Security FAQ

Yes.

Hart voting systems incorporate a well-defined, end-to-end defense-in-depth (multi-layer) security strategy across all software and hardware elements.

Hart’s  Verity Voting system reflects the very latest best practices in system security. Across all software elements and across all devices, Verity puts security first. Verity also supports the most sophisticated and thorough post-election audit processes.

• Hart systems are designed, engineered and manufactured in the United States of America.

• Hart systems, including devices and workstations, have never included remote access software (such as pcAnywhere); Hart voting systems have never been and will never be remotely accessible by Hart or by anyone else.

• Hart systems use application  trust listing, a more effective form of anti-virus, that prevents any unauthorized program, application or code from running on any voting system device or workstation.

• Cast vote record data is digitally signed using NIST-compliant FIPS 140-2 cryptographic modules.

• Data is stored in multiple redundant locations, ensuring no loss of data and easy detection of any attempts to manipulate data.

• Voting devices and workstations operate in “kiosk” mode, ensuring the user can only access those parts of the system which are required for election operation.

• Two-factor authentication is required to ensure access to critical functions is limited to authorized users; role-based profiles ensure that users may only access those parts of the system which they need to do their job.

• Hart systems support the most rigorous post-election audits.

• Throughout all phases of operation, all Verity system components maintain complete audit logs. Every Verity application thoroughly logs all user authorization/authentication, data entry, user interaction, vote adjudication and system events

• Election managers can print or export audit logs from each application, using easy-to-use report filtering to access precise information, for audits

External cards, drives or other devices cannot be inserted by voters into any Hart voting device, nor can executable code be hidden and run from voting system media cards.

Verity devices utilize specific physical features to prevent physical tampering. Access controls include:

• Keyed locks
• Tamper-evident seals
• Non-standard ports that only fit Hart-proprietary cables and devices and prevent insertion of standard, commercial-off-the-shelf cables
• Non-standard electrical wiring in strategic areas
• Two-factor authentication devices to secure access to critical election management functions

Hart recommends our customers deploy strong Chain of Custody processes including all pre-election programming, transport to polling locations, set up and operation within a polling location, pack-up and transport back to central office and storage between elections.

No Hart voting system is ever, in any way, connected to any of the following:

• Intranet or in-office networks
• Voter rolls/registration
• Voter personal data
• Other county election office applications
• Campaign/donor information
• Party/campaign volunteer information or schedules
• Voter communications regarding times/locations for early or Election Day voting
• Email systems

Altogether, these features are part of securing elections, making sure that every vote is accurately recorded, the voting process is transparent to voters, and results are auditable. Security is a key element in providing fair and accurate elections for all voters.

Hart makes technology that is part of the “voting system”, but not the whole “election system”.

“Voting system” is a term that is not interchangeable with the term “election system.”

The voting system – the hardware and software used for election preparation, vote capture, results tabulation and reporting and post-election audits – is a subset of the election system. The election system encompasses a broader spectrum of election activities, including voter registration, election night reporting and more.

The full “election system” is a broad lineup of systems managed by a diverse group of election professionals from a variety of vendors, agencies, departments and functions. These elements work together to facilitate elections from the point of registering voters and candidates all the way through to reporting of results on election night. It is important to reinforce the proper terminology to avoid inadvertently confusing or misleading the public.

Hart products are designed, developed, and built in the United States. All Hart products are assembled exclusively by U.S. based contract manufacturers. Hart has developed a stable, long standing network of partnerships. These partners understand the elections community and the unique requirements specific to our market. This network has been very responsive to the changes that have been occurring over the past few years.

Our primary contract manufacturer is located approximately 5 miles from Hart’s headquarters in Austin and restricts access to the Hart production line to authorized personnel only. The proximity of our manufacturing facility allows Hart to monitor security and quality practices, and to optimize communications about the manufacturing process.

Hart requires the following manufacturing certifications of final assembly manufacturers- ISO: 9001:2015 Quality Management System, J-STD-001 / Class II Manufacturing Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic Assemblies, IPC 610 Class II Manufacturing for dedicated service electronic end products assemblies. 

These are the same quality standards used by organizations that manufacture for the U.S. military and medical equipment used in hospitals across the country. 

Hart sources components from within the U.S. whenever feasible. Like many other technology products, including security technology used by the U.S. military and Department of Homeland Security (TSA), it is not possible to build Verity using 100% U.S.-sourced components.  Some of the basic electrical components used in Verity’s production are not currently manufactured in the U.S. Some examples are resistors, capacitors, connectors and some integrated circuits.  These are made in various locations outside of the US.

All electronic components capable of storing software are cleared of any executable code before being loaded with Hart’s EAC-certified software at the last stage of production prior to final assembly, testing, and shipping. 

The Verity Voting system also incorporates several commercial off the shelf components including Okidata printers manufactured in Thailand, Canon Scanners manufactured in Japan, Brother printers manufactured in Tennessee, and HP workstations manufactured in Mexico.

Hart conducts frequent business reviews with our key suppliers. In these reviews, security, product quality, manufacturing quality, any upstream supply chain sourcing issues, and any pending end-of-life (EOL) issues are covered extensively. 

Hart’s supply chain is a closely managed element of Hart’s direct approach, which protects the integrity of all parts of the system. Hart has in place with key supply chain partners Master Service Agreement (MSA) document signed by both companies. We monitor and maintain these documents on an ongoing basis. Core to these agreements are detailed plans that cover:

• Detailed recovery plans that address contingencies in case of a natural disaster or the sale or discontinuation of the partner business.

• Escrow accounts to allow access to software and hardware designs with the right to continue to manufacture and sell Hart’s products should an event occur.

• All custom tooling, fixtures, test software, bills-of-materials, approved vendor lists, assembly and test methods retained as Hart property, maintained in our Agile product data management (PDM) system, enabling us to recreate any needed tools using the original design criteria if needed.

Our contract manufacturer receives all electronic components capable of storing software in an un-programmed state. They then program these devices in Austin, TX (using only EAC approved software) at the last stage of production prior to final test and ship. Hart issues all master copies of software to our manufacturer for media duplication.  These are stored in an onsite locked cabinet with access limited to key personnel. 

Our return authorization process defines a strict step-by-step procedure for logging, securing and tracking chain of custody of product that requires technical attention that cannot otherwise be repaired in the field. 

Hart has contingency plans in place to mitigate risks caused by supplier or subcontractor interruptions, as well as plans to cover any risks related to manufacturing interruptions. Additionally, we carry business interruption insurance coverage that provides customers with further assurance that we are positioned to provide continuous service and support.

In 19 years of manufacturing voting systems, Hart has managed numerous supply chain interruptions with no disruptions to our customer base. We maintain an adequate supply of inventory at Hart and at several secure offsite facilities as part of our business continuity plan. We have managed several major weather events both at Hart and at several of our key suppliers with no issues. We have managed through tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and ice storms – as well as transitioning our top tier partners with no loss of supply and no interruption of service to customers. Our business continuity plan has been tested, and we continually update it.

Yes.

Voting systems must pass rigorous, independent testing and receive certification at the federal and state levels.

Unlike many other elements of the election system, voting systems must pass rigorous, independent testing to specific requirements to receive certification at the federal and state levels prior to being used by local jurisdictions.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) oversees the definition of federal voting system certification requirements and the thorough, independent testing process which determines whether a voting system meets those requirements. Voting system vendors are well-acquainted with the rigors of testing at the federal level and must plan years in advance to stage product releases.

In addition to the federal certification process, many states maintain their own separate certification and testing procedures. Voting system vendors must ensure their systems meet or exceed both the federal and state-level requirements to do business in those states.

To be awarded certification at the federal level, by the EAC, and to attain state certification, which is required in many states, voting systems must meet or exceed established security standards. Certified voting systems adhere to standards designed to ensure that systems accurately record votes the way they are cast. Security standards include protections against tampering or manipulation and cover requirements for physical security of the equipment and ballots, features that prevent connection to the internet or a network during the voting period, auditing capabilities and more.

Yes.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 set the requirement for voting systems to be tested by independent, non-federal laboratories, which are called Voting System Test Laboratories, or VSTLs. Voting system vendors are not at liberty to select a VSTL, rather the EAC maintains the authority to designate the VSTL that will perform certification tests and technical review.

The federal and state certification processes provide transparency into the security of voting system solutions as follows:

• Federal and state certification program manuals and guidelines are publicly available.
• Independent voting system test laboratories (VSTLs) that test voting systems are accredited through a public process.
• Information about each certification campaign, including reports from VSTLs attesting to compliance with applicable security requirements, are publicly available.
• Source code, along with thousands and thousands of pages of technical documentation, is securely disclosed to accredited, U.S.-based laboratories, as part of federal and state testing and certification processes.

Security and auditability are of paramount importance to Hart InterCivic. The Hart Voting System and the Verity Voting system are regulated, tested and certified at both the federal and state levels. They have both been proven to be secure and accurate, successfully capturing and reporting millions and millions of votes across nearly 800 jurisdictions representing over 26 thousand precincts and nearly 30 million registered voters.

Security comes not only from hardware/software technology features, but also from the people who use the systems and the procedures they follow. Hart provides training courses for system operators and election officials, which includes security topics, physical device configuration, and data transfer. Hart encourages jurisdictions to utilize best practices to mitigate risks. Some include:

• Employing a chain of custody processes throughout all pre/during/post-election activities, physical numbered and logged security seals on devices, and experienced trusted election workers on staff
• Conducting Acceptance Testing upon receipt of equipment
• Pre‐Election Logic and Accuracy Testing (conduct as provided under your respective State law)
• Post- Election auditing by inspecting the precinct totals and comparing to the cumulative totals

Election security requires people, processes, procedures and technology.

Voting system technology is an important aspect of security; however, true election security requires thoroughly trained election officials and staff upholding state-defined processes by implementing well-defined election management procedures. Election experts refer to the importance of cultivating secure election management through a combination of “people, processes, procedures and technology.”

Even if a voting system uses the very latest security technology, a successful, secure election depends on people, processes and procedures as well.

Jurisdictions’ election managers own responsibility for the “people” aspect of election security. These election leaders must ensure staff members and volunteers are carefully selected and properly vetted with reference and background checks. Election personnel require training (including cross-training) in the procedures and technology used to ensure accurate vote capture and tabulation. Team members should be assigned unique usernames, passwords and permissions to access only the appropriate functions within the voting system. Two people should be present for certain types of functions.

Each state establishes the “processes” aspect of election security in the form of election laws, code, rules and advisories. Local jurisdictions within each state must stay informed of these processes and adhere to them.

Responsibility for the “procedures” aspect of election security resides with jurisdictions’ election managers. Local procedures document how to apply state election law, rules and advisories based on the jurisdiction’s election technology. Procedures include the frequency and steps for testing the voting system’s logic and accuracy for every election, chain-of-custody protocols for voting equipment, rules for who can access voting system software when, reconciliation of election results with the voter count for every election, post-election audit steps and more. The voting system vendor should assist with system-related procedures by providing effective training and comprehensive documentation.

The voting system provider holds primary responsibility for the “technology” aspect of election security – for meeting or exceeding standards the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and other bodies maintain. The election solution provider should assist the jurisdiction’s election team in optimizing the use of the system’s security features, providing in-depth training and documentation.

Hart is an active participant in the national conversation regarding election security and holds leadership positions in key stakeholder groups.

Voting system vendors are key stakeholders in ensuring that elections are conducted securely in the U.S. For example, major voting system vendors are engaged in a series of coordination meetings with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to discuss cybersecurity for the nation’s election infrastructure.

Leading voting system vendors are part of a broad community of stakeholders actively participating in knowledge sharing, best practice sharing and relevant discourse on the foremost election security processes, procedures and technology.

At the federal level and within local jurisdictions, voting system vendors are engaged in learning, educating and identifying risks with the larger community on the topic of protecting the elections system.

The resources listed below all welcome participation of the voting system community:

• Department of Homeland Security – voting system vendors make up the membership of a new (2018) DHS Sector Coordinating Council composed of industry representatives regularly come together with the DHS Government Coordinating Council and act as a voice on election cybersecurity. Together, these groups partner in identifying potential security risks and implementing the measures to eliminate those risks. DHS has identified elections as critical infrastructure for the U.S.

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission – The EAC welcomes active participation of voting system vendors in industry-wide initiatives. In addition, the EAC is the governing body that defines and regulates federal certification of voting systems.

• National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine – NASEM welcomes active participation of voting system vendors in its meeting of the NASEM Committee on Science, Technology and Law on the Future of Voting (last held in Denver, Colorado, Dec. 8, 2017).

• Election Center – Election Center welcomes active participation of voting system vendors in its meetings and advisory councils. Election Center serves elections officials and elections administrators nationwide and sponsors professional education programs, including the Certified Elections/Registration Administrator (CERA) continuing education program from Auburn University.

• National Association of Secretaries of State –NASS welcomes active participation of voting system vendors in its events, conferences, and learning sessions on election topics – including security.

• National Association of State Election Directors – NASED welcomes active participation of voting system vendors in its events and conversations on elections security.