Group #2

Voting Options Technical Enterprise (iVOTE) System

Team Members: Kenneth Bonek Jeffrey Koscho Rodney Morris Atul Sharma Christopher Ziemniak
1

Project Description
Statistics have been compiled to stress rank of importance of key factors in voter dissatisfaction in engagement with registration and voting process

The Federal Election Committee is overseeing the task of modernizing the overall system to improve voter satisfaction
The mission of the Federal Election Committee is to propose, implement, and maintain new standardized multidimensional system Problem Statement:
The current national voting system has caused a decrease in voter satisfaction by 24.2% over the last five years, creating an anticipated 20% decrease in voter turnout over the next four years

Objective:
To be able to increase voter satisfaction by over 25%
2

Objectives Tree

Objectives Tree

3 3

Functional Decomposition

Aids the requirement development process Describes what the system does (stays agnostic) Key challenge areas: authentication and securing information
4

Requirements Analysis
Unique Identifier iVOTE-1.0-001-F iVOTE-1.0-002-F iVOTE-1.0-007-F iVOTE-1.0-008-F Requirement The voting system shall allow at least 85% of voters to vote remotely The voting system shall provide voters at least 3 different voting methods The voting system shall protect the voters privacy by having less than one unauthorized disclosure per 1,000,000 voters The voting system shall secure all voting information by having less than one unauthorized disclosure per 1,000,000 voters Type Functional Functional Functional Functional

iVOTE-1.0-009-F
iVOTE-1.0-015-F iVOTE-1.0-016-F iVOTE-1.0-018-F iVOTE-1.0-001-P iVOTE-1.0-003-P iVOTE-1.0-004-P iVOTE-1.0-001-In

The voting system shall secure the voting environment by having less than one unauthorized disclosure per 1,000,000 voters
The voting system shall authenticate the voter based on unique information that only the voter knows with at least 99.9% accuracy The voting system shall store all voting information with an integrity failure rate of less than 1.5% The voting system shall authenticate the voter with at least a two-factor authentication method The voting system shall increase voter satisfaction by more than 25% The voting system shall reduce manual recounts by at least 75% The voting system shall decrease the amount of time voters spend at polling centers by at least 20% The voting system shall accommodate at least 99% of disabled voters

Functional
Functional Functional Functional Performance Performance Performance Interface

iVOTE-1.0-002-D
iVOTE-1.0-001-O iVOTE-1.0-001-I iVOTE-1.0-001-C

The voting system shall use modern technology that has a TRL of at least 7
The voting system shall reduce the number of polling station facilities by at least 30% The voting system shall maintain a reliability of at least 98.5% The voting system shall reduce maintenance costs by at least 40%

Design
Operational -ilities Constraint

Functions-to-Requirements Matrix
Rqmt Func

iVOTE-1.0.004-F: The voting system shall allow at least 85% of voters to remotely register to vote iVOTE-1.0.004-F: The voting system shall allow at least 85% of voters to remotely register to vote iVOTE-1.0.001-P: The voting system shall increase voter satisfaction by more than 25%

Risk Assessment
Overall A3 has least risk; A1 has most risk Information security poses most significant risk Mitigation against information security risk

Policy protect
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information in transmission, storage, and processing states

Threat and vulnerability

assessment

Apply safeguards
access controls encryption authentication auditing and logging guards cameras alarms 7

Economic Analysis
Cost comparison between historic voting methods versus new modern technical options
ESSENTIAL COSTS A-1 A-2 A-3

Software Development

Virtualization can decrease data center costs by Web Application $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 Web Services 30%; geographic location of datacenter can save $300,000 $300,000 Smartphone Application $200,000 $200,000 costs Data Center and network security costs are comparable between A-1, A-2, and A-3 USB Authentication only impacts cost of A-3 ($6B) not feasible with budget constraint
USB Authentication Device

$6B
Medium Medium High $150,000 $150,000 $200,000 Medium $60,000 High $75,000 High $75,000

Firewalls

Software costs for A-2 and A-3 ($1.05M) slightly higher than A-1 web application cost ($550K)
A-2 and A-3 cost more than A-1 to design and develop, but provide more value Reduction of Per Voter cost by 96.4%

Intrusion Prevention System

Data Center
Servers Power Cooling Racks Building $180M $200M $200M

Online vs. Paper

Online $0.03

Software
Server OS Antivirus Database $350M $400M $400M

Paper $0.83

Internet Service
T1 OC-3 $6000/yr $6000/yr $6000/yr $300k/yr $300k/yr $300k/yr 8

Architecture Selection
Evaluation criteria came from objectives and associated metrics Criteria values and weightings based on expert judgment Ratings based on 1-9 scale: 5-meets target; 1-completely misses target; 9-completely exceeds target Scores determined by multiplying each criterion rating by its associated weight; final score for each architecture is addition of criteria scores A-2 has highest score; coincides with decisionmakers outcome from Accord software Based on final score and findings in risk and economic analysis, A-2 was chosen architecture

Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis done on FEC top five most important objectives Analyzed each pair of these objectives by trading weights Also analyzed each of these against several lowest-weighted objectives Outcome of analysis showed that weightings for these criteria are not sensitive to weight change Criteria
% more voters satisfied since last election % remote voters % less polling station facilities Number of unauthorized disclosures per 1M voters of voter privacy Number of unauthorized accesses per 1M voters

Weights
4.5% 5% 4.6% 5.5% 5%

Baseline

Baseline

10

Functions-to-Components Matrix
Comp Func

Matrix depicting functions from functional decomposition mapped to components Aids in verification that chosen components incorporate all the functions Depicts interrelationships Many functions are associated with multiple components Contributes to traceability of system

11

OV-1

12 12

Architecture Diagrams
OV-5 OV-2

SV-1 SV-4a

13 13

Verification & Validation

QUALITY ASSURANCE TEAMS
FEC Voter Focus Group

V&V RESPONSIBILITIES
Deliverable acceptance verification; process improvement verification Product acceptance validation (customer satisfaction survey, functional and constraint requirements check-off, validate that their votes were cast correctly post election) Validate national data warehouse against local DBs for inconsistencies; validate that the system works with minimal errors; validate that all functions are implemented from Functional Decomposition document; validate network statistics against requirements; validate code efficiency against requirements Obj_1: To have voters spend 20% less time at polling centers Obj_2: To be able to allow voters to spend 25% less time voting

iVOTE Team

FEC Validation Tool:

Pre-iVOTE

Post-iVOTE

14

Implementation Overview
Topics Finances Politics Technology Knowledge Base Factors Affecting Feasibility: Congress funding approval; identifying accurate projected system cost Regulating governing states participation Information protection; throughput management; computer monitor privacy guard software Retention of 'forced voting' practices prior to concealed booth voting; resistance to change

Topics Probability of Failure Necessary Resources

Factors of a Successful Implementation, to be considered in Plan: Acquiring federal funding; handling high volumes of simultaneous ballot submissions Funding; smart-phone licenses; data storage; DMV registered voter records; software licenses; hardware acquisition; contractors to develop system

Likely Obstacles

Funding approval; throughput management; data protection advancements; malfunctioning input devices

Schedule

15

Conclusions
Modernized voting system will make voting more efficient, less errorprone, and easier to use, therefore increasing voter satisfaction Traceability and integration between depictions Importance of information security and management of it

Saving money and helping environment through virtualization of servers

Future : More advanced analysis Analyze registration process further Voter acceptance of new system Continually update FEC to secure congressional funding Maintain and upgrade system through its lifecycle Using NSA to monitor security during elections Opening election to three days

16 16

Backup Slides

17

AV-1
Architecture Project Identification
Assumptions and Constraints: All voters can get access to the Internet; constrained by government funding and bandwidth availability Views and Products Developed: AV-1, OV-1, OV-2, OV-3, OV-5, (maybe OV-6b or c), SV-1, SV-5, (maybe SV-2 or 4) Time Frames Addressed: Present-2016 Organizations Involved: FEC, voters, designers, developers

Scope: Architecture View(s) and Products Identification

Purpose and Viewpoint

Purpose, Analysis, Questions to be Answered by AoA: The purpose of this AoA is to derive the best solution from a set of alternative architectures for the iVOTE system; Analyses to be performed include requirements analysis, risk analysis, sensitivity analysis, and evaluation of the alternative architectures using selection criteria and weighting
Mission: To be able to increase voter satisfaction by designing a modern national voting system that is more efficient, automated, less error-prone, standardized, and less confusing to use CONOPS: New national voting system in place by the 2016 elections; standardized registration and voting process across all the states; new system will be more efficient, less error-prone, be easier to use, and use modern technology; preference toward a system that is green and is cheaper to maintain than the current system Information Assurance: Need to protect: Personal Identifiable Information (PII) and voting results information; iVOTE system network, hardware, and software from threats and vulnerabilities; confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all information associated with the iVOTE system Rules, Criteria, and Conventions Followed: Federal and states regulations Recommendations: Voters can use home-based computers and smart phones to vote remotely

Context

Findings

18

OV-2

19

OV-3

20 20

OV-5 Activity Hierarchy (1 of 2)

A0 Cast and Process Vote

A1 Authenticate Voter

A2 Capture Vote

A3 Protect Data

A2.1 A2.3 Display Voting A2.2 Update the Interface Save Voting National A1.1 A1.2 Collect Grant Voters Appropriate Credentials Access Upon Validation

A2.4 Compile Information Database Votes Locally

A3.3 A3.5 A3.1 A3.4 A3.2 Validate Release Encrypt Data Copy Info to Voting Allow Admins Results To Offsite Results Access to Info Media Location

A3.1.1 A3.1.2 Encrypt Transmission Encrypt Storage

21 21

OV-5 Activity Hierarchy (2 of 2)

A0 Register Voter

A1 Complete Registration Process

A2 Complete Authentication Process

A1.1 Collect Voters Information

A1.2 A1.3 Identify Voter Approve Voters Registration

A2.1 Create Credentials For Voters

22 22

SV-1

23

SV-4a

24

SV-5b Diagram

25

Architecture Development

26

Reduced Architectures
A-1 Voting Interface Web-based (SOA) interface/application - web application A-2 Web-based (SOA) interface/application - web application - smart phone - web services Username/password PIN CAPTCHA AES Encryption Medium security Firewall Maximum security IPS Little margin for a schedule slippage, with moderate cost and good security A-3 Web-based (SOA) Interface/application - web application - smart phone - web services Username/password USB Device CAPTCHA AES Encryption Maximum security Firewall Maximum security IPS No margin for a schedule slippage, with high cost and high security

Identification / Authentication

Username/password PIN CAPTCHA AES Encryption Medium security Firewall Medium security IPS Lowest cost and easily implemented within schedule, but low security and lack of variety with remote voting options

Information Protection

Pros / Cons

27

Full Architecture Scoring

28

CATWOE
Customers:
Actors: Transformation:
Voters
Administrators (booth workers, technicians), voters, government regulators Manual voting process -> automated voting process Inefficient voting process -> efficient voting process Expensive voting process -> less expensive voting process Error-pone voting process -> less error-prone voting process Non-standardized voting process -> standardized voting process Confusing voting process -> clear voting process Modernized technology will streamline & enhance voting processes Standardized automated process will increase voter confidence Voter turnout may increase due to an improved voting process Standardized voting process may increase the efficiency and timeliness of polling results Automated voting system will save tax dollars Modernized technology will decrease the current carbon footprint of the voting system

World View:

Owner: Environment Constraints:

Federal Election Committee (with representative from each state) Cost of implementing technology; technology availability; geographic area; weather; voting paradigm shift; bandwidth availability; government funding

29

System Boundary Definition

FEC Desire for Standard System State Government Regulations Decreasing Voter Satisfaction

INPUTS

Federal Govt. Funding

Voters Demand Better Polling Process

Transformation Process
Register

System Boundary

Authenticate

Capture

Protect

OUTPUTS
Increased Voter Satisfaction Modern Voting System Increased Voter Turnout Taxpayer Savings Positive Environmental Impact
30

Brief CONOPS
The Federal Election Committee (FEC) wants to have a new national voting system in place by the 2016 elections The Federal Election Committee wants us to provide the design for the new national voting system within 2 years and within a budget of $5,000,000 The new voting system must have a standardized registration and voting process across all the states The new system will be more efficient, less error-prone, be easier to use, and use modern technology

The FEC would prefer a system that is green and is cheaper to maintain than the current system
31

SOW Details
Propose the Project Define the problem statement and objective State what is to be done (project tasks) - WBS Provide the schedule Define the system Define the lower level objectives, targets, and metrics Create a functional decomposition State the requirements Perform risk assessment Provide several system design alternatives and analyze them Architect the chosen solution Provide a detailed description of the solution Create the architecture depictions OV-1, 2, 3, 5 SV-1, 5 AV-1 Describe the testing, validation, and verification of the solution Create the implementation plan Provide the final report
32

Project Schedule

33