MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered

From Corrective Action Plan AZ
Revision as of 16:44, 31 August 2026 by Neil thibodaux (talk | contribs) (→Allegation)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In your exploration of election-related anomalies, you are here:

This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management System anomalies. These were investigated by the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation Report. This topic is listed on Election Anomalies page, which lists various election-related anomalies that illustrate poor governance.

Governance Gaps are reported on and compared to a standard so that you may visualize how poorly managed County services can have an adverse impact without any criminal wrongdoing. We chose the United States Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (also known as the Green Book) because it represents the ideal standard for governance practices since it is specifically written for government entities, not the business sector. Maricopa County has no obligation or commitments to adhere to any governance-related standards, including the Green Book. Regardless, the Green Book is a representation of what good governance looks like and deviations from that standard are worthy of consideration, not prosecution. 

The Governance Gap Assessment Team are not IT security experts. The technical aspects of the IT configuration are not being disputed. The assessment for governance gaps sought to understand how data and information was being treated with respect to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)

Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues.

MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered

Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.

Allegation

Cyber Ninjas analyzed a system labeled Adjudication 2 and revealed the system contained two bootable hard drives. Cyber Ninjas stated neither Pro V&V not SLI identified this in their report.

Relevant Inspector Notes
  • By review of a publicly available document, Correcting the Record - January 2022, there was a second hard drive found on one computer.
  • The second hard drive was not powered on or used at any time while in Maricopa County's possession.
  • The second hard drive did not play a role in any Maricopa County election as it was not plugged into the computer, and therefore not operational.
  • County Election Officials stated SLI confirmed the presence of this drive on an adjudication state labeled "ADJ-54."
  • During the SLI audit, the drive was photographed and forensic clone was created for analysis.
  • SLI determined the drive was not plugged in and was last used on 7/31/2019, which was prior to County Elections receiving items.
Inspector's Finding

Undetermined.

  • County Elections makes statements about SLI Compliance findings related to dual boot systems. However, within the SLI report, there is no mention of this finding.
  • Furthermore, County Elections stated they did not retain copies of photos for this portion of the SLI report but stated that are available by request from SLI.
  • Elections was unsure if it was the same computer identified by Cyber Ninjas, based upon the two dates available from Cyber Ninjas and SLI, and the different naming conventions. It is unclear if they were referring to the same computer.
Governance Gaps Assessment
  • Consistent with all allegations, this allegations should not have occurred had MC leadership respected the Arizona's role as an oversight entity.
  • MC leadership's response to the AZ AG's investigation seem to reveal some ethics issues.
    • The earlier equipment audit performed by SLI does not mention a second bootable drive in their report. This should have been the first time MC leadership learned of this dual boot drive configuration.
    • In the absence of any report finding, MC leadership seems to be aware of second bootable drive, making the following claims:
      • It wasn't connected.
      • It wasn't powered up
      • It hasn't been used since 7/31/2019.
      • SLI has pictures of second bootable drive.
    • Did MC leadership request SLI omit any discussion of the second bootable drive in their report? How else would MC leadership know of the second bootable drive if it wasn't in the report?
    • From an ethics perspective, it would be far worse if MC leadership knew of the second bootable drive before SLI began their audit.
    • If MC leadership was directing the omission of sensitive issues from the SLI report, then the credibility of the entire SLI report is undermined. What other sensitive issues were omitted or edited to control the narrative?
  • MC asserts that only once computer was involved, but the AZ AG's could not rule out a second computer being involved because of differing drive names and dates.
  • The number of affected computers is not the primary issue. The most significant issue is what are the possible consequences of a hidden second bootable drive in just one computer?
  • The defensive posturing to claim only one computer was impacted demonstrates a poor understanding of risk. The impact is more consequential than number of affected computers.
  • MC leadership apparently had ample time to investigate the dual boot system, even if it wasn't noted in the SLI report. MC leadership did not provide the AZ AG's inspector with any documentation to demonstrate the condition was investigated and corrective actions implemented to prevent a recurrence.

Potential Governance Gap(s):

  • Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
  • Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
  • Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
  • Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
  • Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
    • Attribute(s):
  • Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
  • Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks
  • Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information
  • Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change
    • Attribute(s):
  • Principle 10 - Design Control Activities
  • Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information
  • Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
  • Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
    • Attribute(s):
  • Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
    • Attribute(s):
  • Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
  • Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
  • Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
Retrieved from "https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=MC_EMS_2020_-_Dual_Boot_System_Discovered&oldid=2101"