Randomized Partial Checking Revisited

Khazaei, Shahram; Wikström, Douglas

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36095-4_8

Cited by 20 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted in [13], duplicate elimination is necessary to prevent a serious attack on privacy. We therefore need to fix some details of the procedure of duplicate elimination (see below).…”

Section: Chaumian Rpc MIX Netmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We note that sometimes heuristics are implemented by which this assumption can be dropped (see [11]). However, as pointed out in [13], especially in the case of in-phase auditing, this leads to problems.…”

Section: Description Of the Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, one verifies the decryption proofs. As pointed out in [13], the third step, which often has been omitted in implementations and is not mentioned in [11], is crucial for verifiability and privacy.…”

Section: Description Of the Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cheating by any mix server. This attack, which seems to have been sketched already in [13] and is illustrated on the right-hand side of Figure 2, can be applied to the first mixing step of any mix server. The idea is that a mix server M j for two positions p and q in its intermediate sequence C 2 j+1 of ciphertexts sets both…”

Section: Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, none that provides formal security guarantees for privacy or verifiability/accountability. As mentioned, Kahazei and Wikström [13] point out and discuss attacks. In [8], the authors study the distance between the probability distribution of the permutation links in RPC mix nets and the uniform distribution, however, as also pointed out in [13], this result does not capture privacy or verifiability of RPC mix nets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Formal Analysis of Chaumian Mix Nets with Randomized Partial Checking

Küsters

Truderung

Vogt

2014

2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mix nets with randomized partial checking (RPC mix nets) have been introduced by Jakobsson, Juels, and Rivest as particularly simple and efficient verifiable mix nets. These mix nets have been used in several implementations of prominent e-voting systems to provide vote privacy and verifiability. In RPC mix nets, higher efficiency is traded for a lower level of privacy and verifiability. However, these mix nets have never undergone a rigorous formal analysis. Recently, Kahazei and Wikström even pointed out several severe problems in the original proposal and in implementations of RPC mix nets in e-voting systems, both for so-called re-encryption and Chaumian RPC mix nets. While Kahazei and Wikström proposed several fixes, the security status of Chaumian RPC mix nets (with the fixes applied) has been left open; re-encryption RPC mix nets, as they suggest, should not be used at all.In this paper, we provide the first formal security analysis of Chaumian RPC mix nets. We propose security definitions that allow one to measure the level of privacy and verifiability RPC mix nets offer, and then based on these definitions, carry out a rigorous analysis. Altogether, our results show that these mix nets provide a reasonable level of privacy and verifiability, and that they are still an interesting option for the use in e-voting systems.

show abstract

“…As noted in [13], duplicate elimination is necessary to prevent a serious attack on privacy. We therefore need to fix some details of the procedure of duplicate elimination (see below).…”

Section: Chaumian Rpc MIX Netmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Formal Analysis of Chaumian Mix Nets with Randomized Partial Checking

Küsters

Truderung

Vogt

2014

2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Selective comparison of verifiable online voting systems

Finogina,

Cucurull Juan,

Costa

2024

Security and Privacy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to provide a guideline for identifying the most suitable online voting system under the given requirements and acceptable tradeoffs. We have selected twelve (more or less) well‐known online voting systems that rely on distinct cryptographic mechanisms for achieving security. For each of the systems, we summarized the key architectural and cryptographic ideas behind their design. Then, we analyzed the required trust assumptions for achieving the three most important security properties (i.e., verifiability, divided between cast‐as‐intended, recorded‐as‐cast, and tallied‐as‐recorded verifiabilities, privacy, and receipt‐freeness). To make a fair comparison, we did our analysis based on identical security definitions. Note that we selected wildly known and well‐accepted definitions, which are scheme‐neutral, to avoid any biases. Also, we discussed some of the most critical practical aspects of those systems, such as–the necessity for secure or anonymous channels, reliance on secure printer facilities and so forth. To facilitate the comparison, we suggested a unified naming convention for system elements based on their roles and functions. Then, based on the unified naming convention, we compared all twelve online voting systems for both the security properties and practical aspects. Finally, we summarized our observations regarding patterns and dependencies we observed, provided guidelines for selecting the online voting system, and gave recommendations regarding system design. We hope our work contributes to the online literature and facilitates the process of selecting the most suitable e‐voting system depending on the requirements of a specific election.

show abstract

Towards Model Checking of Voting Protocols in Uppaal

Jamroga

Kurpiewski

et al. 2020

Electronic Voting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomized Partial Checking Revisited

Cited by 20 publications

References 22 publications

Formal Analysis of Chaumian Mix Nets with Randomized Partial Checking

Formal Analysis of Chaumian Mix Nets with Randomized Partial Checking

Selective comparison of verifiable online voting systems

Towards Model Checking of Voting Protocols in Uppaal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About