They now want audits. Officials are calling for “rigorous examinations” to guarantee that the results of the California recall election are legal due to a “security compromise.”

What is this ‘security breech’? Dominion Voting System’s proprietary Election Management System was really released by Mike Lindell’s Cyber Imposium (EMS). This is an illegal type of “transparency” that election authorities aren’t interested in at all.

In a letter to the Secretary of State’s office, they requested that the state undertake a post-election audit to uncover intentional efforts to tamper with the election, reports Breitbart.

Last month, copies of Dominion Voting Systems’ election management system were distributed at an event arranged by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a supporter of former President Donald Trump who has made unfounded allegations about last year’s election. The Dominion system is used by election officials in 30 states, including 40 counties in California.

According to election security experts, the breaches, which occurred in two counties in Colorado and Michigan, pose a greater risk to elections because the system is used for a variety of administrative functions, including designing ballots and configuring voting machines, as well as tallying results.

The experts stated in the letter that they have no proof that anyone plans to try a hack of the systems utilized in California and that they are not blaming Dominion.

The experts stated in their letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press, that “it is critical to recognize that the release of the Dominion software into the wild has increased the risk to the security of California elections to the point that emergency action is warranted.”

Computer scientists, electoral technology specialists, and cybersecurity researchers are among the eight professionals who have signed the letter.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s spokeswoman, Jenna Dresner, said the 40 counties in California that use Dominion use a separate version of the election management system that complies with certain state-specific standards.

She detailed a number of security procedures in place across the state to secure voting systems. This involves vulnerability testing on a regular basis, stringent access limits, physical security regulations, and pre-election testing to guarantee that no component of the system has been tampered with.

In a response to the Associated Press, Dresner stated, “California has the tightest and most extensive voting system testing, use, and standards in the country, and it was intended to resist possible threats.”

The security experts urge California counties to conduct a “risk-limiting audit” using Dominion’s election administration system, which entails employing a statistical technique to confirm that the reported results match the actual votes cast. Paper ballots are also used in California, making it easier to check results.

According to the letter, the changes between the stolen Dominion software images and the California versions are minimal.

Thousands of people, including those who may have access to voting equipment, now have blueprints to the underpinnings of Dominion’s election administration system, according to the experts.

“That increases the risk of undetected outcome-changing cyber-attacks on California counties that use Dominion equipment and the risk of accusations of fraud and election manipulation which, without rigorous post-election auditing, would be impossible to disprove,” the letter reads.

During the recall, the majority of voters are anticipated to cast postal votes and return them via the U.S. Postal Service or drop boxes in their county.

After an election, California law already requires counties to hand-count ballots from a random sample of 1% of precincts.

Despite the fact that the state has completed a pilot program with risk-limiting audits, Dresner claims that state law presently does not permit one for the recall election. With less than two weeks until the election, it’s unclear whether that can be changed.

Harri Hursti, a voting technology specialist who was present at the Lindell event in South Dakota, was one of those who signed the letter. Hursti got three copies of the Dominion election management system, one of which was a copy of the system used in Antrim County, Michigan, and the other two from Mesa County, Colorado.

Hursti claimed the copies were then made accessible for internet download in a sworn affidavit filed in federal court in Georgia.

According to him, the release provides hackers with a “practice environment” in which to look for weaknesses in the system as well as a road map for avoiding defenses. Because the systems aren’t meant to be connected to the internet, all hackers would need is physical access to them.

The difference between a bank robber having a design of a vault and having an identical duplicate of the vault to practice attacks, according to Philip B. Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, who also signed the letter.

He stated, “That’s what this is.” “They basically have an exact copy of the thing they’re trying to break into.”

Attacks, according to experts, may cause technical difficulties, causing equipment to fail, manipulating ballot design, or even targeting outcomes.

A Dominion spokesman said the firm was aware of reports of the system pictures being released without permission and has informed authorities. According to the firm, federal cybersecurity officials do not believe the incident poses a serious threat to elections.

But, according to Stark, the sheer number of people who now have access to the data makes this a very catastrophic breach. While it’s conceivable the information was already in the hands of the Russians or other opponents, he said obtaining it came at a high cost and required a lot of labor. That is no longer the case.

“What this has done on some level is democratized access to the information that would be needed to make a cyberattack on Dominion systems,” Stark explained.

The concern is exacerbated by the discovery by voting technology expert J. Alex Halderman that even a voter has adequate physical access to implant malware, according to Stark.

“So if you have someone who can do the technical work of devising a cyberattack, then it could actually be deployed by a voter, by an insider, by a vendor, by whoever,” he added. “It’s just really multiplied the number of people who are in a position to do harm to our elections by a very large factor.”

After reviewing Dominion voting technology used in Georgia as an expert witness in a long-running litigation contesting the use of those machines, Halderman, head of the University of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security and Society, stated those observations.

The release of the system pictures comes following a Republican campaign to inspect voting equipment that began shortly after Trump contested the election results and blamed his loss on widespread fraud, despite the lack of evidence.