you keep trying to change the subject. Here's how the to understand the difference in our positions:
if security researchers find vulns in network software, should they be fixed, or should a hypothetical researcher PaulDavidThe2ndSmartestPersonInThisThread quash the discussion by saying "there is no evidence that these vulns are being exploited"?
understand that politicians who would benefit from fraud would also control the investigation, making your "see no evil" monkey brain's position as questionable as the election system security is
Nobody, certainly not myself is suggesting that discovered vulnerabilities should not be fixed.
However, vulnerabilities that have demonstrably led to the wrong person being elected are entirely different to vulnerabilities that are invoked only in hypothetical scenarios for which there is no evidence that they've ever happened.
There are lots of things in this world that ought to be "fixed", but I'd prefer we prioritize the ones that are actively, demonstrably causing harm rather than the ones which "could cause harm if A, B & C even though A, B & C have never been observed to occur together".
So sure, fix the vulnerabilities, all of them, but don't lie about their status or impact on actual elections.
if security researchers find vulns in network software, should they be fixed, or should a hypothetical researcher PaulDavidThe2ndSmartestPersonInThisThread quash the discussion by saying "there is no evidence that these vulns are being exploited"?
fsckboy thinks they should be fixed
https://thegeorgiasun.com/government/your-vote/inside-the-fu...
https://thegeorgiasun.com/government/your-vote/inside-the-fu...
understand that politicians who would benefit from fraud would also control the investigation, making your "see no evil" monkey brain's position as questionable as the election system security is