Advertisement

Coercion-Resistant Proxy Voting

  • Oksana Kulyk
  • Stephan Neumann
  • Karola Marky
  • Jurlind Budurushi
  • Melanie Volkamer
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 471)

Abstract

In general, most elections follow the principle of equality, or as it came to be known, the principle of “one man – one vote”. However, this principle might pose difficulties for voters, who are not well informed regarding the particular matter that is voted on. In order to address this issue, a new form of voting has been proposed, namely proxy voting. In proxy voting, each voter has the possibility to delegate her voting right to another voter, so called proxy, that she considers a trusted expert on the matter. In this paper we propose an end-to-end verifiable Internet voting scheme, which to the best of our knowledge is the first scheme to address voter coercion in the proxy voting setting.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project (HA project no. 435/14-25) is funded in the framework of Hessen ModellProjekte, financed with funds of LOEWE – Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlich-ökonomischer Exzellenz, Förderlinie 3: KMU-Verbundvorhaben (State Offensive for the Development of Scientific and Economic Excellence).

This paper has been developed within the project ‘VALID’ - Verifiable Liquid Democracy - which is funded by the Polyas GmbH.

References

  1. 1.
    Bayer, S., Groth, J.: Efficient zero-knowledge argument for correctness of a shuffle. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 263–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernhard, D., Neumann, S., Volkamer, M.: Towards a practical cryptographic voting scheme based on malleable proofs. In: Heather, J., Schneider, S., Teague, V. (eds.) Vote-ID 2013. LNCS, vol. 7985, pp. 176–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernhard, D., Pereira, O., Warinschi, B.: How not to prove yourself: pitfalls of the Fiat-Shamir heuristic and applications to helios. In: Wang, X., Sako, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7658, pp. 626–643. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boneh, D., Boyen, X., Shacham, H.: Short group signatures. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaum, D., Pedersen, T.P.: Wallet databases with observers. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarkson, M.R., Chong, S., Myers, A.C.: Civitas: Toward a secure voting system. Technical report (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delaune, S., Kremer, S., Ryan, M.: Verifying privacy-type properties of electronic voting protocols: a taster. 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. 289–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grewal, G.S., Ryan, M.D., Bursuc, S., Ryan, P.Y.: Caveat coercitor: coercion-evidence in electronic voting. In: 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 367–381. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jakobsson, M.: On quorum controlled asymmetric proxy re-encryption. In: Imai, H., Zheng, Y. (eds.) PKC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1560, pp. 112–121. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Mix and match: secure function evaluation via ciphertexts. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1976, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jakobsson, M., Sako, K., Impagliazzo, R.: Designated verifier proofs and their applications. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 143–154. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, pp. 61–70. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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: ARES 2010 International Conference on Availability, Reliability, and Security, pp. 475–480. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neumann, S., Kahlert, A., Henning, M., Richter, P., Jonker, H., Volkamer, M.: Modeling the German legal latitude principles. In: Wimmer, M.A., Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A. (eds.) ePart 2013. LNCS, vol. 8075, pp. 49–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neumann, S., Volkamer, M.: Civitas and the real world: problems and solutions from a practical point of view. In: 2012 Seventh International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES), pp. 180–185. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neumann, S., Volkamer, M.: A holistic framework for the evaluation of internet voting systems. In: Design, Development, and Use of Secure Electronic Voting Systems, pp. 76–91 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schnorr, C.P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. J. Cryptol. 4(3), 161–174 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spycher, O., Koenig, R., Haenni, R., Schläpfer, M.: A new approach towards coercion-resistant remote e-voting in linear time. In: Danezis, G. (ed.) FC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7035, pp. 182–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tchorbadjiiski, A.: Liquid democracy diploma thesis. RWTH AACHEN University, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Terelius, B., Wikström, D.: Proofs of restricted shuffles. In: Bernstein, D.J., Lange, T. (eds.) AFRICACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6055, pp. 100–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zwattendorfer, B., Hillebold, C., Teufl, P.: Secure and privacy-preserving proxy voting system. In: 2013 IEEE 10th International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE), pp. 472–477. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oksana Kulyk
    • 1
  • Stephan Neumann
    • 1
  • Karola Marky
    • 1
  • Jurlind Budurushi
    • 1
  • Melanie Volkamer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Technische Universität Darmstadt/CASEDDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Karlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations