Skip to main content

UnclearBallot: Automated Ballot Image Manipulation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Electronic Voting (E-Vote-ID 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 11759))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

As paper ballots and post-election audits gain increased adoption in the United States, election technology vendors are offering products that allow jurisdictions to review ballot images—digital scans produced by optical-scan voting machines—in their post-election audit procedures. Jurisdictions including the state of Maryland rely on such image audits as an alternative to inspecting the physical paper ballots. We show that image audits can be reliably defeated by an attacker who can run malicious code on the voting machines or election management system. Using computer vision techniques, we develop an algorithm that automatically and seamlessly manipulates ballot images, moving voters’ marks so that they appear to be votes for the attacker’s preferred candidate. Our implementation is compatible with many widely used ballot styles, and we show that it is effective using a large corpus of ballot images from a real election. We also show that the attack can be delivered in the form of a malicious Windows scanner driver, which we test with a scanner that has been certified for use in vote tabulation by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. These results demonstrate that post-election audits must inspect physical ballots, not merely ballot images, if they are to strongly defend against computer-based attacks on widely used voting systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The details of how marks are identified vary by hardware and scanning algorithm. See [13] for an example.

  2. 2.

    While the review is made available to the public, the actual images themselves are seldom published in full out of concern for voter anonymity.

References

  1. Adida, B., Rivest, R.L.: Scratch and Vote: self-contained paper-based cryptographic voting. In: ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, pp. 29–40 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bajcsy, A., Li-Baboud, Y.S., Brady, M.: Systematic measurement of marginal mark types on voting ballots. Technical report, National Institute for Standards and Technology (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bayar, B., Stamm, M.C.: A deep learning approach to universal image manipulation detection using a new convolutional layer. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security, pp. 5–10. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bayram, S., Avcıbaş, İ., Sankur, B., Memon, N.: Image manipulation detection with binary similarity measures. In: 2005 13th European Signal Processing Conference, pp. 1–4. IEEE (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bayram, S., Avcibas, I., Sankur, B., Memon, N.D.: Image manipulation detection. J. Electron. Imaging 15(4), 041102 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bell, S., et al.: STAR-vote: a secure, transparent, auditable, and reliable voting system. USENIX J. Election Technol. Syst. 1(1) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benaloh, J.: Administrative and public verifiability: can we have both? In: USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop, EVT 2008, August 2008

    Google Scholar 

  8. Benaloh, J., Jones, D., Lazarus, E., Lindeman, M., Stark, P.B.: SOBA: secrecy-preserving observable ballot-level audit. In: Proceedings of USENIX Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bernhard, M., et al.: Public evidence from secret ballots. In: Krimmer, R., Volkamer, M., Braun Binder, N., Kersting, N., Pereira, O., Schürmann, C. (eds.) E-Vote-ID 2017. LNCS, vol. 10615, pp. 84–109. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68687-5_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bowen, D.: Top-to-Bottom Review of voting machines certified for use in California. Technical report, California Secretary of State (2007). https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/oversight/top-bottom-review/

  11. Bradski, G.: The OpenCV Library. Dr. Dobb’s J. Softw. Tools 120, 122–125 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carback, R., et al.: Scantegrity II municipal election at Takoma Park: the first E2E binding governmental election with ballot privacy. In: 18th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2010

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chung, K.K.T., Dong, V.J., Shi, X.: Electronic voting method for optically scanned ballot, US Patent 7,077,313, 18 July 2006

    Google Scholar 

  14. November 6, 2018 general election. https://dochub.clackamas.us/documents/drupal/f4e7f0fb-250a-4992-918d-26c5f726de3c

  15. Clear Ballot: ClearAudit. https://clearballot.com/products/clear-audit

  16. Dominion Voting: Auditmark. https://www.dominionvoting.com/pdf/DD

  17. Dominion Voting: Cambridge Case Study. https://www.dominionvoting.com/field/cambridge

  18. Election Integrity Oregon. https://www.electionintegrityoregon.org

  19. Farid, H.: Digital forensics in a post-truth age. Forensic Sci. Int. 289, 268–269 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feldman, A.J., Halderman, J.A., Felten, E.W.: Security analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine. In: USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop, EVT 2007, August 2007

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hall, J., et al.: Implementing risk-limiting post-election audits in California. In: 2009 Workshop on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, p. 19. USENIX Association (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ji, T., Kim, E., Srikantan, R., Tsai, A., Cordero, A., Wagner, D.A.: An analysis of write-in marks on optical scan ballots. In: EVT/WOTE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jones, D.W.: On optical mark-sense scanning. In: Chaum, D., et al. (eds.) Towards Trustworthy Elections. LNCS, vol. 6000, pp. 175–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12980-3_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Lindeman, M., Halvorson, M., Smith, P., Garland, L., Addona, V., McCrea, D.: Principles and best practices for post-election audits, September 2008. http://electionaudits.org/files/bestpracticesfinal_0.pdf

  25. Lindeman, M., Stark, P.: A gentle introduction to risk-limiting audits. IEEE Secur. Priv. 10, 42–49 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindeman, M., Stark, P., Yates, V.: BRAVO: ballot-polling risk-limiting audits to verify outcomes. In: 2011 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 2012). USENIX (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Maryland House of Delegates: House Bill 1278: An act concerning election law - postelection tabulation audit. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1278E.pdf

  28. Maryland State Board of Elections: 2016 post-election audit report, December 2016. http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2016/2016_22-23.pdf

  29. Maryland State Board of Elections: December 15, 2016 meeting minutes, December 2016. https://elections.maryland.gov/pdf/minutes/2016_12.pdf

  30. McDaniel, P., Blaze, M., Vigna, G.: EVEREST: evaluation and validation of election-related equipment, standards and testing. Technical report, Ohio Secretary of State (2007). http://siis.cse.psu.edu/everest.html

  31. Mebane Jr., W.R.M., Bernhard, M.: Voting technologies, recount methods and votes in Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016. In: Zohar, A., et al. (eds.) FC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10958, pp. 196–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2018). https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25120/securing-the-vote-protecting-american-democracy

  33. National Conference of State Legislatures: Post-election audits, January 2019. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

  34. Rivest, R.: On the notion of ‘software independence’ in voting systems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366(1881), 3759–3767 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Ryan, P.Y.A., Bismark, D., Heather, J., Schneider, S., Xia, Z.: Prêt à Voter: a voter-verifiable voting system. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 4(4), 662–673 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sarwate, A.D., Checkoway, S., Shacham, H.: Risk-limiting audits and the margin of victory in nonplurality elections. Stat. Polit. Policy 4(1), 29–64 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  37. ScannerOne: Kodak i5600. http://www.scannerone.com/product/KOD-i5600.html

  38. Stamm, M.C., Liu, K.R.: Forensic detection of image manipulation using statistical intrinsic fingerprints. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 5(3), 492–506 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stark, P.: Conservative statistical post-election audits. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2(2), 550–581 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Stark, P.: Super-simple simultaneous single-ballot risk-limiting audits. In: 2010 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 2010). USENIX (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Stark, P.B., Teague, V., Essex, A.: Verifiable European elections: risk-limiting audits for D’Hondt and its relatives. \(\{\)USENIX\(\}\) J. Election Technol. Syst. (\(\{\)JETS\(\}\)) 1, 18–39 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Unisyn Voting Solutions: OpenElect OCS Auditor. https://unisynvoting.com/openelect-ocs/

  43. U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Certificate of conformance: ClearVote 1.5, March 2019. https://www.eac.gov/file.aspx?A=zgte4IhsHz

  44. Verified Voting Foundation: The Verifier: Polling place equipment (2019). https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Vaibhav Bafna and Jonathan Yan for assisting in the initial version of this project. They also thank Josh Franklin, Joe Hall, Maurice Turner, Kevin Skoglund, Jared Marcotte, and Tony Adams for their invaluable feedback. We also thank our anonymous reviewers and our shepherd, Roland Wen. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant CNS-1518888.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Bernhard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bernhard, M., Kandula, K., Wink, J., Halderman, J.A. (2019). UnclearBallot: Automated Ballot Image Manipulation. In: Krimmer, R., et al. Electronic Voting. E-Vote-ID 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11759. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30625-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30625-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30624-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30625-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics