What do you know about Albert Sensors?
When our SOS says, "Nebraska uses Albert Sensors to PROTECT your elections", what does that mean exactly?

Here we go into THE BIG DIG to find TRUTH! (Please come back later today 3-30-23 as we provide video from SOS in sworn Testimony about the use of Albert sensors and how our voting systems are no connected to the internet.) Thanks for stopping by and please, PLEASE share this site to ALL NEBRASKANS!
If you want to watch the hearing from DC 3-28-23 in it's entirety click here.
Albert: A Smart Solution for Network Monitoring"The world of network monitoring can seem a bit intimidating at first. There are a variety of solutions on the market offering to detect, alert, and mitigate your IT infrastructure against cyber threats. Albert is a passive IDS offered by CIS as an effective low-cost network monitoring service for which malicious activity is detected based on threat signatures. Albert leverages Suricata’s high-performance, signature-based, IDS (Intrusion Detection System) engine to accurately identify and report malicious activity." Click here for the CISA website 
Problems with "Albert":
  • must be connected to the internet/modem(wireless)
  • can convert data
  • collaborates with a 501c3

One thing you will notice while doing a search on Albert sensors that all county, state and federal agency website will report that Albert sensors are simple not connected to the internet.....YOU MUST UNDERSTAND that these statements are simply not true!!! YOU MUST GRASP the FACT you are being lied to.

Albert Sensors are a networking server system that MUST BE CONNECTED to the INTERNET FOR IT TO MONITOR!
​On the home website of CISA it states "can convert data" they admit on their site.
A recent article (12-15-2022)written by Jim Hoft gives great inside to "Albert" (quotes from the article will be indented)
If the Federal government lied about their censorship, what other election initiatives are they lying about?
Let’s look at "their program" created to gain access to local election data.
​
Around 2011 DHS created their own intrusion detection system called the ALBERT Sensor. It’s part of the larger Einstein System that protects federal agencies from cyber risks. ALBERT is a “black box” server installed on a County’s network. It collects the traffic flowing on their election network and transmits this data to a nonprofit in NY. DHS selected this non-profit to monitor all the election data from across the United Sates. It is analyzed around the clock with the hope they can alert jurisdictions if they find any malicious traffic on their network. Few election networks had the system before 2016.
After Trump won the 2016 election (remember they (DS) did not expect HRC to lose), DHS wanted access to all local election systems.They quadrupled the number of ALBERT installations in the following two years by pressuring counties over Russian election interference. ALBERT Sensors are now in 98% of our nations election infrastructure. We call it a “black box” because the counties know little about the system. They are given no dashboard to see activity, no reports on what was captured, not even what ALBERT observed. ALBERT is free to a county, but they must sign an agreement that gives CISA access too. This includes info about hardware configurations and security settings.Detractors say ALBERT has major weaknesses and can be hacked.

DHS Director Jeh Johnson designated our elections as “critical infrastructure” just 14 days before Trump was sworn in. This petty move gave the left more weapons over elections. DHS then needed a command center for elections. So a collaboration was formed between the 501(c)3 nonprofit Center for Internet Security (CIS), the DHS cyber security unit CISA, and the Election Infrastructure Government Council (EIS-GCC). All three receive DHS funding. But DHS tasked only the nonprofit CIS to run the new Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC). CTO Brian Calkin said “EI-ISAC was officially kicked off in March of 2018”.
The EI-ISAC monitoring center run by CIS is in a wooded rural area of East Greenbush, NY. It has roughly 300 employees and a $51mil annual budget funded by Congress (DHS). As we mentioned before, County election data from nearly the entire U.S. goes to NY in real time. It is monitored 365 days a year.
​
In the above video clip from the Senate Hearing on Rules & Administration, SOS Evnen clearly (and proudly) states that Nebraska's Online Registration is using Albert Sensors. Remember, it is monitored 365 days a year, so anytime someone goes to the SOS website(know it's monitored as well) to register or look to see how they voted. It's being tracked. If you send a form letter through the SOS it is also monitored. They are tracking the climate of individuals filling out this form. If your words express great disgust in our election process, CISA now knows this.
By 2016, ALBERT Sensors were in less than 25 states. They monitored the general county networks, very few election networks. After Trump won his election, DHS targeted elections. They created EI-ISAC and began a massive push to deploy ALBERT in all elections nationwide. To pressure counties, DHS met with the election policy gatekeepers. This included the National Secretaries of State (NASS), National State Election Directors (NASED), the EAC, and others. These national groups pushed the ALBERT program onto State associations. They pushed it onto their individual members who are our County Recorders and Election Directors.
The parallels between the ERIC voter registration system and CIS ALBERT Sensors are uncanny. Both are nonprofits that collect vital election data in private. Both ERIC and CIS pilot-tested their programs in left-leaning election jurisdictions. Pew Center On The States used the same tactics, and approached the same associations, to deploy ERIC across America. CIS keeps their reports, dashboards, and insight away from the counties. ERIC keeps their dashboards, insights, and voter maintenance lists away from the public. Neither provides transparency. These parallels are not a coincidence.
DHS gathered election intelligence in 2018 by conducting “vulnerability assessments” in various jurisdictions. This included one week of DHS staff having remote access to poke around a County’s election network and systems. This was followed by a 2nd week where DHS staff went onsite to access the networks and hardware. Many counties found themselves teaching DHS about elections, not learning about security from these DHS staff. Election staff were frustrated and said DHS knew very little how elections actually operated.
To have their networks monitored, each County must sign a Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with CISA. The County then becomes part of the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program. Most federal agencies participate in CDM, but this is overkill for American counties. It gives CISA tremendous access to election systems, as shown on pg. 10 of their Election Resources Guide. CISA obtains asset information on County hardware, software, even security settings. CISA has visibility of “Identity” and “Access Management” information. This includes user accounts, privileges, credentials, and the authentication during the login process.
They say ALBERT sensors only “listen” to the data. They can only see the type of data flowing, not the actual data itself. However, Biden signed a cybersecurity Executive Order in May 2021 that required anyone in the CDM program to sign an new agreement (MOA). This mandates they now provide the more detailed “object level” data to CISA. This is supposedly for better “assessment and threat-hunting” purposes. ALBERT customers automatically become members of MS-ISAC. This Multi-State sharing program distributes cybersecurity information amongst its 13,000 members. It’s like your PC anti-virus software which reports any cyber issue, experienced by any user, to one central command.
In 2019, CIS said the election data they accumulated had become so large, they had to move it to the Amazon (AWS) cloud service. But ALBERT was pitched a centralized and secure single location. Relying on the cloud was either their plan from the onset, or incompetence. Our election data now leaves a County and travels to parts unknown, possibly even overseas. CIS also stores “hardened images” of servers, along with all their settings, on the AWS cloud. Amazon has substantial involvement in our elections. This includes ballot tracking, voter messaging, call centers, and much more. CIS also uses the cloud services from Oracle, Google, and Azure.
By September 2018, DHS had quadrupled ALBERT deployments since the 2016 election. Jeanette Manfra, DHS Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, admitted that ALBERT had detected no intrusions in any State for the 2018 election year cycle, that had only 2 months remaining. The federal government has hacked our election network before (DHS Georgia). But they now control the system that creates the alerts and notifications. Engineers programming ALBERT must tell it what to look for. Bad actors could just make sure ALBERT is not programmed to detect their specific intrusion type. Also, ALBERT does not stop an intrusion. It watches it happen and hopes someone takes action before to much damage occurs.
Weeks after installing ALBERT, Lincoln County, WA was hit with a ransomware attack. The ALBERT system and CIS never alerted Lincoln about the initial intrusions. They were not alerted about the hack either, from a well known ransomware group. Okanogan County, WA was also hacked, and was not notified by CIS. County Commissioners of neighboring Ferry County, with roughly 7,000 total citizens, voted to stop using ALBERT. They canceled their contract and removed the devices. In a bizarre twist, NPR sprang into action and ran two attack stories targeting Ferry County and staff. NPR wanted to intimidate anyone else from cancelling ALBERT.
Why was this so important to NPR? Who influenced NPR to attack Ferry, one of the smallest counties in America? Why was the Democrat Secretary of State in WA pleading with the counties to install and keep the ALBERT Sensors? Nancy Churchill (R) explains more in her excellent article, and in this WhoCountsTheVotes piece. Nancy is the State Committeewoman for Ferry County Republicans. Ferry Commissioner Nathan Davis, who has an IT background, said “It’s scanning everything we do on our network and it sends it to a 3rd party. Why the hard push (to install ALBERT)? What are the true motivations to push so hard on something that really doesn’t do a lot”?
No one should ever expect the ALBERT Sensor system to be a potent defense. There’s almost no incentive for any stakeholders to create this as a world-class tool. Counties are pressured into using ALBERT, then kept in the dark. These factors, coupled with the fact it’s free, means County staff have little interest in it’s success. There’s also no competition driving ALBERT to become a better product. For ALBERT insight from an employee, read the 2020 testimony from CIS CEO Tom Gilligan.
You can email Jim Hoft here, and read more of Jim Hoft's articles here.

