{"title":"电子投票中的抗胁迫性和无收据性","authors":"S. Delaune, S. Kremer, M. Ryan","doi":"10.1109/CSFW.2006.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we formally study important properties of electronic voting protocols. In particular we are interested in coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness. Intuitively, an election protocol is coercion-resistant if a voter A cannot prove to a potential coercer C that she voted in a particular way. We assume that A cooperates with C in an interactive fashion. Receipt-freeness is a weaker property, for which we assume that A and C cannot interact during the protocol: to break receipt-freeness, A later provides evidence (the receipt) of how she voted. While receipt-freeness can be expressed using observational equivalence from the applied pi calculus, we need to introduce a new relation to capture coercion-resistance. Our formalization of coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness are quite different. Nevertheless, we show in accordance with intuition that coercion-resistance implies receipt-freeness, which implies privacy, the basic anonymity property of voting protocols, as defined in previous work. Finally we illustrate the definitions on a simplified version of the Lee et al. voting protocol","PeriodicalId":131951,"journal":{"name":"19th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW'06)","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"170","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness in electronic voting\",\"authors\":\"S. Delaune, S. Kremer, M. Ryan\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CSFW.2006.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper we formally study important properties of electronic voting protocols. In particular we are interested in coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness. Intuitively, an election protocol is coercion-resistant if a voter A cannot prove to a potential coercer C that she voted in a particular way. We assume that A cooperates with C in an interactive fashion. Receipt-freeness is a weaker property, for which we assume that A and C cannot interact during the protocol: to break receipt-freeness, A later provides evidence (the receipt) of how she voted. While receipt-freeness can be expressed using observational equivalence from the applied pi calculus, we need to introduce a new relation to capture coercion-resistance. Our formalization of coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness are quite different. Nevertheless, we show in accordance with intuition that coercion-resistance implies receipt-freeness, which implies privacy, the basic anonymity property of voting protocols, as defined in previous work. Finally we illustrate the definitions on a simplified version of the Lee et al. voting protocol\",\"PeriodicalId\":131951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"19th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW'06)\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"170\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"19th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW'06)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSFW.2006.8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"19th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW'06)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSFW.2006.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness in electronic voting
In this paper we formally study important properties of electronic voting protocols. In particular we are interested in coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness. Intuitively, an election protocol is coercion-resistant if a voter A cannot prove to a potential coercer C that she voted in a particular way. We assume that A cooperates with C in an interactive fashion. Receipt-freeness is a weaker property, for which we assume that A and C cannot interact during the protocol: to break receipt-freeness, A later provides evidence (the receipt) of how she voted. While receipt-freeness can be expressed using observational equivalence from the applied pi calculus, we need to introduce a new relation to capture coercion-resistance. Our formalization of coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness are quite different. Nevertheless, we show in accordance with intuition that coercion-resistance implies receipt-freeness, which implies privacy, the basic anonymity property of voting protocols, as defined in previous work. Finally we illustrate the definitions on a simplified version of the Lee et al. voting protocol