Advertisement

Improving Remote Voting Security with CodeVoting

  • Rui Joaquim
  • Carlos Ribeiro
  • Paulo Ferreira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6000)

Abstract

One of the major problems that prevents the spread of elections with the possibility of remote voting over electronic networks, also called Internet Voting, is the use of unreliable client platforms, such as the voter’s computer and the Internet infrastructure connecting it to the election server. A computer connected to the Internet is exposed to viruses, worms, Trojans, spyware, malware and other threats that can compromise the election’s integrity. For instance, it is possible to write a virus that changes the voter’s vote to a predetermined vote on election’s day. Another possible attack is the creation of a fake election web site where the voter uses a malicious vote program on the web site that manipulates the voter’s vote (phishing/pharming attack). Such attacks may not disturb the election protocol, therefore can remain undetected in the eyes of the election auditors.

We propose the use of CodeVoting to overcome insecurity of the client platform. CodeVoting consists in creating a secure communication channel to communicate the voter’s vote between the voter and a trusted component attached to the voter’s computer. Consequently, no one controlling the voter’s computer can change the his/her’s vote. The trusted component can then process the vote according to a cryptographic voting protocol to enable cryptographic verification at the server’s side.

Keywords

Remote voting Internet voting vote manipulation uncontrolled voting platform insecure voting platform 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    CERT: Vulnerability remediation statistics (2007), http://www.cert.org/stats/vulnerability_remediation.html
  2. 2.
    USCERT: Cyber security bulletins (2007), http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/
  3. 3.
    Wikipedia: Pharming (2007), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharming
  4. 4.
    Stamm, S., Ramzan, Z., Jakobsson, M.: Drive-by pharming (2006), http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/Driveby_Pharming.pdf
  5. 5.
    Gaudin, S.: Pharming attack slams 65 financial targets. InformationWeek (2007), http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197008230
  6. 6.
    Kirk, J.: Pharming attack hits 50 banks. IDG News Service, TechWorld (2007), http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=8102
  7. 7.
    Council of Europe: Family voting. Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe session (2002), http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/CLRAE-Sessions/2002-06-Session/family_voting.asp
  8. 8.
    Volkamer, M., Grimm, R.: Multiple casts in online voting: Analyzing chances. In: Robert Krimmer, R. (ed.) Electronic Voting 2006, Castle Hofen, Bregenz, Austria. LNI, vol. P-86, pp. 97–106. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    California Internet Task Force: A report on the feasibility of internet voting (2000), http://www.ss.ca.gov/executive/ivote
  10. 10.
    Internet Policy Institute: Report of the national workshop on internet voting: Issues and research agenda (2001), http://www.diggov.org/archive/library/dgo2000/dir/PDF/vote.pdf
  11. 11.
    Jefferson, D., Rubin, A.D., Simons, B., Wagner, D.: A security analysis of the secure electronic registration and voting experiment (serve) (2004), http://www.servesecurityreport.org/paper.pdf
  12. 12.
    Rivest, R.L.: Electronic voting. In: Syverson, P.F. (ed.) FC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2339, p. 243. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubin, A.D.: Security considerations for remote electronic voting. Commun. ACM 45(12), 39–44 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joaquim, R., Ribeiro, C.: Codevoting: protecting against malicious vote manipulation at the voter’s pc. In: Chaum, D., Kutyłowski, M., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y.A. (eds.) Frontiers of Electronic Voting, no. 07311 in Dagstuhl, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joaquim, R., Ribeiro, C.: CodeVoting protection against automatic vote manipulation in an uncontrolled environment. In: Alkassar, A., Volkamer, M. (eds.) VOTE-ID 2007. LNCS, vol. 4896, pp. 178–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fujioka, A., Okamoto, T., Ohta, K.: A practical secret voting scheme for large scale elections. In: Zheng, Y., Seberry, J. (eds.) AUSCRYPT 1992. LNCS, vol. 718, pp. 244–251. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joaquim, R., Zúquete, A., Ferreira, P.: Revs - a robust electronic voting system (extended). IADIS International Journal of WWW/Internet 1(2), 47–63 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ohkubo, M., Miura, F., Abe, M., Fujioka, A., Okamoto, T.: An improvement on a practical secret voting scheme. In: Zheng, Y., Mambo, M. (eds.) ISW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1729, pp. 225–234. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okamoto, T.: Receipt-free electronic voting schemes for large scale elections. In: Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Lomas, M., Roe, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 1997. LNCS, vol. 1361, pp. 25–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM 24(2), 84–88 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clarkson, M., Chong, S., Myers, A.: Civitas: A secure remote voting system. In: Chaum, D., Kutylowski, M., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y.A. (eds.) Frontiers of Electronic Voting, Dagstuhl, Germany. Dagstuhl no. 07311 in Seminar Proceedings, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neff, C.A.: Verifiable mixing (shuffling) of elgamal pairs (2004), http://votehere.com/vhti/documentation/egshuf-2.0.3638.pdf
  23. 23.
    Park, C.-s., Itoh, K., Kurosawa, K.: Efficient anonymous channel and all/Nothing election scheme. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 248–259. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benaloh, J.C.: Verifiable Secret-Ballot Elections. PhD thesis, Yale University (1987)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cramer, R., Gennaro, R., Schoenmakers, B.: A secure and optimally efficient multi-authority election scheme. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 103–118. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Damgård, I., Jurik, M.: A generalisation, a simplification and some applications of paillier’s probabilistic public-key system. In: Kim, K.-c. (ed.) PKC 2001. LNCS, vol. 1992, pp. 119–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    Estonian National Electoral Commitee: Internet voting in estonia (2007), http://www.vvk.ee/engindex.html
  29. 29.
    Lee, B., Kim, K.: Receipt-free electronic voting scheme with a tamper-resistant randomizer. In: Lee, P.J., Lim, C.H. (eds.) ICISC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2587, pp. 389–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oppliger, R.: How to address the secure platform problem for remote internet voting. In: Erasim, E., Karagiannis, D. (eds.) 5th Conference on “Sicherheit in Informationssystemen” (SIS 2002), Vienna, Austria, pp. 153–173. vdf Hochschulverlag (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zúquete, A., Costa, C., Rom ao, M.: An intrusion-tolerant e-voting client system. In: 1st Workshop on Recent Advances on Intrusion-Tolerant Systems (WRAITS 2007), Lisbon, Portugal (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    TGC: Trusted computing group (2007), https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
  33. 33.
    Sadeghi, A.R., Selhorst, M., Stüble, C., Wachsmann, C., Winandy, M.: Tcg inside?: a note on tpm specification compliance. In: STC 2006: Proceedings of the first ACM workshop on Scalable trusted computing, Alexandria, Virginia, USA, pp. 47–56. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brickell, E., Camenisch, J., Chen, L.: Direct anonymous attestation. In: Pftzmann, B., Liu, P. (eds.) CCS 2004: Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on Computer and Communications Security, Washington DC, USA, pp. 132–145. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Volkamer, M., Alkassar, A., Sadeghi, A.R., Schulz, S.: Enabling the application of the open systems like pcs for online voting. In: Frontiers in Electronic Elections Workshop (FEE 2006), Hamburg, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chaum, D.: Surevote (2001) International patent WO 01/55940 A1, http://www.surevote.com/home.html
  37. 37.
    UK’s Electoral Commission: Technical report on the may 2003 pilots (2003), http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/03pilotscheme.cfm
  38. 38.
    UK’s National Technical Authority for Information Assurance: e-voting security study (2002), http://www.ictparliament.org/CDTunisi/ict_compendium/paesi/uk/uk54.pdf
  39. 39.
    Helbach, J., Schwenk, J.: Secure internet voting with code sheets. In: Alkassar, A., Volkamer, M. (eds.) VOTE-ID 2007. LNCS, vol. 4896, pp. 166–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kutyłowski, M., Zagórski, F.: Verifiable internet voting solving secure platform problem. In: Miyaji, A., Kikuchi, H., Rannenberg, K. (eds.) IWSEC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4752, pp. 199–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Skagestein, G., Haug, A.V., Nødtvedt, E., Rossebø, J.E.Y.: How to create trust in electronic voting over an untrusted platform. In: Krimmer, R. (ed.) Electronic Voting 2006, Castle Hofen, Bregenz, Austria. LNI, vol. P-86, pp. 107–116. GI (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rui Joaquim
    • 1
  • Carlos Ribeiro
    • 1
  • Paulo Ferreira
    • 1
  1. 1.ISEL - Technical University of Lisbon - INESC-ID 

Personalised recommendations