Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Civitas Verifiability and Coercion Resistance for Remote Voting University of South Alabama August 15, 2012 Michael Clarkson The George Washington University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Civitas Verifiability and Coercion Resistance for Remote Voting University of South Alabama August 15, 2012 Michael Clarkson The George Washington University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Civitas Verifiability and Coercion Resistance for Remote Voting University of South Alabama August 15, 2012 Michael Clarkson The George Washington University with Stephen Chong (Harvard) and Andrew Myers (Cornell)

2 2 INTEGRITYCONFIDENTIALITY

3 Remote 3 (including Internet) INTEGRITYCONFIDENTIALITY

4 Mutual Distrust 4 KEY PRINCIPLE:

5 INTEGRITY 5 Universal verifiability Voter verifiability Eligibility verifiability UV: [Sako and Killian 1994, 1995] EV & VV: [Kremer, Ryan & Smyth 2010]

6 CONFIDENTIALITY 6 Coercion resistance better than receipt freeness or simple anonymity RF: [Benaloh 1994] CR: [Juels, Catalano & Jakobsson 2005]

7 AVAILABILITY 7 Tally availability

8 Security Properties Original system: Universal verifiability Eligibility verifiability Coercion resistance Follow-up projects: Voter verifiability Tally availability 8 …under various assumptions

9 9 JCJ Voting Scheme [Juels, Catalano & Jakobsson 2005] Proved universal verifiability and coercion resistance Civitas extends JCJ

10 10 Civitas Architecture bulletin board voter client tabulation teller registration teller ballot box

11 11 Registration voter client registration teller Voter retrieves credential share from each registration teller; combines to form credential

12 Credentials Verifiable Unsalable Unforgeable Anonymous 12

13 13 Voting voter client ballot box Voter submits copy of encrypted choice and credential to each ballot box

14 Resisting Coercion: Fake Credentials 14

15 15 Resisting Coercion If the coercer demands that the voter… Then the voter… Submits a particular voteDoes so with a fake credential. Sells or surrenders a credential Supplies a fake credential. AbstainsSupplies a fake credential to the adversary and votes with a real one.

16 16 Tabulation bulletin board tabulation teller ballot box Tellers retrieve votes from ballot boxes

17 17 Tabulation bulletin board tabulation teller Tabulation tellers anonymize votes; eliminate unauthorized (and fake) credentials; decrypt remaining choices.

18 18 Auditing bulletin board Anyone can verify proofs that tabulation is correct ballot box

19 19 Civitas Architecture bulletin board voter client tabulation teller registration teller ballot box Universal verifiability: Tellers post proofs during tabulation Coercion resistance: Voters can undetectably fake credentials S ECURITY P ROOFS

20 20 Protocols –El Gamal; distributed [Brandt]; non-malleable [Schnorr and Jakobsson] –Proof of knowledge of discrete log [Schnorr] –Proof of equality of discrete logarithms [Chaum & Pederson] –Authentication and key establishment [Needham-Schroeder- Lowe] –Designated-verifier reencryption proof [Hirt & Sako] –1-out-of-L reencryption proof [Hirt & Sako] –Signature of knowledge of discrete logarithms [Camenisch & Stadler] –Reencryption mix network with randomized partial checking [Jakobsson, Juels & Rivest] –Plaintext equivalence test [Jakobsson & Juels] Implementation: 21k LoC

21 Trust Assumptions 21

22 22 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

23 23 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller. Universal verifiability Coercion resistance Coercion resistance

24 24 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

25 25 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

26 Registration 26 In person. In advance. Con:System not fully remote Pro:Credential can be used in many elections

27 27 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

28 Eliminating Trust in Voter Client 28 VV: Use challenges (like Helios, VoteBox) CR: Open problem

29 29 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

30 30 Trust Assumptions` 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

31 31 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

32 Untappable Channel 32 Minimal known assumption for receipt freeness and coercion resistance Eliminate? Open problem. (Eliminate trusted registration teller? Also open.)

33 33 Trust Assumptions 1. “Cryptography works.” 2. The adversary cannot masquerade as a voter during registration. 3. Voters trust their voting client. 4. At least one of each type of authority is honest. 5. The channels from the voter to the ballot boxes are anonymous. 6. Each voter has an untappable channel to a trusted registration teller.

34 Trusted procedures? 34

35 Time to Tally 35

36 36 Tabulation Time # voters in precinct = K, # tab. tellers = 4, security strength ≥ 112 bits [NIST 2011–2030]

37 37 Summary Can achieve strong security and transparency: –Remote voting –Universal (voter, eligibility) verifiability –Coercion resistance Security is not free: –Stronger registration (untappable channel) –Cryptography (computationally expensive)

38 Assurance 38 Security proofs (JCJ, us)Secure implementation (Jif)

39 Ranked Voting 39

40 40 Open Problems Coercion-resistant voter client? Voter-verifiable voter client? Eliminate untappable channel in registration? Credential management? Usability? Application-level denial of service?

41 41 Technical Issues Web interfaces BFT bulletin board Threshold cryptography Anonymous channel integration

42 as (google “civitas voting”)

43 Civitas Verifiability and Coercion Resistance for Remote Voting University of South Alabama August 15, 2012 Michael Clarkson The George Washington University with Stephen Chong (Harvard) and Andrew Myers (Cornell)


Download ppt "Civitas Verifiability and Coercion Resistance for Remote Voting University of South Alabama August 15, 2012 Michael Clarkson The George Washington University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google