Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
2015 Neuchâtel’s Cast-as-Intended Verification Mechanism Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2015 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Verifiable Internet Elections with Everlasting Privacy and Minimal Trust

verfasst von : Philipp Locher, Rolf Haenni

Erschienen in: E-Voting and Identity

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper presents a new cryptographic Internet voting protocol based on a set membership proof and a proof of knowledge of the representation of a committed value. When casting a vote, the voter provides a zero-knowledge proof of knowledge of the representation of one of the registered voter credentials. In this way, votes are anonymized without the need of trusted authorities. The absence of such authorities reduces the trust assumptions to a minimum and makes our protocol remarkably simple. Since computational intractability assumptions are only necessary to prevent the creation of invalid votes during the voting period, but not to protect the secrecy of the vote, the protocol even offers a solution to the everlasting privacy problem.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Extending Helios Towards Private Eligibility Verifiability
Nächstes Kapitel Vote Validatability in Mix-Net-Based eVoting
Fußnoten
1
To ensure that generators are independent, they need to be generated in some publicly reproducible way, for example by deriving them from a common reference string.
 
2
The number of exponentiations given in [3, Table 2] is incorrect for the verification. The correct result of \(6\lfloor \log M\rfloor \) exponentiations is obtained by counting \(c_j^x\) in Step 2 and \(c_{j+1}^x\) in Step 3 as one exponentiation only. This remark together with the correct result can be found in [3, Page 11], i.e., only the table entry is incorrect. Furthermore, we cannot reproduce the result of \(2M\) multiplications for the verification reported in [3, Table 2]. According to our analysis, at least \(3M\) multiplications are needed.
 
3
The bandwidth requirements given in [2, Table 4] are clearly incorrect. It seems that the \(K\) elements of \(\mathbb {G}_q\) have been counted falsely as elements of \(\mathcal {G}_p\).
 
4
We are aware that requiring a secure platform is a strong assumption. We do not explicitly address this problem in this paper, but our protocol allows voters at least to detect a compromised platform as long as they can read the bulletin board in a secure way.
 
5
To ensure that u has been computed from fresh values \((\alpha ,\beta )\), the voter could be asked to prove knowledge of \((\alpha ,\beta )\) by computing \( NIZKP [(\alpha ,\beta ):u = h_1^{\alpha }h_2^{\beta }]\). As this is not an essential step for our protocol, we omit it in our presentation.
 
6
UniCrypt is publicly available on GitHub under a dual AGPLv3/commercial licence, see https://​github.​com/​bfh-evg/​unicrypt.
 
Literatur
1.
Arapinis, M., Cortier, V., Kremer, S., Ryan, M.: Practical everlasting privacy. In: Basin, D., Mitchell, J.C. (eds.) POST 2013 (ETAPS 2013). LNCS, vol. 7796, pp. 21–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
2.
Au, M.H., Susilo, W., Mu, Y.: Proof-of-knowledge of representation of committed value and its applications. In: Steinfeld, R., Hawkes, P. (eds.) ACISP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6168, pp. 352–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRef
3.
Bayer, S., Groth, J.: Zero-knowledge argument for polynomial evaluation with application to blacklists. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 646–663. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
4.
Brands, S.: Rethinking Public Key Infrastructures and Digital Certificates: Building in Privacy. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)MATH
5.
Brands, S., Demuynck, L., De Decker, B.: A practical system for globally revoking the unlinkable pseudonyms of unknown users. In: Pieprzyk, J., Ghodosi, H., Dawson, E. (eds.) ACISP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4586, pp. 400–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRef
6.
Buchmann, J., Demirel, D., van de Graaf, J.: Towards a publicly-verifiable mix-net providing everlasting privacy. In: Sadeghi, A.-R. (ed.) FC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7859, pp. 197–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
7.
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) CrossRef
8.
Camenisch, J.L., Stadler, M.A.: Efficient group signature schemes for large groups. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (1997) CrossRef
9.
Canard, S., Traoré, J.: List signature schemes and application to electronic voting. In: Augot, D., Charpin, P., Kabatianski, G. (eds.) WCC’03, 3rd International Workshop on Coding and Cryptography, Versailles, France, pp. 81–90 (2003)
10.
Chaum, D.: The dining cryptographers problem: unconditional sender and recipient untraceability. J. Cryptol. 1(1), 65–75 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRef
11.
Demirel, D., Henning, M., van de Graaf, J., Ryan, P.Y.A., Buchmann, J.: Prêt à voter providing everlasting privacy. In: Heather, J., Schneider, S., Teague, V. (eds.) Vote-ID 2013. LNCS, vol. 7985, pp. 156–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRef
12.
Demirel, D., van de Graaf, J., Araújo, R.: Improving Helios with everlasting privacy towards the public. In: Halderman, J.A., Pereira, O. (eds.) Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections, EVT/WOTE 2012, Bellevue, USA (2012)
13.
Fiat, A., Shamir, A.: How to prove yourself: practical solutions to identification and signature problems. In: Odlyzko, A.M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1986. LNCS, vol. 263, pp. 186–194. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)
14.
Fujioka, A., Okamoto, T., Ohta, K.: A practical secret voting scheme for large scale elections. In: Seberry, J., Zheng, Y. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1992. LNCS, vol. 718, pp. 244–251. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)
15.
Groth, J.: Efficient maximal privacy in boardroom voting and anonymous broadcast. In: Juels, A. (ed.) FC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3110, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRef
16.
Kiayias, A., Yung, M.: Self-tallying Elections and Perfect Ballot Secrecy. In: Naccache, D., Paillier, P. (eds.) PKC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2274, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) CrossRef
17.
Locher, P., Haenni, R.: A lightweight implementation of a shuffle proof for electronic voting systems. In: Plödereder, E., Grunske, L., Schneider, E., Ull, D. (eds.) INFORMATIK 2014. Lecture Notes in Informatics, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 1391–1400. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2014)
18.
Moran, T., Naor, M.: Receipt-free universally-verifiable voting with everlasting privacy. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 373–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRef
19.
Moran, T., Naor, M.: Split-ballot voting: everlasting privacy with distributed trust. In: Ning, P., de Capitani di Vimercati, S., Syverson, P. (eds.) CC 2007, 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Alexandria, USA, pp. 246–255 (2007)
20.
Moran, T., Naor, M.: Split-ballot voting: everlasting privacy with distributed trust. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 13(2), 16:1–16:43 (2010)CrossRef
21.
van de Graaf, J.: Voting with unconditional privacy by merging Prêt à Voter and PunchScan. IEEE Trans. Info. Forensics Secur. 4(4), 674–684 (2009)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Verifiable Internet Elections with Everlasting Privacy and Minimal Trust
verfasst von
Philipp Locher
Rolf Haenni
Copyright-Jahr
2015
Buch
E-Voting and Identity

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22269-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-22270-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2015

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22270-7_5