Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us
Search
Cart
Book cover

International Conference on Principles of Security and Trust

POST 2012: Principles of Security and Trust pp 109–128Cite as

  1. Home
  2. Principles of Security and Trust
  3. Conference paper
A Formal Analysis of the Norwegian E-voting Protocol

A Formal Analysis of the Norwegian E-voting Protocol

  • Véronique Cortier18 &
  • Cyrille Wiedling18 
  • Conference paper
  • 1624 Accesses

  • 18 Citations

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNSC,volume 7215)

Abstract

Norway has used e-voting in its last political election in September 2011, with more than 25 000 voters using the e-voting option. The underlying protocol is a new protocol designed by the ERGO group, involving several actors (a bulletin box but also a receipt generator, a decryption service, and an auditor). Of course, trusting the correctness and security of e-voting protocols is crucial in that context. Formal definitions of properties such as privacy, coercion-resistance or verifiability have been recently proposed, based on equivalence properties.

In this paper, we propose a formal analysis of the protocol used in Norway, w.r.t. privacy, considering several corruption scenarios. Part of this study has conducted using the ProVerif tool, on a simplified model.

Keywords

  • e-voting
  • privacy
  • formal methods

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no 258865, project ProSecure.

Download conference paper PDF

References

  1. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4069101,00.html

  2. Web page of the norwegian government on the deployment of e-voting, http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/krd/prosjekter/e-vote-2011-project.html

  3. Abadi, M., Fournet, C.: Mobile values, new names, and secure communication. In: 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2001 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanchet, B.: An automatic security protocol verifier based on resolution theorem proving (invited tutorial). In: 20th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-20), Tallinn, Estonia (July 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blanchet, B., Abadi, M., Fournet, C.: Automated verification of selected equivalences for security protocols. In: 20th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2005), pp. 331–340. IEEE Computer Society (June 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chadha, R., Ciobâcă, Ş., Kremer, S.: Automated Verification of Equivalence Properties of Cryptographic Protocols. In: 21th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP 2012). LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cheval, V., Comon-Lundh, H., Delaune, S.: Trace equivalence decision: Negative tests and non-determinism. In: 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2011). ACM Press (October 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cortier, V., Delaune, S.: A method for proving observational equivalence. In: 22nd Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF 2009). IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cortier, V., Smyth, B.: Attacking and fixing Helios: An analysis of ballot secrecy. In: 24th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF 2011). IEEE Computer Society (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cortier, V., Wiedling, C.: A formal analysis of the Norwegian e-voting protocol. Technical Report RR-7781, INRIA (November 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Delaune, S., Kremer, S., Ryan, M.D.: Verifying privacy-type properties of electronic voting protocols. Journal of Computer Security 17(4), 435–487 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Feldman, A.J., Halderman, J.A., Felten, E.W.: Security analysis of the diebold accuvote-ts voting machine (2006), http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Gjøsteen, K.: Analysis of an internet voting protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2010/380 (2010), http://eprint.iacr.org/

  16. Klus, P., Smyth, B., Ryan, M.D.: ProSwapper: Improved equivalence verifier for ProVerif (2010), http://www.bensmyth.com/proswapper.php

  17. Kremer, S., Ryan, M., Smyth, B.: Election Verifiability in Electronic Voting Protocols. In: Gritzalis, D., Preneel, B., Theoharidou, M. (eds.) ESORICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6345, pp. 389–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Küsters, R., Truderung, T.: An Epistemic Approach to Coercion-Resistance for Electronic Voting Protocols. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P 2009), pp. 251–266. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Küsters, R., Truderung, T., Vogt, A.: A Game-Based Definition of Coercion-Resistance and its Applications. In: 23nd IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF 2010). IEEE Computer Society (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Küsters, R., Truderung, T., Vogt, A.: Proving Coercion-Resistance of Scantegrity II. In: Soriano, M., Qing, S., López, J. (eds.) ICICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6476, pp. 281–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee, B., Boyd, C., Dawson, E., 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu, J.: A Proof of Coincidence of Labeled Bisimilarity and Observational Equivalence in Applied Pi Calculus (2011), http://lcs.ios.ac.cn/~jliu/papers/LiuJia0608.pdf

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. 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: 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LORIA - CNRS, Nancy, France

    Véronique Cortier & Cyrille Wiedling

Authors
  1. Véronique Cortier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cyrille Wiedling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo, 3, 56127, Pisa, Italy

    Pierpaolo Degano

  2. Computer Science, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, 01609, Worcester, MA, USA

    Joshua D. Guttman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cortier, V., Wiedling, C. (2012). A Formal Analysis of the Norwegian E-voting Protocol. In: Degano, P., Guttman, J.D. (eds) Principles of Security and Trust. POST 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7215. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28641-4_7

Download citation

  • .RIS
  • .ENW
  • .BIB
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28641-4_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28640-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28641-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our imprints

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support

167.114.118.212

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature