DOCSLIB.ORG

Scantegrity II: End-To-End Verifiability by Voters of Optical Scan Elections Through Confirmation Codes David Chaum, Richard T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scantegrity II: End-To-End Verifiability by Voters of Optical Scan Elections Through Confirmation Codes David Chaum, Richard T IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION FORENSICS AND SECURITY, VOL. 4, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2009 611 Scantegrity II: End-to-End Verifiability by Voters of Optical Scan Elections Through Confirmation Codes David Chaum, Richard T. Carback, Jeremy Clark, Aleksander Essex, Stefan Popoveniuc, Ronald L. Rivest, Peter Y. A. Ryan, Emily Shen, Alan T. Sherman, and Poorvi L. Vora Abstract—Scantegrity II is an enhancement for existing paper (DRE) voting machines began to replace paper ballots and ballot systems. It allows voters to verify election integrity—from lever systems in about 1980 [2]. More recently, however, their selections on the ballot all the way to the final tally—by due to reliability failures and security vulnerabilities, the noting codes and checking for them online. Voters mark Scant- egrity II ballots just as with conventional optical scan, but using trend has been toward replacing DREs with paper ballot a special ballot marking pen. Marking a selection with this pen systems, including optical scan systems [30]. Optical scan, makes legible an otherwise invisible preprinted confirmation however, is not without its own demonstrated and inherent code. Confirmation codes are independent and random for each integrity vulnerabilities (see, for example, [29]). Undetected potential selection on each ballot. To verify that their individual errors, unintentional or malicious, in the scanning or tallying votes are recorded correctly, voters can look up their ballot serial numbers online and verify that their confirmation codes are posted software can cause undetected errors in the electronic tally. correctly. The confirmation codes do not allow voters to prove how Improperly printed ballots enable a variety of attacks on they voted. However, the confirmation codes constitute convincing integrity. Misplaced ballots or breaches in chain-of-custody evidence of error or malfeasance in the event that incorrect codes render even expensive manual recounts ineffective. Further, are posted online. Correctness of the final tally with respect to the transparency offered by manual recounts is at best limited the published codes is proven by election officials in a manner that can be verified by any interested party. Thus, compromise to those officials and observers in attendance. Scantegrity of either ballot chain of custody or the software systems cannot II is an enhancement for optical scan voting systems that undetectably affect election integrity. Scantegrity II has been addresses the above deficiencies, while also providing ballot implemented and tested in small elections in which ballots were secrecy guarantees under reasonable assumptions. scanned either at the polling place or centrally. Preparations for In Scantegrity II, voters mark ballots using a special its use in a public sector election have commenced. ballot-marking pen, which makes legible preprinted confirma- Index Terms—Cryptography, electronic voting, end-to-end veri- tion codes corresponding to voter selections. The link between fiability, privacy. confirmation codes and voter selections is cryptographically I. INTRODUCTION protected, with the key(s) being shared by election officials. Voters may note down their confirmation codes onto a chit APER ballots dominate elections globally, apart from a that is detachable from the ballot. After the election, all voted P few exceptions such as Brazil and India. In the United confirmation codes are posted online, where voters may check States, optical scan systems and direct recording electronic them. The final tally is computed in a verifiable manner from Manuscript received February 23, 2009; revised October 07, 2009. First pub- the posted confirmation codes. lished October 20, 2009; current version published November 18, 2009. The work of J. Clark and A. Essex was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and The functionality of Scantegrity II is enabled by the use of Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The work of S. Popoveniuc several types of ink with special properties, in the following and P. L. Vora was supported by NSF-CNS-0831149. The associate editor co- ways. ordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was 1) Confirmation codes and ballot ovals are printed with a spe- Dr. Bart Preneel. D. Chaum is with the Voting Systems Institute, Los Angeles, CA 90064 USA cial ink that darkens when it reacts with the ink in the (e-mail: [email protected]). ballot-marking pen; the confirmation code ink reacts more R. T. Carback and A. T. Sherman are with the Department of Com- slowly than the ballot oval ink, and hence darkens several puter Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland, Balti- more County, Baltimore, MD 21250 USA (e-mail: [email protected]; minutes after the oval does. Thus, the code is visible for [email protected]). several minutes after being marked, during which the voter J. Clark is with the David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, Univer- may note it on the chit. On the other hand, the confirma- sity of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada (e-mail: [email protected] tion code may be assumed to be indistinguishable from its terloo.ca). A. Essex is with the School of Information Technology and Engineering, Uni- background in an unmarked oval. This allows the Scant- versity of Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada (e-mail: [email protected]). egrity II system to provide a confirmation code to the voter S. Popoveniuc and P. L. Vora are with the National Institute of Standards only after the voter has made the corresponding ballot se- and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]). lection. R. L. Rivest and E. Shen are with the Department of Electrical Engineering 2) The Scantegrity II chit bears two serial numbers that are and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA required of the voter in order to check the confirmation 02139 USA (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]). R. Y. A. Ryan is with the Faculte des Sciences, de la Techologie et de la Com- codes online. These serial numbers are also indistinguish- munication, University of Luxembourg, L-1359, Luxembourg (e-mail: peter. able from the background until made legible through the [email protected]). use of a decoding pen. The ink in the decoding pens is dif- Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. ferent from the ink in the ballot-marking pens. Poll workers Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIFS.2009.2034919 reveal the serial numbers using a decoding pen after the 1556-6013/$26.00 © 2009 IEEE 612 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION FORENSICS AND SECURITY, VOL. 4, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2009 ballot is cast. This prevents voters from falsely claiming that information linking confirmation codes and ballot serial that a valid confirmation code, obtained from an uncast numbers to voter selections can be removed from ballots a few ballot, came from a cast ballot. When it is not possible to minutes after they are marked. As with regular optical scan, use the different inks required for chit serial numbers and forensic attacks are possible—coercive adversaries could, for decoder pens, it is possible to achieve a similar end, though example, use specialized equipment to attempt to read the codes with weaker integrity guarantees, by requiring that a record on the ballots. We assume these are too time-consuming and be kept, by polling officials and observers, of serial num- unwieldy to be very practical, for two reasons. First, we have bers of spoiled ballots. instituted printing procedures to minimize the effectiveness of Scantegrity II has implemented procedures for printing with the such ballot analyses; these are described in Section V. Second, inks to make it virtually impossible to read unexposed numbers simpler attacks, based on the fingerprinting of the underlying and codes with the human eye. Further, it is reasonable to as- paper using commodity scanners [12], are possible against sume that voters do not have access to ballots outside the polling perforated paper-ballot-based end-to-end voting systems in booth, and that they do not have access to specialized equipment general (including Scantegrity and Prêt à Voter). inside the polling booth. The inks thus enable the Scantegrity II voting system to provide voters with confirmation codes that A. Contributions correspond exactly to their selections, and serial numbers that Scantegrity II and its predecessor Scantegrity [9] have the fol- correspond exactly to valid cast ballots. lowing characteristics that distinguish them from other systems Scantegrity II, like several other systems (such as Prêt à Voter that provide end-to-end verifiability: [11], Punchscan [15], [16], [26], Scratch & Vote [1]) provides 1) Compatibility with optical scan equipment: Scantegrity a mechanism for end-to-end verifiability of election integrity: and Scantegrity II do not require the replacement of any voters may verify that their selections are included unmodified optical scan polling place equipment. Both systems in- in the collection of selections; additionally, anyone may verify terface cleanly with the underlying optical scan system, that the tally is computed correctly from the collection of selec- requiring only a modified ballot and access to the results tions. Votersand authorized observers may “audit” ballots by re- from the scanners. quiring the voting system to expose all confirmation codes and 2) Familiar ballot-marking procedure: The ballot-marking corresponding selections on the audited ballots, and checking procedure is very similar to that for a conventional optical that these correspond to those printed on the ballots. Audited scan ballot. Opting into verification of election integrity is ballots may not be used for voting. up to the individual voter. The verifiability property of Scantegrity II is independent of Two properties of Scantegrity II distinguish it from Scant- voting system software correctness and ballot chain-of-custody egrity. after ballots are cast.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carback, R.T.: Security Innovations In
    APPROVAL SHEET Title of Thesis: Security Innovations in the Punchscan Voting System Name of Candidate: Richard T. Carback III Master of Science, 2008 Thesis and Abstract Approved: Alan T. Sherman Associate Professor Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Date Approved: April 18th, 2008 Curriculum Vitae Name: Richard T. Carback III. Permanent Address: 2819 Manoff Rd, Halethorpe, MD 21227. Degree and date to be conferred: Master of Science, August 2007. Date of Birth: March 27, 1983. Place of Birth: Baltimore, Maryland. Secondary Education: Chesapeake High School, Pasadena, Maryland, 2001. Collegiate institutions attended: University of Maryland Baltimore County, Master of Science, Computer Science, 2008. Bachelor of Science, Computer Science, 2005. Major: Computer Science. Minor: None. Professional publications: • David Chaum, Richard Carback, Jeremy Clark, Aleksander Essex, Stefan Popoveniuc, Ronald L. Rivest, Peter Y.A. Ryan, Emily Shen, and Alan T. Sherman. Scantegrity II: End-to-End Verifiability for Optical Scan Election Systems using Invisible Ink Confirmation Codes. Submitted to USENIX EVT 2008. • Russell A. Fink, Alan T. Sherman, and Richard Carback. TPM Meets DRE: Reducing the Trust Base for Electronic Voting using Trusted Platform Modules. Submitted to USENIX EVT 2008. • David Chaum, Aleksander Essex, Richard Carback, Jeremy Clark, Stefan Popoveniuc, Alan T. Sherman, and Poorvi Vora. Scantegrity: End-to- end voter verifiable optical-scan voting. Accepted for publication in IEEE Security and Privacy, volume May/June, 2008. • Stefan Popoveniuc, Jeremy Clark, Richard Carback, and Aleksander Essex. Securing optical-scan voting. Presented at Dagstuhl. To be published in Towards Trustworthy Election Systems in the Lecture Notes in Computer Science series by Spinger-Verlag, date unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • An Implementation of Dual (Paper and Cryptographic) Voting System
    Tel Aviv University Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences The Blatavnik School of Computer Sciences An Implementation of Dual (Paper and Cryptograhic) Voting System Submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements towards the Master of Science degree by Niko Farhi The research work has been conducted under the supervision of Prof. Amnon Ta-Shma March 2013 Abstract This thesis reports on the design and implementation of a cryptographic voting system, named Wombat. The system is designed to retain the ”look and feel” of standard paper- based plurality voting, while enhancing security using methods from modern electronic voting literature. To achieve this, the system executes two voting processes in parallel: one is electronic and end-to-end verifiable, while the other is paper based and emulates more traditional processes (to which the voters are accustomed). Consistency between the two processes is enforced by means of a new specially-tailored paper ballot format. In addition, this work examines the practicality of the Wombat protocol through im- plementation and field testing in two student council elections with over 2000 voters and party premiership elections with almost 900 voters. During these field test the usabilty, performance and voter satisfaction was examined. Overall, voters trusted the system and found it comfortable to use. Parts of this work were presented in EVote2012. ii Acknowledgments I wish to thank my advisor, Prof. Amnon Ta-Shma for his patience with me. I also wish to thank Mr. Ben Riva for providing aid when it was needed. iii Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgments iii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 ThesisOutline................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Scantegrity Voting System and Its Use in the Takoma Park Elections
    The Scantegrity Voting System and its Use in the Takoma Park Elections David Chaum Richard T. Carback Jeremy Clark Aleksander Essex Travis Mayberry Stefan Popoveniuc Ronald L. Rivest Emily Shen Alan T. Sherman Poorvi L. Vora John Wittrock Filip Zagórski 1 Introduction The Scantegrity project began with a simple question: is it possible to design a voting system offering the strong security properties of cryptographic end-to-end (E2E) election verification with the intuitive look and feel of a paper optical-scan ballot? This chapter recounts a decade-long research effort toward answering this question, from the design of Scantegrity’s precursor Punchscan, all the way to the first governmental election run by an E2E voting system. The main focus of this chapter is on the Scantegrity II voting system (hereafter referred to as simply Scantegrity) and its use in the municipal elections of Takoma Park, MD in 2009 and 2011. To our knowledge, the Takoma Park election of 2009 was the first use of an E2E-verifiable voting system in an in-person secret-ballot governmental election anywhere in the world, as well as being the first governmental election held in the United States to run on open-source software. We also describe the Punchscan voting system and its use in the 2007 election of the the University of Ottawa Graduate Students Association/Association Étudiant(e)s Diplômé(e)s (GSAÉD), which, to our knowledge, is the first time an E2E voting system was used in a binding election.1 Additionally, this chapter describes the remote voting system Remotegrity and accessible Scantegrity variant Audiotegrity, and their use in the 2011 Takoma Park election.
    [Show full text]
  • Demtech Research Security Analysis of Scantegrity System
    DemTech Research Security Analysis of Scantegrity System DemTech Technical Report Series TR-2012-1 May 2012 Copyright c 2012, DemTech Research Project IT University of Copenhagen All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or part of this work is permitted for educational or research use on condition that this copyright notice is included in any copy. Copies may be obtained by contacting: DemTech Project IT University of Copenhagen Rued Langgaards Vej 7 DK-2300 Copenhagen S Denmark Telephone: +45 72 18 50 00 Telefax: +45 72 18 50 01 Web www.demtech.dk This work is supported in part by DemTech grant 10-092309 awarded by the Danish Council for Strategic Research, Programme Commission on Strategic Growth Technologies. Security Analysis of Scantegrity System Amir Rached Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Bachelor of Science. Committee: • Professor Carsten Schurmann¨ • Professor Joseph Kiniry 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Scantegrity 3 2.1 Basic Idea . 3 2.2 Scantegrity System . 4 2.3 Scantegrity Back-end . 5 2.4 Voting Experience . 7 2.5 Security . 8 2.5.1 Integrity . 8 2.5.2 Privacy . 9 3 Implementation 9 4 Deployment 10 4.1 Election Setting . 10 4.1.1 Meeting 1 . 10 4.1.2 Meeting 2 . 11 4.1.3 Meeting 3 . 11 4.1.4 Meeting 4 . 11 4.2 Back-end Architecture . 11 5 Evaluation 15 5.1 Douglas Wikstroem Attacks . 15 5.1.1 The Duplicates Thread . 15 5.1.2 The Duplicates Thread and The Inconsistency of Opened Commitments with a Permutation Thread . 16 5.1.3 The Inconsistency of Unrevealed Commitments with a Permutation Thread 16 5.1.4 Universal Verfiability When Checking Is Performed at the End of the Mixing 17 5.2 Initial Automated Language-based Security Analysis .
    [Show full text]
  • SCV End to End Verifiable Internet Voting -- System Perspective
    SCV end to end voting over the Internet Mirosław Kutyłowski, Filip Zagórski Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology Wrocław University of Technology Abstract. We present Scratch, Click & Vote remote voting scheme. The scheme is end-to-end verifiable and allows for voting over the Internet. It guarantees se­ curity against malicious hardware and software used by a voter; a voter’s com­ puter does not get any knowledge about the voter’s choice. Moreover, it can blindly change the voter’s ballot with a small probability only. As a side result, we present a modification of the ThreeBallot that eliminates Strauss’-like attacks on this scheme. Keywords: Internet voting, e-voting, E2E, verifiable voting scheme, ThreeBallot, Punchscan 1 Introduction There are two main scenarios of e-voting: advanced voting procedures at polling places and remote electronic voting. Polling station voting Recently it has became evident that badly designed e- voting machines can be extremely dangerous to a voting process [8,10,14]. For­ tunately, a number of end-to-end auditable voting systems (E2E) has been pre­ sented recently. Interestingly, some recent designs implement electronic voting without any electronic voting machines [3,6,5,4]. Moreover, for these schemes each voter gets a receipt, which may be used to check if the voter’s ballot has been included in the tally. It is also possible to verify correctness of the results. On the other hand, the receipt cannot be used even by the voter to prove how she voted. So they cannot help to sell or buy votes.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Reliable Voting Machine Software
    Building Reliable Voting Machine Software Ka-Ping Yee Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2007-167 http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2007/EECS-2007-167.html December 19, 2007 Copyright © 2007, by the author(s). All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission. Acknowledgement I am grateful to many people who helped make this dissertation possible. My advisors: David Wagner, Marti Hearst. My committee members: Henry Brady, Joe Hellerstein. Advice: Steve Bellovin, Candy Lopez, Scott Luebking, Noel Runyan, Joseph Hall. Security review: Matt Bishop, Ian Goldberg, Tadayoshi Kohno, Mark Miller, Dan Sandler, Dan Wallach. Funding: National Science Foundation, through ACCURATE. Thanks also to Scott Kim, La Shana Porlaris, Lisa Friedman, and my parents. Building Reliable Voting Machine Software Ka-Ping Yee B. A. Sc. (University of Waterloo) 1998 A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science Committee in charge: Professor David Wagner, Co-chair Professor Marti Hearst, Co-chair Professor Henry Brady Professor Joseph Hellerstein Fall 2007 The dissertation of Ka-Ping Yee is approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Practical End-To-End Verifiable Voting Systems
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: Engineering Practical End-to-End Verifiable Voting Systems Richard T. Carback III, Doctor of Philosophy, 2010 Dissertationdirected by: Alan T. Sherman, Associate Professor Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering We designed, built, tested, and fielded a vote counting system called Scantegrity. Scan- tegrity is part of a new class of end-to-end (E2E) verifiable voting systems. E2E verifiable systems are designed to solve chain of custody problems in elections by providing a privacy-preserving receipt to each voter. The voter can use the receipt to check a public record and verify that his or her ballot is counted without revealing the selected candidate. The public record gives election officials the ability to provide a strong, universally-accessible audit of the results, enabling transparent, verifiable elections that maintain privacy expectations. E2E systems offer radical improvements to integrity and transparency of election systems, and the adoption of E2E systems in public-sector elections can improve outcome integrity. In our design, we carefully considered the balance between usability and security issues, and we discuss the changes we made to implement the system. We examined the implementation through the results of a practical test of Scantegrity in a mock election in April 2009, which evaluated the system’s performance and surveyed the election participants about their experience with the system. We describe a number of changes we made to the system as a result of this test. For example, Scantegrity required better printing technology and a tally reconciliation system. We evaluated the modified system a second time by fielding it in the Takoma Park, Maryland, November 2009 municipal election, where we were able to survey voters and observe events throughout election day.
    [Show full text]
  • An E-Voting System That Ensures Voter Confidentiality and Candidate Privacy
    Enhanced Name and Vote Separated E‐voting System: An E‐voting System That Ensures Voter Confidentiality and Candidate Privacy __________________________________________ ©2014 Wiley. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works. This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Haijun Pan, Edwin S.H. Hou, and Nirwan Ansari, “Enhanced Name and Vote Separated E‐voting System: An E‐voting System That Ensures Voter Confidentiality and Candidate Privacy,” Wiley Security and Communication Networks, DOI: 10.1002/sec.944, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 2335– 2344, Dec. 2014. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sec.944/abstract E-NOTE: An E-voting System That Ensures Voter Confidentiality and Candidate Privacy Haijun Pan, Edwin Hou, and Nirwan Ansari Abstract—In this paper, we propose an improved E-voting system based on our previous work (Name and vOte separaTed E-voting system, NOTE). The proposed E-voting system, referred to as Enhanced NOTE (E-NOTE), is enhanced with a new protocol design and a watchdog hardware device to ensure voter confidentiality and voting accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Scantegrity II Municipal Election at Takoma Park: the First E2E Binding Governmental Election with Ballot Privacy
    Scantegrity II Municipal Election at Takoma Park: The First E2E Binding Governmental Election with Ballot Privacy Richard Carback David Chaum Jeremy Clark John Conway UMBC CDL University of Waterloo UMBC CDL Aleksander Essex Paul S. Herrnson Travis Mayberry Stefan Popoveniuc University of Waterloo UMCP CAPC UMBC CDL Ronald L. Rivest Emily Shen Alan T. Sherman Poorvi L. Vora MIT CSAIL MIT CSAIL UMBC CDL GW Abstract learned. While the paper provides a simple summary of survey results, the focus of this paper is not usability but On November 3, 2009, voters in Takoma Park, Mary- the engineering process of bringing a new cryptographic land, cast ballots for the mayor and city council members approach to solve a complex practical problem involving using the Scantegrity II voting system—the first time technology, procedures, and laws. any end-to-end (E2E) voting system with ballot privacy With the Scantegrity II voting system, voters mark op- has been used in a binding governmental election. This tical scan paper ballots with pens, filling the oval for case study describes the various efforts that went into the candidates of their choice. These ballots are handled the election—including the improved design and imple- as traditional ballots, permitting all the usual automated mentation of the voting system, streamlined procedures, and manual counting, accounting, and recounting. Ad- agreements with the city, and assessments of the experi- ditionally, the voting system provides a layer of integrity ences of voters and poll workers. protection through its use of invisible-ink confirmation The election, with 1728 voters from six wards, in- codes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scantegrity Voting System and Its Use in the Takoma Park Elections
