Election Verifiability in Receipt-Free Voting Protocols

S. Baloglu, Sergiu Bursuc, S. Mauw, Jun Pang
{"title":"Election Verifiability in Receipt-Free Voting Protocols","authors":"S. Baloglu, Sergiu Bursuc, S. Mauw, Jun Pang","doi":"10.1109/CSF57540.2023.00005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Electronic voting is a prominent example of conflicting requirements in security protocols, as the triad of privacy, verifiability and usability is essential for their deployment in practice. Receipt-freeness is a particularly strong notion of privacy, stating that it should be preserved even if voters cooperate with the adversary. While there are impossibility results showing we cannot have receipt-freeness and verifiability at the same time, there are several protocols that aim to achieve both, based on carefully devised trust assumptions. To evaluate their security, we propose a general symbolic definition of election verifiability, extending the state of the art to capture the more complex structure of receipt-free protocols. We apply this definition to analyse, using ProVerif, recent protocols with promising practical features: BeleniosRF and several variants of Selene. Against BeleniosRF, we find several attacks showing that verifiability in Belenios does indeed suffer from the attempt to introduce receipt-freeness. On the other hand, Selene satisfies a weaker notion of receipt-freeness, but we show that it satisfies verifiability in stronger corruption scenarios. We introduce a general frame-work to compare the verifiability of these protocols in various corruption scenarios and conclude with an analysis of SeleneRF, an attempt to get the best of both that we formalise in this paper. In addition to extending the symbolic model, our results point to foundational gaps in current cryptographic models for election verifiability, as they fail to uncover attacks that we do.","PeriodicalId":179870,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE 36th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2023 IEEE 36th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSF57540.2023.00005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Electronic voting is a prominent example of conflicting requirements in security protocols, as the triad of privacy, verifiability and usability is essential for their deployment in practice. Receipt-freeness is a particularly strong notion of privacy, stating that it should be preserved even if voters cooperate with the adversary. While there are impossibility results showing we cannot have receipt-freeness and verifiability at the same time, there are several protocols that aim to achieve both, based on carefully devised trust assumptions. To evaluate their security, we propose a general symbolic definition of election verifiability, extending the state of the art to capture the more complex structure of receipt-free protocols. We apply this definition to analyse, using ProVerif, recent protocols with promising practical features: BeleniosRF and several variants of Selene. Against BeleniosRF, we find several attacks showing that verifiability in Belenios does indeed suffer from the attempt to introduce receipt-freeness. On the other hand, Selene satisfies a weaker notion of receipt-freeness, but we show that it satisfies verifiability in stronger corruption scenarios. We introduce a general frame-work to compare the verifiability of these protocols in various corruption scenarios and conclude with an analysis of SeleneRF, an attempt to get the best of both that we formalise in this paper. In addition to extending the symbolic model, our results point to foundational gaps in current cryptographic models for election verifiability, as they fail to uncover attacks that we do.
无收据投票协议中的选举可验证性
电子投票是安全协议中相互冲突的需求的一个突出例子,因为隐私、可验证性和可用性的三位一体对于它们在实践中的部署至关重要。无收据是一种特别强烈的隐私概念,即使选民与对手合作,它也应该得到保护。虽然不可能的结果表明我们不能同时拥有无收据性和可验证性,但有几个协议旨在实现这两个目标,基于精心设计的信任假设。为了评估其安全性,我们提出了选举可验证性的一般符号定义,扩展了目前的技术状态,以捕获更复杂的无收据协议结构。我们使用ProVerif将这一定义应用于分析具有有前途的实用功能的最新协议:BeleniosRF和Selene的几个变体。针对BeleniosRF,我们发现了几次攻击,表明Belenios的可验证性确实受到引入无收据的企图的影响。另一方面,Selene满足较弱的无收据概念,但我们表明它在较强的腐败场景中满足可验证性。我们引入了一个通用框架来比较这些协议在各种损坏情况下的可验证性,并以对SeleneRF的分析结束,试图在本文中形式化的两者中获得最好的结果。除了扩展符号模型之外,我们的研究结果还指出了当前选举可验证性加密模型的基本缺陷,因为它们无法发现我们所做的攻击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信