The Absolute Documentary Series

In his Absolute documentary series regarding the 2020 election and at his 2021 Cyber Symposium in South Dakota, Mike Lindell shared data similar to the Albert Sensor “Net Flow Data Records”.
Picture

Cyber Symposium Attack Vectors

It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between the data shared by Mike Lindell and the data passing through Albert Sensors all over the United States. CIS carefully guards access to Albert Sensor data.
​
Click here for this source and to read more about it.

A Confession from Microsoft?

For years, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and state and local governments throughout the United States have worked with the non-profit Center for Internet Security, Inc. (CIS) to monitor the security of election-related data. This is enabled by Albert Network Monitoring, which examines internet traffic and connection attempts on networks owned and run by election officials – including:
  • voter registration systems
  • voter information portals
  • and back-office networks

​Source:  Nebraskans should be extremely concerned with this connection to Bill Gates and Microsoft.

GovTech.com

October/November 2019
In congressional testimony 2019,  Special Counsel Robert Mueller recommended "swift" action to protect the integrity of U.S. elections systems. Later that same year, on May 29, he resigned his post and the Office of the Special Counsel was closed./ APImages.com
Voting machines
​Assessing voting machines, the Senate report contains an almost entirely redacted section on Russian activity directed at vendors, noting that malicious cyberactors had “scanned … a widely used vendor of election systems.” The fact that most voting machines come from the same handful of manufacturers doesn’t help, because it means the compromise of just one or two manufacturers could have a massive influence.

Of course, weaknesses differ depending on the machine and how the adversary accesses it, but the consensus today is that electronic voting machines, or direct recording electronic systems (DREs), are most vulnerable. Susan Greenhalgh, vice president of programs for the advocacy group National Election Defense Coalition, said DREs came into favor after the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, aimed at improving access for the disabled and elderly.

“There were a lot of computer scientists who said, ‘Hey, that’s not a good idea, because these machines could be hacked and you might never know, if somebody knows what they’re doing,’ so there’s been a movement for a while to urge states to adopt paper voting machines. This happened well before 2016,” she said. “We’re told over and over again that voting machines aren’t connected to the Internet. That is not correct. Voting machines have wireless modems that connect to the Internet, and election officials say, ‘We only do it briefly at the end of the night,’ but that doesn’t matter. If you know anything about cybersecurity, you know that is enough for somebody to plant malware in a system.”

One computer scientist raising warnings has been J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan, who warned a Senate committee in 2017 that cybersecurity experts found a wide range of “severe vulnerabilities” in both DREs and optical scanners that would allow saboteurs to alter votes. Earlier that year, an annual hacker conference in Las Vegas found that WinVote machines were most easily manipulated.

"Lock It Down" A Senate Intelligence Report released in July of 2019 offered a laundry list of recommendations for state and local election systems:

  • Work with DHS to identify weak points in networks: vulnerable
  • Undertake security audits of voter registration databases by whom? : vulnerable
  • Institute two-factor authentication for user access to state databases for whom? ES&S? : vulnerable
  • Install monitoring sensors like DHS’ Albert on state systems connected to internet by wireless modems giving permissions again to 3rd parties: vulnerable
  • Make voter registration database recovery part of continuity-of-operation plans : vulnerable
  • Update software in voter registration systems : vulnerable
  • Create paper backups of registration databases: vulnerable
  • Consider a voter education program to make sure voters check their registration info before Election Day online registration: vulnerable
  • Replace outdated and vulnerable voting systems makes the system: vulnerable
  • Re-examine safeguards against people inserting fraudulent paper ballots Oh look this one is good!
(my note on the above implementation of Senate Intelligence Agency, did actually the opposite of LOCK IT DOWN! It completely "opened up several windows" allowing extreme vulnerability to our voting systems. My notes: in red.)

Voting equipment manufacturer ES&S has also disclosed that election-management systems, not specifically voting machines, in close to 300 jurisdictions contained software that made them vulnerable in 2016. The software hadn’t been installed in new machines since 2007, but the company said 41 states and more than 50 percent of voters use ES&S equipment.

In 2016, five states were using only DREs with no paper trail, and another nine states were using at least some DREs with no paper trail. Experts consulted for this story were unanimous that every voting system going forward should have a paper trail.

Technology of Transforming State & Local Government

The title of this group should actually alarm you! If does me!!!
The SOLE PURPOSE of our website is to EDUCATE ALL AMERICANS on the VULNERABILTY of not just the so called voting machines, but on the ENTIRE VOTING SYSTEMS! 

BOTTOM LINE HERE! EVERY SINGLE AREA OF OUR VOTING SYSTEM IS VULNERABLE TO HACKING INTO OUR MOST PRECIOUS VOICE IN AMERICA.... OUR VOTE!