    Chapter 10 The Scantegrity Voting System and Its Use in the Takoma Park Elections Richard T. Carback Draper Labs David Chaum Voting Systems Institute Jeremy Clark Concordia University Aleksander Essex Western University Travis Mayberry US Naval Academy Stefan Popoveniuc The George Washington University Ronald L. Rivest MIT 237 238 Real-World Electronic Voting: Design, Analysis and Deployment Emily Shen MIT Alan T. Sherman UMBC Poorvi L. Vora The George Washington University John Wittrock AppNexus Filip Zagórski Wrocław University of Technology CONTENTS 10.1 Introduction ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 239 10.1.1 Key Properties :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 239 10.1.2 Outline ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 241 10.1.3 Organization of This Chapter :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 241 10.2 The Punchscan Voting System :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 242 10.2.1 Voter Experience :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 242 10.2.2 Election Set-Up ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 242 10.2.3 Ballot Printing and Voter Privacy ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 244 10.2.4 The First Binding E2E Election :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 244 10.2.5 Lessons Learned :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 246 10.3 The Scantegrity II Voting System ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 246 10.3.1 Ballot Features :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 247 10.3.2 The Scantegrity Back-End ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 248 10.3.3 Election Day ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    [Show full text]
  • A Novel E-Voting System with Diverse Security Features
    New Jersey Institute of Technology Digital Commons @ NJIT Dissertations Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fall 2017 A novel e-voting system with diverse security features Haijun Pan New Jersey Institute of Technology Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/dissertations Part of the Electrical and Electronics Commons Recommended Citation Pan, Haijun, "A novel e-voting system with diverse security features" (2017). Dissertations. 8. https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/dissertations/8 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Digital Commons @ NJIT. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ NJIT. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright Warning & Restrictions The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a, user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use” that user may be liable for copyright infringement, This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of End-To-End Verifiable Voting Systems
    An Overview of End-to-End Verifiable Voting Systems∗ Syed Taha Ali and Judy Murray 1 School of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan [email protected], 2 School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, United Kingdom [email protected] Abstract. Advances in E2E verifiable voting have the potential to fundamen- tally restore trust in elections and democratic processes in society. In this chapter, we provide a comprehensive introduction to the field. We trace the evolution of privacy and verifiability properties in the research literature and describe the oper- ations of current state-of-the-art E2E voting systems. We also discuss outstanding challenges to the deployment of E2E voting systems, including technical, legal, and usability constraints. Our intention, in writing this chapter, has been to make the innovations in this domain accessible to a wider audience. We have therefore eschewed description of complex cryptographic mechanisms and instead attempt to communicate the fundamental intuition behind the design of E2E voting systems. We hope our work serves as a useful resource and assists in the future development of E2E voting. Keywords: E2E verifiable voting, electronic elections 1 Introduction The use of cryptography to secure elections was first suggested by Chaum in 1981 in a highly influential paper on anonymous communications [1]. Chaum described new cryptographic primitives, or building blocks, and proposed various applications for these, including the possibility of conducting remote electronic elections. This idea proved popular in the academic research community, and, over the next two decades, arXiv:1605.08554v1 [cs.CR] 27 May 2016 a multitude of voting systems appeared in the literature, a handful of which resulted in actual prototype solutions [2] [3].
    [Show full text]