Advertisement

Applying a Dependency Mechanism for Voting Protocol Models Using Event-B

  • J. Paul Gibson
  • Souad Kherroubi
  • Dominique Méry
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10321)

Abstract

The design of e-voting systems requires the use of techniques which guarantee that the resulting system is safe, secure and preserves privacy. We develop Event-B models of a voting system, by applying a decomposition pattern and a technique of contextualisation, using a dependency mechanism. Through refinement, we take into account the precise regulation and structure of a specific voting process, and reason formally about the system’s resistence to common attacks and threats.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jon Barwise, K.: Conditionals and conditional information. In: Traugott, E., ter Meulen, A., Reilly, J., Ferguson, C. (eds.) On Conditionals, pp. 21–54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benaissa, N.: Modelling attacker’s knowledge for cascade cryptographic protocols. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, pp. 251–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87603-8_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benaissa, N., Méry, D.: Proof-based design of security protocols. In: Ablayev, F., Mayr, E.W. (eds.) CSR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6072, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13182-0_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bjorner, D.: Software Engineering 3 Domains, Requirements, and Software Design. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiang, L.: Trust and security in the e-voting system. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 6(4), 343–360 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., Izabachene, M., et al.: A generic construction for voting correctness at minimum cost-application to helios. IACR Cryptology ePrint Arch. 2013, 177 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dapoigny, R., Barlatier, P.: Modeling contexts with dependent types. Fundam. Inform. 104(4), 293–327 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paul Gibson, J., Krimmer, R., Teague, V., Pomares, J.: A review of e-voting: the past, present and future. Ann. Telecommun. 71(7), 279–286 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul Gibson, J., Lallet, E., Raffy, J.-L.: Feature interactions in a software product line for e-voting. In: Nakamura, M., Reiff-Marganiec, S. (eds.) Feature Interactions in Software and Communication Systems X, pp. 91–106. IOS Press, Lisbon (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoang, T.S., Furst, A., Abrial, J,-R.: Event-b patterns and their tool support. In: International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 210–219 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kherroubi, S., Méry, D.: Contextualisation et dépendance en event-B. In: Idani, A., Kosmatov, N. (eds.) Approches Formelles dans l’Assistance au D’éveloppement de Logiciels, AFADL 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I., Engineering, R.: Processes and Techniques, 1st edn. Wiley Publishing, Hoboken (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kremer, S., Ryan, M.: Analysis of an electronic voting protocol in the applied pi calculus. In: Sagiv, M. (ed.) ESOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3444, pp. 186–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-31987-0_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamport, L.: The temporal logic of actions. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(3), 872–923 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leavens, G.T., Abrial, J.-R., Batory, D.S., Butler, M.J., Coglio, A., Fisler, K., Hehner, E.C.R., Jones, C.B., Miller, D., Peyton Jones, S.L., Sitaraman, M., Smith, D.R., Stump, A.: Roadmap for enhanced languages and methods to aid verification. In: GPCE, pp. 221–236 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCarthy, J.: Notes on formalizing context. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence - IJCAI 1993, pp. 555–560, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Méry, D., Poppleton, M.: Towards an integrated formal method for verification of liveness properties in distributed systems. Softw. Syst. Model. (SoSyM) (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Myagmar, S., Lee, A.J., Yurcik, W.: Threat modeling as a basis for security requirements. In: Symposium on Requirements Engineering for Information Security (SREIS). IEEE, August 2005Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Paul Gibson
    • 1
  • Souad Kherroubi
    • 2
  • Dominique Méry
    • 2
  1. 1.Telecom Sud Paris, SAMOVAR UMR 5157 CNRS Research Laboratory, METHODES TeamÉvryFrance
  2. 2.Université de Lorraine, LORIA UMR 7503 CNRS Research Laboratory, MOSEL TeamNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations