Advertisement

A Practical Coercion Resistant Voting Scheme Revisited

  • Roberto Araújo
  • Jacques Traoré
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7985)

Abstract

The scheme of ABRTY (Araújo et al., CANS 2010) is one of the most promising solutions for internet voting nowadays. It fights realistic coercive attacks and can be applied in large scale voting scenarios as it has linear time complexity. However, this scheme has two intrinsic drawbacks. As it does not allow revocation of credentials of ineligible voters, voters need to obtain fresh credentials before each new election. Also, authorities could generate valid but illegitimate credentials unnoticed. In this work, we present solutions for these drawbacks and show a modified version of ABRTY’s scheme. In addition, we describe a weakness of a receipt-free voting scheme proposed by Acquisti in 2004.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Acquisti, A.: Receipt-free homomorphic elections and write-in ballots. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/105 (2004), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  2. 2.
    Araújo, R., Foulle, S., Traoré, J.: A practical and secure coercion-resistant scheme for remote elections. In: Chaum, D., Kutylowski, M., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y.A. (eds.) Frontiers of Electronic Voting, Dagstuhl, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 07311. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Araújo, R., Ben Rajeb, N., Robbana, R., Traoré, J., Youssfi, S.: Towards practical and secure coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Heng, S.-H., Wright, R.N., Goi, B.-M. (eds.) CANS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6467, pp. 278–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boneh, D., Boyen, X., Shacham, H.: Short group signatures. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brickell, E.F. (ed.): CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaum, D., Pedersen, T.P.: Wallet databases with observers. In: Brickell (ed.) [5], pp. 89–105Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaum, D., Ryan, P.Y.A., Schneider, S.: A practical voter-verifiable election scheme. In: De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Syverson, P.F., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3679, pp. 118–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark, J., Hengartner, U.: Panic passwords: Authenticating under duress. In: Provos, N. (ed.) HotSec. USENIX Association (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark, J., Hengartner, U.: Selections: Internet voting with over-the-shoulder coercion-resistance. In: Danezis (ed.) [12], pp. 47–61Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarkson, M.R., Chong, S., Myers, A.C.: Civitas: Toward a secure voting system. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 354–368. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarkson, M.R., Myers, A.C.: Coercion-resistant remote voting using decryption mixes. Workshop on Frontiers in Electronic Elections (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danezis, G. (ed.): FC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7035. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Essex, A., Clark, J., Hengartner, U.: Cobra: toward concurrent ballot authorization for internet voting. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, EVT/WOTE 2012, p. 3. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirt, M., Sako, K.: Efficient receipt-free voting based on homomorphic encryption. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 539–556. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Mix and match: Secure function evaluation via ciphertexts. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1976, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jakobsson, M., Sako, K., Impagliazzo, R.: Designated verifier proofs and their applications. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 143–154. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Atluri, V., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Dingledine, R. (eds.) WPES, pp. 61–70. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meng, B.: An internet voting protocol with receipt-free and coercion-resistant. In: CIT, pp. 721–726. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okamoto, T.: Provably secure and practical identification schemes and corresponding signature schemes. In: Brickell (ed.) [15], pp. 31–53Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paillier, P.: Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schläpfer, M., Haenni, R., Koenig, R., Spycher, O.: Efficient vote authorization in coercion-resistant internet voting. In: Kiayias, A., Lipmaa, H. (eds.) VoteID 2011. LNCS, vol. 7187, pp. 71–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schnorr, C.-P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. J. Cryptology 4(3), 161–174 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schweisgut, J.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections with observer. In: Krimmer, R. (ed.) Electronic Voting. LNI, vol. 86, pp. 171–177. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, W.: New cryptographic election protocol with best-known theoretical properties. In: Workshop on Frontiers in Electronic Elections (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spycher, O., Koenig, R.E., Haenni, R., Schläpfer, M.: A new approach towards coercion-resistant remote e-voting in linear time. In: Danezis (ed.) [12], pp. 182–189Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spycher, O., Koenig, R.E., Haenni, R., Schläpfer, M.: Achieving meaningful efficiency in coercion-resistant, verifiable internet voting. In: Kripp, M.J., Volkamer, M., Grimm, R. (eds.) Electronic Voting. LNI, vol. 205, pp. 113–125. GI (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Feng, D.: Short threshold signature schemes without random oracles. In: Maitra, S., Veni Madhavan, C.E., Venkatesan, R. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3797, pp. 297–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weber, S.G., Araújo, R., Buchmann, J.: On coercion-resistant electronic elections with linear work. In: 2nd Workshop on Dependability and Security in e-Government (DeSeGov 2007) at 2nd Int. Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES 2007), pp. 908–916. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Araújo
    • 1
  • Jacques Traoré
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculdade de ComputaçãoUniversidade Federal do ParáBelémBrazil
  2. 2.Orange LabsCaen CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations