Vote Validatability in Mix-Net-Based eVoting

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9269)


One way to build secure electronic voting systems is to use Mix-Nets, which break any correlation between voters and their votes. One of the characteristics of Mix-Net-based eVoting is that ballots are usually decrypted individually and, as a consequence, invalid votes can be detected during the tallying of the election. In particular, this means that the ballot does not need to contain a proof of the vote being valid.

However, allowing for invalid votes to be detected only during the tallying of the election can have bad consequences on the reputation of the election. First, casting a ballot for an invalid vote might be considered as an attack against the eVoting system by non-technical people, who might expect that the system does not accept such ballots. Besides, it would be impossible to track the attacker due to the anonymity provided by the Mix-Net. Second, if a ballot for an invalid vote is produced by a software bug, it might be only detected after the election period has finished. In particular, voters would not be able to cast a valid vote again.

In this work we formalize the concept of having a system that detects invalid votes during the election period. In addition, we give a general construction of an eVoting system satisfying such property and an efficient concrete instantiation based on well-studied assumptions.


Electronic voting systems Mix-Nets Formal definitions 


  1. 1.
    Abe, M., Groth, J., Ohkubo, M., Tibouchi, M.: Unified, minimal and selectively randomizable structure-preserving signatures. In: Lindell, Y. (ed.) TCC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8349, pp. 688–712. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adida, B.: Encrypting your vote in javascript. Electronic Voting Technology Workshop - EVT/WOTE, August 2011.
  3. 3.
    Belenkiy, M., Chase, M., Kohlweiss, M., Lysyanskaya, A.: Compact E-Cash and simulatable VRFs revisited. In: Shacham, H., Waters, B. (eds.) Pairing 2009. LNCS, vol. 5671, pp. 114–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernhard, D., Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Pereira, O., Warinschi, B.: A comprehensive analysis of game-based ballot privacy definitions. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015, 255 (2015).
  5. 5.
    Bernhard, D., Pereira, O., Warinschi, B.: On necessary and sufficient conditions for private ballot submission. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2012, 236 (2012). Informal Publication
  6. 6.
    Camenisch, J.L., Chaabouni, R., shelat, a: Efficient protocols for set membership and range proofs. In: Pieprzyk, J. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5350, pp. 234–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses and digital pseudonyms. In: Gritzalis, D. (ed.) Secure Electronic Voting, Advances in Information Security, vol. 7, pp. 211–219. Springer, New York (2003). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cramer, R., Gennaro, R., Schoenmakers, B.: A secure and optimally efficient multi-authority election scheme. Eur. Trans. Telecommun. 8(5), 481–490 (1997). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damgård, I., Jurik, M., Nielsen, J.B.: A generalization of Paillier’s public-key system with applications to electronic voting. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 9(6), 371–385 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Escala, A., Groth, J.: Fine-tuning Groth-Sahai proofs. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) PKC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8383, pp. 630–649. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gjøsteen, K.: Analysis of an internet voting protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2010/380 (2010).
  12. 12.
    Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: How to construct random functions. J. ACM 33(4), 792–807 (1986). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rivest, R.L.: A digital signature scheme secure against adaptive chosen-message attacks. SIAM J. Comput. 17(2), 281–308 (1988). zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groth, J., Sahai, A.: Efficient noninteractive proof systems for bilinear groups. SIAM J. Comput. 41(5), 1193–1232 (2012)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luby, M., Rackoff, C.: How to construct pseudo-random permutations from Pseudo-random functions. In: Williams, H.C. (ed.) CRYPTO 1985. LNCS, vol. 218, pp. 447–447. Springer, Heidelberg (1986) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Santis, A.D., Persiano, G.: Zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge without interaction (extended abstract). In: FOCS, pp. 427–436. IEEE Computer Society (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schnorr, C.-P., Jakobsson, M.: Security of signed ElGamal encryption. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1976, p. 73. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsiounis, Y., Yung, M.: On the security of ElGamal based encryption. In: Imai, H., Zheng, Y. (eds.) PKC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1431, p. 117. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Matemàtiques i InformàticaUniversitat de Les Illes BalearsPalmaSpain
  2. 2.Scytl Secure Electronic VotingBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada IVUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations