Authentication with Weaker Trust Assumptions for Voting Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10831)

Abstract

Some voting systems are reliant on external authentication services. Others use cryptography to implement their own. We combine digital signatures and non-interactive proofs to derive a generic construction for voting systems with their own authentication mechanisms, from systems that rely on external authentication services. We prove that our construction produces systems satisfying ballot secrecy and election verifiability, assuming the underlying voting system does. Moreover, we observe that works based on similar ideas provide neither ballot secrecy nor election verifiability. Finally, we demonstrate applicability of our results by applying our construction to the Helios voting system.

Notes

Acknowledgements

In the context of [36], Smyth conceived the fundamental ideas of our construction for election schemes with internal authentication. In addition, Smyth discovered that Helios-C does not satisfy ballot secrecy, whilst analysing election verifiability. Smyth and his co-authors, Frink & Clarkson, decided not to publish these results. This paper builds upon those unpublished results and we are grateful to Frink and Clarkson for their part in inspiring this line of work.

References

  1. 1.
    Adida, B.: Helios: web-based open-audit voting. In: USENIX Security 2008: 17th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 335–348. USENIX Association (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adida, B., Marneffe, O., Pereira, O., Quisquater, J.: Electing a university president using open-audit voting: analysis of real-world use of Helios. In: EVT/WOTE 2009: Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections. USENIX Association (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellare, M., Sahai, A.: Non-malleable encryption: equivalence between two notions, and an indistinguishability-based characterization. In: Wiener, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 519–536. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48405-1_33Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benaloh, J., Vaudenay, S., Quisquater, J.: Final report of IACR electronic voting committee. International Association for Cryptologic Research, September 2010. https://iacr.org/elections/eVoting/finalReportHelios_2010-09-27.html
  5. 5.
    Bernhard, D., Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Pereira, O., Warinschi, B.: SoK: a comprehensive analysis of game-based ballot privacy definitions. In: S&P 2015: 36th Security and Privacy Symposium. IEEE Computer Society (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernhard, D., Cortier, V., Pereira, O., Smyth, B., Warinschi, B.: Adapting Helios for provable ballot privacy. In: Atluri, V., Diaz, C. (eds.) ESORICS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6879, pp. 335–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23822-2_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34961-4_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernhard, D., Pereira, O., Warinschi, B.: On necessary and sufficient conditions for private Ballot submission. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2012/236 (version 20120430:154117b) (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bulens, P., Giry, D., Pereira, O.: Running mixnet-based elections with Helios. In: EVT/WOTE 2011: Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections. USENIX Association (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court): Use of voting computers in 2005 Bundestag election unconstitutional. Press release 19/2009, March 2009Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., Izabachene, M.: A generic construction for voting correctness at minimum cost - application to Helios. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2013/177 (version 20130521:145727) (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., Izabachene, M.: Distributed elgamal à la pedersen: application to Helios. In: WPES 2013: Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, pp. 131–142. ACM Press (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., Izabachène, M.: Election verifiability for Helios under weaker trust assumptions. In: Kutyłowski, M., Vaidya, J. (eds.) ESORICS 2014 Part II. LNCS, vol. 8713, pp. 327–344. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11212-1_19Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., Izabachène, M.: Election verifiability for Helios under weaker trust assumptions. Technical report RR-8555, INRIA (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cortier, V., Smyth, B.: Attacking and fixing Helios: an analysis of ballot secrecy. In: CSF 2011: 24th Computer Security Foundations Symposium, pp. 297–311. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonggrijp, R., Hengeveld, W.J.: Studying the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer: a computer security perspective. In: EVT 2007: Electronic Voting Technology Workshop. USENIX Association (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gumbel, A.: Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America. Nation Books, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haber, S., Benaloh, J., Halevi, S.: The Helios e-voting demo for the IACR. International Association for Cryptologic Research, May 2010. https://iacr.org/elections/eVoting/heliosDemo.pdf
  19. 19.
    Jones, D.W., Simons, B.: Broken ballots: will your vote count? CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 204. Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections. 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. 37–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12980-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiayias, A., Zacharias, T., Zhang, B.: End-to-end verifiable elections in the standard model. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015 Part II. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 468–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_16Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lijphart, A., Grofman, B.: Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives. Praeger, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, M., Smyth, B.: An attack against the Helios election system that exploits re-voting. arXiv, Report 1612.04099 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe: Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Organization of American States: American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica” (1969)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pereira, O.: Internet voting with Helios. In: Real-World Electronic Voting: Design, Analysis and Deployment, Chap. 11. CRC Press (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quaglia, E.A., Smyth, B.: A short introduction to secrecy and verifiability for elections. arXiv, Report 1702.03168 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quaglia, E.A., Smyth, B.: Authentication with weaker trust assumptions for voting systems (2018). https://bensmyth.com/publications/2018-voting-authentication/
  29. 29.
    Quaglia, E.A., Smyth, B.: Secret, verifiable auctions from elections. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/1204 (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saalfeld, T.: On dogs and whips: recorded votes. In: Döring, H. (ed.) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Chap. 16. St. Martin’s Press (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schweikardt, N.: Arithmetic, first-order logic, and counting quantifiers. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 6(3), 634–671 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smyth, B.: Ballot secrecy: security definition, sufficient conditions, and analysis of Helios. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/942 (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smyth, B.: A foundation for secret, verifiable elections (2018). https://bensmyth.com/publications/2018-secrecy-verifiability-elections-tutorial/
  34. 34.
    Smyth, B.: Verifiability of Helios mixnet. In: Voting 2018: 3rd Workshop on Advances in Secure Electronic Voting. LNCS, Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smyth, B., Bernhard, D.: Ballot secrecy and ballot independence coincide. In: Crampton, J., Jajodia, S., Mayes, K. (eds.) ESORICS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8134, pp. 463–480. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40203-6_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smyth, B., Frink, S., Clarkson, M.R.: Election Verifiability: Cryptographic Definitions and an Analysis of Helios, Helios-C, and JCJ. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/233 (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smyth, B., Hanatani, Y., Muratani, H.: NM-CPA secure encryption with proofs of plaintext knowledge. In: Tanaka, K., Suga, Y. (eds.) IWSEC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9241, pp. 115–134. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22425-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smyth, B., Pironti, A.: Truncating TLS Connections to Violate Beliefs in Web Applications. In: WOOT 2013: 7th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies. USENIX Association (2013). First Appeared at Black Hat USA 2013Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Springall, D., Finkenauer, T., Durumeric, Z., Kitcat, J., Hursti, H., MacAlpine, M., Halderman, J.A.: Security analysis of the estonian internet voting system. In: CCS 2014: 21st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 703–715. ACM Press (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Staff, C.: ACM’s 2014 General Election: Please Take This Opportunity to Vote. Commun. ACM 57(5), 9–17 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tsoukalas, G., Papadimitriou, K., Louridas, P., Tsanakas, P.: From Helios to Zeus. J. Elect. Technol. Syst. 1(1), 1–17 (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolchok, S., Wustrow, E., Halderman, J.A., Prasad, H.K., Kankipati, A., Sakhamuri, S.K., Yagati, V., Gonggrijp, R.: Security analysis of India’s electronic voting machines. In: CCS 2010: 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 1–14. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wolchok, S., Wustrow, E., Isabel, D., Halderman, J.A.: Attacking the Washington, D.C. internet voting system. In: Keromytis, A.D. (ed.) FC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7397, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32946-3_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Security GroupRoyal Holloway, University of LondonEghamUK
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and TrustUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg CityLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations