In early 2024, a team of researchers at the University of Michigan and Auburn University stumbled upon an overlooked flaw in Dominion’s Democracy Suite voting system. The flaw, astonishing in its simplicity, harked back to the 1970s: a rudimentary linear congruential generator for creating random numbers, a method already marked as insecure half a century ago. Yet there it lay, embedded in the heart of America’s election machinery. This flaw, known as DVSorder, allowed the order of ballots to be exposed, violating a voter’s sacred right to secrecy without needing inside access or privileged software.
Dominion Voting Systems responded, as companies often do, with carefully measured words—a single-page advisory noting that “best practices” and “legal advisors” could mitigate the flaw. A software update, Democracy Suite 5.17, was eventually rolled out, claiming to resolve the vulnerability. Yet this patch, touted as a “solution,” seemed only to deepen the questions surrounding Dominion’s response. Was it a fix, or merely a stopgap?
A Bureaucratic Response: The Slow March of Democracy Suite 5.17
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission granted its stamp of approval to Democracy Suite 5.17 in March 2023, seemingly content with its certification. But the rollout that followed revealed the entrenched and fragmented nature of America’s election infrastructure. Election officials, bound by local constraints, cited logistical challenges, costs, and the impending presidential election as reasons to delay. In the absence of federal urgency or clear guidance from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the vulnerability remained in effect, a silent threat from Georgia to California.
Even as researchers watched from the sidelines, Dominion and federal agencies moved cautiously, with state adoption of Democracy Suite 5.17 proceeding at a glacial pace. Some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, made efforts to upgrade, but others deferred, considering the patch a burden best shouldered after the election. Thus, the DVSorder vulnerability persisted, largely unresolved in precincts where patching was deemed too disruptive.
The Patchwork of Democracy Suite 5.17: A System in Pieces
As expected, Democracy Suite 5.17 encountered obstacles in deployment, emblematic of the fractured approach to American election security. States such as Michigan tried to sanitize data to safeguard voter privacy, but the result was incomplete; others attempted to shuffle ballots, a solution whose effectiveness remained dubious. The whole exercise appeared as a microcosm of America’s approach to its electoral machinery: decentralized, hesitant, and all too often compromised by cost and convenience.
A Sobering Reminder for Democracy’s Future
The DVSorder affair serves as a reminder that elections, despite their image of order, depend on fallible human governance and systems. In this case, a mere oversight in programming triggered a vulnerability that risked eroding voter privacy, a cornerstone of democracy itself. Dominion’s response, slow and bureaucratic, reveals the unsettling reality that our reliance on technology in elections opens doors to errors whose repercussions may be profound.
The researchers who exposed this flaw were not saboteurs but, in a sense, stewards of public trust. They brought to light a sobering truth: that in the age of digital democracy, even the smallest vulnerability can ripple outward, potentially undermining the promises of privacy and integrity on which the system stands.
As the dust settles, DVSorder may join the list of vulnerabilities patched and closed, yet a shadow lingers. With each election cycle, new threats and oversights emerge, casting a faint but persistent question over the future of American democracy. One wonders—will we be ready for the next vulnerability that arises? Who knows.
By Skeeter Wesinger
November 4, 2024
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dominion-voting-systems-dvsorder-affair-saga-american-wesinger-i4qoe
