2016
DOI: 10.1002/sec.1678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Norwegian internet voting protocol revisited: ballot box and receipt generator are allowed to collude

Abstract: Norway experienced internet voting in 2011 and 2013 for municipal and parliamentary elections, respectively. Its security depends on the assumptions that the involving organizations are completely independent, reliable, and the receipt codes are securely sent to the voters. In this paper, we point out the following aspects: The vote privacy of the Norwegian scheme is violated if Ballot Box and Receipt Generator cooperate because the private key of Decryption Service can be obtained by the two former players. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The list of Internet voters is not public "until voting is complete on election day" 11 . Alike with paper ballots, "the electronic ballot box containing votes cast via the internet shall also be sealed" 12 .…”
Section: Security and Secrecy Of The Vote And Integrity Of The Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The list of Internet voters is not public "until voting is complete on election day" 11 . Alike with paper ballots, "the electronic ballot box containing votes cast via the internet shall also be sealed" 12 .…”
Section: Security and Secrecy Of The Vote And Integrity Of The Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To do so, the voter must download an application available on the Åland e-Government website and then verify the vote using a QR code which has been sent via the i-Voting system as a receipt/proof of casting a vote. This process is quite similar to the ones followed elsewhere in Estonia [15,18], Switzerland [10,16] or Norway [8,11]. Besides, the law prescribes the Government of Åland to "arrange for verification of the votes in the electronic ballot box in order to ensure that they have been registered as intended, that they have been stored as they were registered and that they have been counted as they were stored.…”
Section: Verification Methodsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In response to this, the voter should send their vote anonymously along with the signed token as a proof of eligibility. An alternative approach is to use homomorphic encryption [9]. In this approach, the voter encrypts their vote.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2013, Zwattendorfer et al [26] proposed a proxy voting scheme that allows a voter to delegate his or her voting power to a proxy who actually casts the ballots for all represented voters. Norway has used an Internet-based voting protocol for some years, and the vote privacy and correctness of this scheme have been demonstrated [27]. In 2016, Kulyk et al [28] proposed a new coercion-resistant proxy voting scheme by extending the coercion-resistant JCJ/Civitas theme, aiming to prevent direct voter coercion, delegation coercion, and proxy coercion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%