Skip to main content

Towards a Formal Analysis of Information Leakage for Signature Attacks in Preferential Elections

  • Conference paper
FM 2014: Formal Methods (FM 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 8442))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1714 Accesses

Abstract

Electronic voting is rich with paradoxes. How can a voter verify that his own vote has been correctly counted, but at the same time be prevented from revealing his vote to a third party? Not only is there no generally recognised solution to those problems, it is not generally agreed how to specify precisely what the problems are, and what exact threats they pose. Such a situation is ripe for the application of Formal Methods.

In this paper we explore so-called signature attacks, where an apparently secure system can nevertheless be manipulated to reveal a voter’s choice in unexpected and subtle ways. We describe two examples in detail, and from that make proposals about where formal techniques might apply.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvim, M.S., Chatzikokolakis, K., Palamidessi, C., Smith, G.: Measuring Information Leakage Using Generalized Gain Functions. In: Chong, S. (ed.) CSF, pp. 265–279. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Antony Green’s Election Guide — Senate Calculator (2013), http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/senate-calculator/

  3. Benaloh, J., Moran, T., Naish, L., Ramchen, K., Teague, V.: Shuffle-Sum: Coercion-Resistant Verifiable Tallying for STV Voting. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 4(4), 685–698 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benaloh, J.C., Tuinstra, D.: Receipt-Free Secret-Ballot Elections (Extended Abstract). In: Leighton, F.T., Goodrich, M.T. (eds.) STOC, pp. 544–553. ACM (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Delaune, S., Kremer, S., Ryan, M.: Coercion-Resistance and Receipt-Freeness in Electronic Voting. In: CSFW, pp. 28–42. IEEE Computer Society (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Di Cosmo, R.: On Privacy and Anonymity in Electronic and Non Electronic Voting: the Ballot-As-Signature Attack (2007), http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00142440/en/

  7. Goh, E.-J., Golle, P.: Event Driven Private Counters. In: Patrick, A.S., Yung, M. (eds.) FC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3570, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Heather, J.: Implementing STV securely in Prêt à Voter. In: CSF, pp. 157–169. IEEE Computer Society (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Heather, J., Schneider, S.: A Formal Framework for Modelling Coercion Resistance and Receipt Freeness. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 217–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Jonker, H.L., de Vink, E.P.: Formalising Receipt-Freeness. In: Katsikas, S.K., López, J., Backes, M., Gritzalis, S., Preneel, B. (eds.) ISC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4176, pp. 476–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-Resistant Electronic Elections. In: Atluri, V., di Vimercati, S.D.C., Dingledine, R. (eds.) WPES, pp. 61–70. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Küsters, R., Truderung, T.: An Epistemic Approach to Coercion-Resistance for Electronic Voting Protocols. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 251–266. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. McIver, A., Meinicke, L., Morgan, C.: Compositional Closure for Bayes Risk in Probabilistic Noninterference. In: Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F., Spirakis, P.G. (eds.) ICALP 2010, part II. LNCS, vol. 6199, pp. 223–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. McIver, A., Morgan, C., Smith, G., Espinoza, B., Meinicke, L.: Abstract Channels and Their Robust Information-Leakage Ordering. In: Abadi, M., Kremer, S. (eds.) POST 2014. LNCS, vol. 8414, pp. 83–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Wen, R., Buckland, R.: Minimum Disclosure Counting for the Alternative Vote. In: Ryan, P.Y.A., Schoenmakers, B. (eds.) VOTE-ID 2009. LNCS, vol. 5767, pp. 122–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wen, R., McIver, A., Morgan, C. (2014). Towards a Formal Analysis of Information Leakage for Signature Attacks in Preferential Elections. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds) FM 2014: Formal Methods. FM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8442. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06410-9_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06410-9_40

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06409-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06410-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics