True Trustworthy Elections: Remote Electronic Voting Using Trusted Computing

  • Matt Smart
  • Eike Ritter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6906)


We present a new remote, coercion-resistant electronic voting protocol which satisfies a number of properties previously considered contradictory. We introduce trusted computing as a method of ensuring the trustworthiness of remote voters, and provide an extension to our protocol allowing revocable anonymity, on the grounds of it being a legal requirement in the United Kingdom.


Signature Scheme Bulletin Board Trust Platform Module Homomorphic Encryption Trust Computing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ables, K., Ryan, M.D.: Escrowed data and the digital envelope. In: Acquisti, A., Smith, S.W., Sadeghi, A.-R. (eds.) TRUST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6101, pp. 246–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alkassar, A., Sadeghi, A.R., Schultz, S., Volkamer, M.: Towards Trustworthy Online Voting. In: Proceedings WISSec 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arbaugh, W.A.: The Real Risk of Digital Voting? Computer 37(12), 124–125 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balfe, S., Lakhani, A.D., Paterson, K.G.: Trusted Computing: Providing Security for Peer-to-Peer Networks. In: Proceedings of Fifth IEEE Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, pp. 117–124. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benaloh, J., Tuinstra, D.: Receipt-Free Secret-Ballot Elections (Extended Abstract). In: Proceedings of 26th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 544–553. ACM, Montreal (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackburn, R.: The Electoral System in Britain. Macmillan, London (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boneh, D., Golle, P.: Almost Entirely Correct Mixing with Applications to Voting. In: Proceedings of CCS 2002, pp. 68–77. ACM, Washington DC (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brickell, E., Camenisch, J., Chen, L.: Direct Anonymous Attestation. In: Proceedings of CCS 2004, pp. 132–145. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Challener, D., Yoder, K., Catherman, R., Safford, D., Doorn, L.V.: A Practical Guide to Trusted Computing. IBM Press, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarkson, M.R., Chong, S., Myers, A.C.: Civitas: Toward a Secure Voting System. In: Proceedings of 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 354–368. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: the second-generation onion router. In: SSYM 2004: Proceedings of 13th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 21–38. USENIX Association (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fink, R.A., Sherman, A.T., Carback, R.: TPM meets DRE: reducing the trust base for electronic voting using trusted platform modules. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 4(4), 628–637 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harn, L.: Group-Oriented (t,n) Threshold Digital Signature Scheme and Digital Multisignature. In: IEE Proceedings—Computers and Digital Techniques, vol. 141, pp. 307–313 (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A., Rivest, R.L.: Making Mix Nets Robust for Electronic Voting by Randomised Partial Checking. In: Proceedings of 11th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 339–353. USENIX Assoc., Berkeley (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jakobsson, M., Yung, M.: Revokable and Versatile Electronic Money (Extended Abstract). In: Proceedings of CCS 1996, pp. 76–87. ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jorba, A.R., Ruiz, J.A.O., Brown, P.: Advanced Security to Enable Trustworthy Electronic Voting. In: Proceedings of Third European Conference on E-Government, EJEG, Dublin, Ireland (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-Resistant Electronic Elections. In: Proceedings WPES 2005, pp. 61–70. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kügler, D., Vogt, H.: Off-line Payments with Auditable Tracing. In: Blaze, M. (ed.) FC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2357, pp. 269–281. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, B., Boyd, C., Kim, K., Yang, J., Yoo, S.: Providing receipt-freeness in mixnet-based voting protocols. In: Lim, J.-I., Lee, D.-H. (eds.) ICISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2971, pp. 245–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okamoto, T.: Receipt-Free Electronic Voting Schemes for Large Scale Elections. In: Christianson, B., Lomas, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 1997. LNCS, vol. 1361, pp. 25–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paillier, P.: Public-Key Cryptosystems Based on Discrete Logarithms Residues. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, p. 223. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paul, N., Tanenbaum, A.S.: Trustworthy Voting: From Machine to System. Computer 42(5), 35–41 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rössler, T., Leitold, H., Posch, R.: E-Voting: A Scalable Approach using XML and Hardware Security Modules. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service, pp. 480–485. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryan, P.Y., Schneider, S.: Prêt à voter with re-encryption mixes. In: Gollmann, D., Meier, J., Sabelfeld, A. (eds.) ESORICS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4189, pp. 313–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saeednia, S., Kremer, S., Markowitch, O.: An Efficient Strong Designated Verifier Signature Scheme. In: Lim, J.-I., Lee, D.-H. (eds.) ICISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2971, pp. 40–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sako, K., Kilian, J.: Receipt-free mix-type voting scheme. In: Guillou, L.C., Quisquater, J.-J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1995. LNCS, vol. 921, pp. 393–403. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smart, M., Ritter, E.: Remote electronic voting with revocable anonymity. In: Prakash, A., Sen Gupta, I. (eds.) ICISS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5905, pp. 39–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    TCG: Trusted Computing Group: TPM Main: Parts 2 and 3, Version 1.2, Revision 116 (March 2011),
  32. 32.
    Volkamer, M., Alkassar, A., Sadeghi, A.R., Schulz, S.: Enabling the Application of Open Systems like PCs for Online Voting. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Workshop on Frontiers in Electronic Elections, FEE 2006 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matt Smart
    • 1
  • Eike Ritter
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations