Fact check: What role did cybersecurity experts play in monitoring the 2024 election infrastructure?

1. Summary of the results

Cybersecurity experts played a comprehensive and multi-faceted role in monitoring the 2024 election infrastructure, primarily through two major organizations:

• The Center for Internet Security (CIS) collaborated with the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), working alongside state and local election officials ^[1]
• The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) conducted over 700 cyber assessments and provided weekly vulnerability assessments to nearly 1,000 election stakeholders ^[2]

Key activities included:

• Deployment of advanced technologies like Albert sensors and Malicious Domain Blocking and Reporting (MDBR) ^[1]
• Conducting 200 tabletop training exercises ^[2]
• Real-time threat information sharing ^[1]
• Tracking and responding to potential disruption attempts including bomb threats and swatting calls ^[1]

The election was ultimately deemed "the most cyber-secure election to date" with no successful cyber threats reported ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements should be considered:

• While the US election security was robust, concurrent cyber threats were targeting other democratic processes - specifically the European Parliamentary elections, with Russian and Chinese state-sponsored actors identified as potential threats ^[3]
• Despite the success, experts acknowledge that vulnerabilities still exist in the system, emphasizing the need for continuous innovation and vigilance ^[4]
• The security effort was not just about cybersecurity but also included countering foreign influence operations, with CISA working alongside the FBI and ODNI to issue joint public notifications ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question might lead to some oversimplified conclusions:

• It suggests that cybersecurity experts worked in isolation, when in fact they were part of a larger collaborative effort involving multiple federal, state, and local agencies ^[4]
• It focuses solely on "monitoring," when the role was actually much more proactive, including preparation, training, and active threat response ^[1]
• While the question implies a purely technical focus, the actual scope included broader security concerns such as foreign influence operations and physical threats ^{[2] [1]}