Security, usability, and biometric authentication scheme for electronic voting using multiple keys

We propose electronic voting authentication scheme, which is a key management mechanism for electronic voting system intended to limit the number of attacks on a polling station and strengthen the security control. The motivation is to diversify security requirements of messages exchanged between polling stations. There are different types of messages exchanged between polling stations and each type of message has different security needs. A security mechanism developed on the basis of a single key is not enough to ensure the diverse security needs of voting network. In electronic voting authentication scheme, every polling station is responsible to support three different types of keys. These are global key, pairwise key, and individual key. The global keys are public keys shared with all polling stations in the voting network. The pairwise key can be used for communication with polling stations. Individual keys will be used for communication with the server. To ensure authentication of local broadcast, electronic voting authentication scheme uses one-way key chains in a well-organized way. The support of source authentication is a visible advantage of this scheme. We examine the authentication of electronic voting authentication scheme on numerous attack models. The measurement demonstrates that electronic voting authentication scheme is very operative in protecting against numerous elegant attacks such as wormhole attack, Sybil attack, and HELLO Flood attack. The proposed system is evaluated and the results demonstrate that the proposed system is practical and secure as compared to the direct recording electronic and manual systems

A two authorities electronic vote scheme

[EN] In this paper we propose a new electronic multi-authority voting system based on blind signatures. We focus on the open problem of the efficiency of electronic voting systems. Most of the proposed systems rely on complex architectures or expensive proofs, in this work we aim to reduce the time-complexity of the voting process, both for the voter and the authorities involved. Our system is focused on simplicity and it is based on the assumption of two unrelated entities. This simplicity makes our approach scalable and flexible to multiple kinds of elections. We propose a method that limits the number of authorities to only 2 of them; we reduce the overall number of modular operations; and, propose a method which cut downs the interactions needed to cast a vote. The result is a voting protocol whose complexity scales linearly with the number of votes.Larriba-Flor, AM.; Sempere Luna, JM.; López Rodríguez, D. (2020). A two authorities electronic vote scheme. Computers & Security. 97:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101940S11297Bloom, B. H. (1970). Space/time trade-offs in hash coding with allowable errors. Communications of the ACM, 13(7), 422-426. doi:10.1145/362686.362692Brams S., Fishburn P.C.. 2007. Approval voting Springer ScienceCarroll, T. E., & Grosu, D. (2009). A secure and anonymous voter-controlled election scheme. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 32(3), 599-606. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2008.07.010Chaum, D. L. (1981). Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Communications of the ACM, 24(2), 84-90. doi:10.1145/358549.358563Cramer, R., Gennaro, R., & Schoenmakers, B. (1997). A secure and optimally efficient multi-authority election scheme. European Transactions on Telecommunications, 8(5), 481-490. doi:10.1002/ett.4460080506Desmedt, Y. G. (2010). Threshold cryptography. European Transactions on Telecommunications, 5(4), 449-458. doi:10.1002/ett.4460050407Elgamal, T. (1985). A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 31(4), 469-472. doi:10.1109/tit.1985.1057074Juang, W.-S. (2002). A Verifiable Multi-Authority Secret Election Allowing Abstention from Voting. The Computer Journal, 45(6), 672-682. doi:10.1093/comjnl/45.6.672Menezes A., van Oorschot P.C., Vanstone S.A.. 1996. Handbook of Applied Cryptography.Parhami, B. (1994). Voting algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 43(4), 617-629. doi:10.1109/24.370218Rabin, M. O. (1980). Probabilistic Algorithms in Finite Fields. SIAM Journal on Computing, 9(2), 273-280. doi:10.1137/0209024Rabin, M. O. (1983). Transaction protection by beacons. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 27(2), 256-267. doi:10.1016/0022-0000(83)90042-9Salazar, J. L., Piles, J. J., Ruiz-Mas, J., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2010). Security approaches in e-cognocracy. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 32(5-6), 256-265. doi:10.1016/j.csi.2010.01.004Nguyen, T. A. T., & Dang, T. K. (2013). Enhanced security in internet voting protocol using blind signature and dynamic ballots. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3), 257-272. doi:10.1007/s10660-013-9120-5Wu, Z.-Y., Wu, J.-C., Lin, S.-C., & Wang, C. (2014). An electronic voting mechanism for fighting bribery and coercion. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 40, 139-150. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2013.09.011Yang, X., Yi, X., Nepal, S., Kelarev, A., & Han, F. (2018). A Secure Verifiable Ranked Choice Online Voting System Based on Homomorphic Encryption. IEEE Access, 6, 20506-20519. doi:10.1109/access.2018.2817518Yi, X., & Okamoto, E. (2013). Practical Internet voting system. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 36(1), 378-387. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2012.05.00

Making Code Voting Secure against Insider Threats using Unconditionally Secure MIX Schemes and Human PSMT Protocols

Code voting was introduced by Chaum as a solution for using a possibly infected-by-malware device to cast a vote in an electronic voting application. Chaum's work on code voting assumed voting codes are physically delivered to voters using the mail system, implicitly requiring to trust the mail system. This is not necessarily a valid assumption to make - especially if the mail system cannot be trusted. When conspiring with the recipient of the cast ballots, privacy is broken. It is clear to the public that when it comes to privacy, computers and "secure" communication over the Internet cannot fully be trusted. This emphasizes the importance of using: (1) Unconditional security for secure network communication. (2) Reduce reliance on untrusted computers. In this paper we explore how to remove the mail system trust assumption in code voting. We use PSMT protocols (SCN 2012) where with the help of visual aids, humans can carry out $\mod 10$ addition correctly with a 99\% degree of accuracy. We introduce an unconditionally secure MIX based on the combinatorics of set systems. Given that end users of our proposed voting scheme construction are humans we \emph{cannot use} classical Secure Multi Party Computation protocols. Our solutions are for both single and multi-seat elections achieving: \begin{enumerate}[i)] \item An anonymous and perfectly secure communication network secure against a $t$-bounded passive adversary used to deliver voting, \item The end step of the protocol can be handled by a human to evade the threat of malware. \end{enumerate} We do not focus on active adversaries

HandiVote: simple, anonymous, and auditable electronic voting

We suggest a set of procedures utilising a range of technologies by which a major democratic deficit of modern society can be addressed. The mechanism, whilst it makes limited use of cryptographic techniques in the background, is based around objects and procedures with which voters are currently familiar. We believe that this holds considerable potential for the extension of democratic participation and control

Public Evidence from Secret Ballots

Elections seem simple---aren't they just counting? But they have a unique, challenging combination of security and privacy requirements. The stakes are high; the context is adversarial; the electorate needs to be convinced that the results are correct; and the secrecy of the ballot must be ensured. And they have practical constraints: time is of the essence, and voting systems need to be affordable and maintainable, and usable by voters, election officials, and pollworkers. It is thus not surprising that voting is a rich research area spanning theory, applied cryptography, practical systems analysis, usable security, and statistics. Election integrity involves two key concepts: convincing evidence that outcomes are correct and privacy, which amounts to convincing assurance that there is no evidence about how any given person voted. These are obviously in tension. We examine how current systems walk this tightrope.Comment: To appear in E-Vote-Id '1