happened again within the same organization, Dominion Voting Systems. The incident was specifically related to the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, which required a minor software change to address the issue. Eric Coomer, an executive with Dominion Voting Systems, mentioned that the problem was due to the communication between the voting machines and the Android operating system [105511]. (b) The software failure incident related to the glitch in the state's new voting machines in Georgia has also raised concerns about the security and readiness of the voting machines at other organizations or in other states. Election integrity activists have argued that the voting machines are not secure and aren't ready for use, which could imply potential issues with similar systems in other locations. Additionally, the concerns raised by experts about last-minute software changes introducing serious consequences and security risks could be applicable to voting systems in other states as well [105511].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident in the Georgia election system can be attributed to the design phase. The glitch in the voting machines, where not all candidates' names would fit on a single screen, was discovered during preelection testing. This issue was related to the way the voting machines communicated with the underlying Android operating system, indicating a design flaw in the system [105511]. (b) The software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase. For example, there was a problem with the tabulation of absentee ballots in one county during preelection testing, which was attributed to a misunderstanding by local election officials. Additionally, in another county, there was a problem with write-in candidates due to the format of the keyboard not accommodating numbers in candidate names. These operational issues further highlight weaknesses in the system's operation [105511].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system, outside_system (a) The software failure incident in the Georgia election machines was primarily within the system. The glitch in the display for a U.S. Senate race was identified during preelection testing on the new touchscreen voting machines [105511]. The issue was related to how the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, and a minor software change was deemed necessary to address the problem [105511]. The software change required testing and approval by a third-party vendor, followed by installation on hundreds of voting machines by county election officials [105511]. (b) The software failure incident also had implications outside the system. Concerns were raised by election integrity activists about the security and readiness of the voting machines for the upcoming election [105511]. Experts highlighted the potential consequences of last-minute changes in complex computerized systems like Georgia's election equipment, emphasizing the risk of introducing serious and difficult-to-foresee consequences, as well as providing an attractive vector for attackers seeking to spread malware [105511]. Additionally, questions were raised about federal certification for the software change and the security measures to be taken throughout the process [105511].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident in Georgia related to the voting machines was primarily due to non-human actions. The glitch in the display for a U.S. Senate race on the touchscreen voting machines was attributed to the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, requiring a minor software change to address the issue [105511]. (b) Human actions also played a role in the software failure incident. Lawyers representing election integrity activists raised concerns about the security and readiness of the voting machines, pushing for the use of hand-marked paper ballots instead. Additionally, there were misunderstandings by local election officials in one county regarding the tabulation of absentee ballots and issues with write-in candidates in another county [105511].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) hardware, software (a) The software failure incident in the Georgia election machines was related to hardware as well as software. The glitch in the voting machines was due to the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, which is a hardware-related issue [105511]. However, the problem was addressed through a software change, indicating a software-related solution to the hardware-related issue [105511].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) non-malicious (a) The software failure incident described in the article does not appear to be malicious. It seems to be a non-malicious failure related to a glitch in the state's new voting machines that caused display issues for a high-profile U.S. Senate race. The incident was discovered during preelection testing, and election officials worked on implementing a software change to address the problem [105511].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The intent of the software failure incident was related to poor_decisions. Election integrity activists argued that the voting machines were not secure and weren't ready for use, leading to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's new voting machines [105511]. The activists raised concerns about the security implications of making last-minute software changes without enough time for rigorous testing and security measures, highlighting the potential consequences of introducing serious and difficult-to-foresee issues in complex computerized systems like Georgia's election equipment [105511].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) unknown (a) The software failure incident in the Georgia election system was related to a glitch in the display for a high-profile U.S. Senate race on the new touchscreen voting machines. Election officials initially thought they would have to rebuild the database but then discovered they could fix the problem through a software change [105511]. (b) The software failure incident was described as a glitch in the display for a high-profile U.S. Senate race on the new touchscreen voting machines. Eric Coomer from Dominion Voting Systems mentioned that the problem was related to the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, and a minor software change would address the issue. The incident was not described as accidental but rather as a problem that required a software change to fix [105511].
Duration temporary (a) The software failure incident in this case appears to be temporary. The glitch in the display for a high-profile U.S. Senate race on the new touchscreen voting machines was discovered during preelection testing. Election officials found that not all of the candidates' names would fit on a single screen under certain circumstances. The issue was identified as a problem with the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, and a minor software change was deemed necessary to address the issue [105511].
Behaviour omission, other (a) crash: The incident described in the article does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions [Article 105511]. (b) omission: The software failure incident in the article involves a form of omission where the system omits to display all candidates' names on a single screen under certain circumstances [Article 105511]. (c) timing: The software failure incident does not involve a timing issue where the system performs its intended functions but at the wrong time [Article 105511]. (d) value: The software failure incident does not involve a value issue where the system performs its intended functions incorrectly [Article 105511]. (e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit a byzantine behavior with inconsistent responses and interactions [Article 105511]. (f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the article is related to a display issue where not all candidates' names would fit on a single screen due to a problem with the display for a high-profile U.S. Senate race [Article 105511].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception processing_unit, embedded_software (a) sensor: The software failure incident in Georgia related to the voting machines was not specifically mentioned to be related to a sensor error. (b) actuator: The incident did not involve a failure due to contributing factors introduced by an actuator error. (c) processing_unit: The failure was related to the processing unit of the voting machines. The problem with the display for a high-profile U.S. Senate race was due to the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, requiring a minor software change to address the issue [105511]. (d) network_communication: The incident was not directly attributed to a failure in network communication. (e) embedded_software: The failure was related to embedded software error. An executive with Dominion Voting Systems mentioned that the issue had to do with the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, and a minor software change was deemed necessary to address the problem [105511].
Communication connectivity_level The software failure incident mentioned in the article [105511] was related to the communication layer of the cyber physical system that failed at the connectivity_level. The issue with the voting machines communicating with the underlying Android operating system was highlighted as a contributing factor to the problem. Dominion Voting Systems executive Eric Coomer mentioned that the problem was related to the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system, and a minor software change was needed to address the issue. Additionally, the new software had to be tested and approved by a third-party vendor before being loaded onto USB drives for delivery to the counties for installation on the voting machines [105511].
Application TRUE The software failure incident described in the article [105511] was related to the application layer of the cyber physical system. The failure was due to a glitch in the display for a high-profile U.S. Senate race on the new touchscreen voting machines, which was identified during preelection testing. The issue was resolved through a software change, specifically addressing the way the voting machines communicate with the underlying Android operating system. This aligns with the definition of an application layer failure, which involves contributing factors introduced by bugs, operating system errors, and software changes [105511].

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence theoretical_consequence The consequence of the software failure incident discussed in the articles is primarily related to potential consequences and discussions rather than actual observed consequences. The articles mention concerns raised by election integrity activists and experts about the security risks and potential impact on the upcoming election due to the software glitch in Georgia's new voting machines. There is a focus on the need for rigorous testing and security measures for the software change to address the issue, with experts warning about the introduction of serious and difficult-to-foresee consequences in complex computerized systems like the election equipment [105511]. The potential consequences discussed include security vulnerabilities, the introduction of malware, and the need for federal certification of the software change, highlighting the theoretical risks associated with the software failure incident.
Domain government (a) The failed system was related to the government industry as it involved Georgia election officials implementing a software change to fix a glitch in the state's new voting machines [105511].

Sources

Back to List