Most candidates are likely vulnerable to web site hacks, so why haven’t more hacks happened?

Kenneth Belva at Info Sec has an interesting analysis of how the rhetoric around hacking might (or might not, really) affect voter opinion.

It seems to me that the main reason politicians stay away from using hacking as a political weapon is the ease at which it may be used against them at some point in the future. Politicians can’t change their public voting record, their former associations or last night’s speech (i.e., the past), but their website could be hacked in the future.

Imagine this scenario: candidate A gets hacked. Candidate B makes a big production about how this hack represents a deficiency in candidate A. Candidate B gets hacked. Candidate B is now in a weaker position than candidate A. If candidate B is not hacked over the course of the election, then they win this spin. Otherwise, the one who is hacked second becomes a weaker candidate. It’s a game of hypocrisy: “Candidate accuses me, but they can’t do it themselves…”

Take a read through the full article.