Thread by @themarketswork

1) Firm That Conducted ‘Audit’ of Georgia Voting Machines Has Long History With Dominion Voting Systems
theepochtimes.com/firm-that-cond…

2) The firm hired by Georgia’s SoS to conduct an “audit” of Dominion Voting Systems technology used during the 2020 elections is the same one that previously certified the Dominion systems and also approved a last-minute system-wide software change just weeks before the election.

3) Dominion had used technical conclusions from Pro V&V in a pre-election Georgia lawsuit that questioned the reliability of Dominion’s systems during a last-minute software fix before the Nov 3 election.

Testing from Pro V&V had been characterized as “superficial” and “cursory”

4) Raffensperger’s characterizations of Pro V&V in the post-election audit of Dominion machines gave no indication that he had any prior familiarity with the company and one could easily believe that there was no affiliation or long-standing ties between Dominion and Pro V&V.

5) During pre-election testing of Dominion’s voting systems in late September, Georgia officials discovered a problem relating to the displays for the U.S. Senate race.

6) Dominion used a software modification to address the problem, requiring testing validation from Pro V&V as software had now been changed across Dominion systems.

Judge Totenberg noted that it was the secretary of state who retained Pro V&V to perform the pre-election review.

7) Lawyers for Dominion described the problem as “de minimis” and one that didn’t invalidate the previously issued EAC certification.

Lawyers for “voting integrity activists” voiced concerns over “the severity of the problem and the security of a last-minute fix.”

8) The official designation of the software change being deemed “de minimis” was important, as it would have bearing on the need for complete EAC recertification of the Dominion Systems.

9) On Oct. 2, Pro V&V issued a letter w/recommendation that the software change to Dominion’s systems be “deemed as de minimis”

This was formally disputed by Dr. Halderman, who stated that the “report makes clear that Pro V&V performed only cursory testing of this new software.

10) Judge Totenberg singled out Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V, for criticism, noting that he “actually claims no specialized knowledge or background in cybersecurity engineering and did not himself perform any security risk analysis of the BMD system.”

11) Totenberg observed that “Cobb indicated he was not familiar with the fact that malware could defeat or disable the hash values – a concern addressed by all of Plaintiffs’ cybersecurity specialists who provided declarations or testimony in this case.“

12) Totenberg pointed out that “the [Georgia] State Defendants did not present any independent cybersecurity expert to directly address the cybersecurity issues and risk vulnerabilities of Dominions’ QR code voting system raised by Plaintiffs.”

13) Instead, Georgia “State Defendants relied on Dr. Coomer’s testimony, to address—based on his professional experience—some of the significant cybersecurity issues raised by Plaintiffs.”

/End

Side note: Ryan Germany, counsel for Georgia’s SoS’s office, who discussed Pro V&V's post-election audit at today's hearing while making no mention of these details, was on the Oct 1 Zoom court call that was addressing Dominion's software changes - and their use of Pro V&V.