Helios Verification: To Alleviate, or to Nominate: Is That the Question, or Shall we Have Both?

  • Stephan Neumann
  • M. Maina Olembo
  • Karen Renaud
  • Melanie Volkamer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8650)


Helios is an end-to-end verifiable remote electronic voting system which has been used for elections in academic contexts. It allows voters to verify that their vote was cast, and included in the final tally, as intended. User studies have shown that voters are unlikely to perform this verification, probably due to the effortful and cumbersome manual steps that are required by the system. To address this challenge, we propose, in this paper, two improvements: the first is to ameliorate the cumbersome nature of the verification process as much as possible. We offer two suggestions for doing this. To accommodate voters who have no interest in verifying, we propose a further improvement: delegation. This will allow voters to nominate a trusted third party to perform the verification on their behalf as and when they cast their vote. Hence no extra effort is required, and we can exploit existing trust in public institutions to provide voters with the assurance that the voting process is indeed honest and above board. In addition to providing end-to-end verifiability in a less effortful manner, we provide stored as cast and tallied as stored verifiability as well, for voters who do not wish to verify their own votes.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anzahl der Downloads mobiler Apps in Deutschland in den Jahren 2009 bis 2012 (in Millionen) (November 2012), (accessed June 5, 2014)
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Adida, B.: Helios: Web-based Open-Audit Voting. In: Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Security, pp. 335–348. Usenix Association, Berkeley (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adida, B., De Marneffe, O., Pereira, O., Quisquater, J.J.: Electing A University President using Open-audit Voting: Analysis of Real-world Use of Helios. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections. USENIX Association (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashford, R.: QR Codes and Academic Libraries Reaching Mobile Users. College & Research Libraries News 71(10), 526–530 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benaloh, J.: Simple verifiable elections. In: Proceedings of the USENIX/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop 2006 on Electronic Voting Technology Workshop - EVT 2006, p. 5 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Budurushi, J., Woide, M., Volkamer, M.: Introducing Precautionary Behavior by Temporal Diversion of Voter Attention from Casting to Verifying their Vote. In: Workshop on Usable Security, USEC 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bulens, P., Giry, D., Pereira, O.: Running Mixnet-based Elections with Helios. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, EVT/WOTE 2011, p. 6. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canadi, M., Höpken, W., Fuchs, M.: Application Of QR Codes in Online Travel Distribution. In: Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010, pp. 137–148. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen, S.B.: Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines, Master Thesis. MIT, Media Lab (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., Izabachène, M.: Distributed ElGamal á La Pedersen: Application to Helios. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, WPES 2013, pp. 131–142. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dou, X., Li, H.: Creative Use of QR Codes in Consumer Communication. International Journal of Mobile Marketing 3(2) (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawkins, D.G.: Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrnson, P.S., Niemi, R.G., Hanmer, M.J., Francia, P.L., Bederson, B.B., Conrad, F., Traugott, M.: The Promise and Pitfalls of Electronic Voting: Results from a Usability Field Test,
  15. 15.
    International Committee for Information Technology Standards, ISO: Ergonomics of Human-system Interaction – Part 210: Human-centred Design for Interactive Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karayumak, F., Kauer, M., Olembo, M.M., Volk, T., Volkamer, M.: User Study of the Improved Helios Voting System Interface. In: Proceedings of STAST 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karayumak, F., Kauer, M., Olembo, M.M., Volkamer, M.: Usability Analysis of Helios - An Open Source Verifiable Remote Electronic Voting System. In: Proceedings of EVT/WOTE 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langer, L., Schmidt, A., Buchmann, J., Volkamer, M.: A Taxonomy Refining the Security Requirements for Electronic Voting: Analyzing Helios as a Proof of Concept. In: International Conference on Availability, Reliability, and Security, ARES 2010, pp. 475–480 (February 2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lenstra, A.K.: Key lengths. In: Handbook of Information Security, ch. 114 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olembo, M.M., Renaud, K., Bartsch, S., Volkamer, M.: Voter, What Message Will Motivate You to Verify Your Vote? In: Workshop on Usable Security, USEC 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olembo, M.M., Volkamer, M.: A Study to Identify Trusted Verifying Institutes in Germany, TU Darmstadt. Technical Report (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olembo, M.M., Bartsch, S., Volkamer, M.: Mental Models of Verifiability in Voting. In: Heather, J., Schneider, S., Teague, V. (eds.) Vote-ID 2013. LNCS, vol. 7985, pp. 142–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Popoveniuc, S., Clark, J., Carback, R., Essex, A., Chaum, D.: Securing Optical-Scan Voting. In: Chaum, D., Jakobsson, M., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y.A., Benaloh, J., Kutylowski, M., Adida, B. (eds.) Towards Trustworthy Elections. LNCS, vol. 6000, pp. 357–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2010), Scholar
  24. 24.
    Princeton Undergraduate Student Government: The Elections Handbook,
  25. 25.
    Schneider, S., Llewellyn, M., Culnane, C., Heather, J., Srinivasan, S., Xia, Z.: Focus Group Views on Prêt à Voter 1.0. In: International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Electronic Voting Systems, REVOTE 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Selker, T., Pandolfo, A.: A Methodology for Testing Voting Systems. Journal of Usability Studies 2(1), 7–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sherman, A.T., Carback, R., Chaum, D., Clark, J., Essex, A., Herrnson, P.S., Mayberry, T., Stefan, P., Rivest, R.L., Shen, E., Sinha, B., Vora, P.: Scantegrity Mock Election at Takoma Park. In: Electronic Voting 2010 (EVOTE 2010), pp. 45–61 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsoukalas, G., Papadimitriou, K., Louridas, P., Tsanakas, P.: From Helios to Zeus. USENIX Journal of Election Technology and Systems (JETS) and Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, EVT/WOTE 2013 pp. 1–17 (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Volkamer, M., Vogt, R.: New Generation of Voting Machines in Germany The Hamburg Way to Verify Correctness. In: Frontiers in Electronic Elections - FEE 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weber, J., Hengartner, U.: Usability Study of the Open Audit Voting System Helios (2009), (accessed June 5, 2014)
  31. 31.
    Zimmermann, P.R.: PGPfone: Pretty Good Privacy Phone Owner’s Manual (1995),

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Neumann
    • 1
  • M. Maina Olembo
    • 1
  • Karen Renaud
    • 2
  • Melanie Volkamer
    • 1
  1. 1.Security, Usability and Society, CASEDTU DarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.School of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations