Advertisement

Abstract

There are two existing solutions to secure e-voting: homomorphic tallying and shuffling, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. The former supports efficient tallying but depends on costly vote validity check and does not support complex elections. The latter supports complex elections and dose not need vote validity check but depends on costly shuffling operations in the tallying operation. In this paper, the two techniques are combined to exploit their advantages and avoid their disadvantages. The resulting e-voting scheme is called hybrid e-voting, which supports complex elections, employs efficient vote validity check and only needs shuffling with a very small scale. So it is more efficient than the existing e-voting schemes, especially in complex elections.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baudron, O., Fouque, P.-A., Pointcheval, D., Stern, J., Poupard, G.: Practical multi-candidate election system. In: Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 274–283 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellare, M., Garay, J.A., Rabin, T.: Fast batch verification for modular exponentiation and digital signatures. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 236–250. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boneh, D., Franklin, M.: Efficient generation of shared rsa keys. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canetti, R., Dwork, C., Naor, M., Ostrovsky, R.: Deniable encryption. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaum, D., Pedersen, T.P.: Wallet databases with observers. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I.B., Schoenmakers, B.: Proof of partial knowledge and simplified design of witness hiding protocols. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1994. LNCS, vol. 839, pp. 174–187. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damgaård, I., Jurik, M.: A generalisation, a simplification and some applications of paillier’s probabilistic public-key system. In: Kim, K.-c. (ed.) PKC 2001. LNCS, vol. 1992, pp. 119–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damgård, I.B., Koprowski, M.: Practical threshold RSA signatures without a trusted dealer. In: Pfitzmann, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2045, pp. 152–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman, P.: A practical scheme for non-interactive verifiable secret sharing. In: 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 427–437 (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fouque, P.-A., Poupard, G., Stern, J.: Sharing decryption in the context of voting or lotteries. In: Frankel, Y. (ed.) FC 2000. LNCS, vol. 1962, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furukawa, J., Sako, K.: An efficient scheme for proving a shuffle. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 368–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groth, J.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge arguments for voting. In: Ioannidis, J., Keromytis, A.D., Yung, M. (eds.) ACNS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3531, pp. 467–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groth, J., Lu, S.: Verifiable shuffle of large size ciphertexts. In: Okamoto, T., Wang, X. (eds.) PKC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4450, pp. 377–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groth, J.: A verifiable secret shuffle of homomorphic encryptions. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) PKC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2567, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Furukawa, J.: Efficient and verifiable shuffling and shuffle-decryption. IEICE Transactions 88-A(1), 172–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz, J., Myers, S., Ostrovsky, R.: Cryptographic counters and applications to electronic voting. In: Pfitzmann, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2045, pp. 78–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiayias, A., Yung, M.: Self-tallying elections and perfect ballot secrecy. In: Naccache, D., Paillier, P. (eds.) PKC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2274, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, B., Kim, K.: Receipt-free electronic voting scheme with a tamper-resistant randomizer. In: Lee, P.J., Lim, C.H. (eds.) ICISC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2587, pp. 389–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neff, C.A.: A verifiable secret shuffle and its application to e-voting. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security 2001, pp. 116–125 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peng, K., Boyd, C., Dawson, E.: Simple and efficient shuffling with provable correctness and ZK privacy. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 188–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peng, K., Aditya, R., Boyd, C., Dawson, E., Lee, B.: Multiplicative homomorphic E-voting. In: Canteaut, A., Viswanathan, K. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3348, pp. 61–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peng, K., Boyd, C., Dawson, E., Viswanathan, K.: A correct, private, and efficient mix network. In: Bao, F., Deng, R., Zhou, J. (eds.) PKC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2947, pp. 439–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacKenzie, P., Frankel, Y., Yung, M.: Robust efficient distributed rsa-key generation. p. 320 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun Peng
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Infocomm ResearchSingapore

Personalised recommendations