Randomized Partial Checking Revisited

  • Shahram Khazaei
  • Douglas Wikström
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7779)

Abstract

We study mix-nets with randomized partial checking (RPC) as proposed by Jakobsson, Juels, and Rivest (2002). RPC is a technique to verify the correctness of an execution both for Chaumian and homomorphic mix-nets. The idea is to relax the correctness and privacy requirements to achieve a more efficient mix-net.

We identify serious issues in the original description of mix-nets with RPC and show how to exploit these to break both correctness and privacy, both for Chaumian and homomorphic mix-nets. Our attacks are practical and applicable to real world mix-net implementations, e.g., the Civitas and the Scantegrity voting systems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Optimal Asymmetric Encryption. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 92–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM 24(2), 84–88 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaum, D., Essex, A., Carback, R., Clark, J., Popoveniuc, S., Sherman, A., Vora, P.: Scantegrity: End-to-end voter-verifiable optical- scan voting. In: IEEE Security and Privacy, vol. 6, pp. 40–46 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarkson, M.R., Chong, S., Myers, A.C.: Civitas: Toward a secure voting system. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 354–368. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desmedt, Y., Kurosawa, K.: How to Break a Practical MIX and Design a New One. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 557–572. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feldman, P.: A practical scheme for non-interactive verifiable secret sharing. In: FOCS, pp. 427–437. IEEE Computer Society (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Furukawa, J., Sako, K.: An Efficient Scheme for Proving a Shuffle. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 368–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gabber, E., Gibbons, P.B., Matias, Y., Mayer, A.J.: How to Make Personalized Web Browising Simple, Secure, and Anonymous. In: Hirschfeld, R. (ed.) FC 1997. LNCS, vol. 1318, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golle, P., Zhong, S., Boneh, D., Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Optimistic Mixing for Exit-Polls. In: Zheng, Y. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2501, pp. 451–465. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomułkiewicz, M., Klonowski, M., Kutyłowski, M.: Rapid Mixing and Security of Chaum’s Visual Electronic Voting. In: Snekkenes, E., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2808, pp. 132–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jakobsson, M.: A Practical Mix. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 448–461. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jakobsson, M.: Flash mixing. In: PODC, pp. 83–89 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Mix and match: Secure function evaluation via ciphertexts. In: Okamoto [19], pp. 162–177Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: An optimally robust hybrid mix network. In: PODC, pp. 284–292. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A., Rivest, R.L.: Making mix nets robust for electronic voting by randomized partial checking. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 339–353. USENIX (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jakobsson, M.: Mix-Based Electronic Payments. In: Tavares, S., Meijer, H. (eds.) SAC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1556, pp. 157–173. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitomo, M., Kurosawa, K.: Attack for flash mix. In: Okamoto [19], pp. 192–204Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neff, C.A.: A verifiable secret shuffle and its application to e-voting. In: CCS 2001: Proc. of the 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 116–125. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okamoto, T. (ed.): ASIACRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1976. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park, C., 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfitzmann, B.: Breaking an Efficient Anonymous Channel. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 332–340. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pfitzmann, B., Pfitzmann, A.: How to Break the Direct RSA-Implementation of Mixes. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Vandewalle, J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1989. LNCS, vol. 434, pp. 373–381. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sako, K., Kilian, J.: Receipt-Free Mix-Type Voting scheme — A Practical Solution to the Implementation of a Voting Booth. In: Guillou, L.C., Quisquater, J.-J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1995. LNCS, vol. 921, pp. 393–403. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wikström, D.: Five Practical Attacks for “Optimistic Mixing for Exit-Polls”. In: Matsui, M., Zuccherato, R.J. (eds.) SAC 2003. LNCS, vol. 3006, pp. 160–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahram Khazaei
    • 1
  • Douglas Wikström
    • 1
  1. 1.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologySweden

Personalised recommendations