Internet Voting Ashok CS 395T. What is “E-voting” Thomas Edison received US patent number 90,646 for an electrographic vote recorder in 1869. Specific.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
I Think I Voted. E-voting vs. Democracy Prof. David L. Dill Department of Computer Science Stanford University
Advertisements

ETen E-Poll ID – Strasbourg COE meeting November, 2006 Slide 1 E-TEN E-POLL Project Electronic Polling System for Remote Operation Strasbourg.
Internet Voting Technology and policy issues. Selective History of Voting (US) early 1800’s: public oral voting at County Hall 1800’s: free-form, non-secret.
Defeating Malicious Terminals in an Electronic Voting System Daniel Hanley Andre dos Santos Jeff King Georgia Tech Information Security Center.
DECEMBER 2010 ELECTIONS DIRECTORS CONFERENCE A Guide to Post-Election Surveys.
Self-Enforcing E-Voting (SEEV) Feng Hao Newcastle University, UK CryptoForma’13, Egham.
Ronald L. Rivest MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Internet Voting Technology and policy issues David Wagner UC Berkeley.
Internet Voting David Jefferson Compaq Systems Research Center 130 Lytton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMSC 414 Computer and Network Security Lecture 8 Jonathan Katz.
Voting Naked: A Feasible Election System or Just a Recurring Nightmare Presented by: Danita McRae Daniel Bramell.
Internet Voting. What is Internet Voting? Internet voting is: an election process whereby people can cast their votes over the Internet, most likely through.
Ballot Processing Systems February, 2005 Submission to OASIS EML TC and True Vote Maryland by David RR Webber.
Domain Name System | DNSSEC. 2  Internet Protocol address uniquely identifies laptops or phones or other devices  The Domain Name System matches IP.
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 UOCAVA Pilot Projects for the 2012 Federal Election Report from the UOCAVA Working Group Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of.
Edward Perez, Product Manager Hart InterCivic, Austin, Texas The Future? Many-to-Many or How We Learned to Stop Worrying, and Love Human Restlessness.
TGDC Meeting, July 2011 Overview of July TGDC Meeting Belinda L. Collins, Ph.D. Senior Advisor, Voting Standards, ITL
TGDC Meeting, July 2011 Update on the UOCAVA Working Group Andrew Regenscheid Mathematician, Computer Security Division, ITL
Requirements for Electronic and Internet Voting Systems in Public Elections David Jefferson Compaq Systems Research Center Palo Alto, CA
Council of Europe e-voting meeting Progress Report – Austria Andreas Ehringfeld INSO - Industrial Software Institute of Computer Aided Automation | Vienna.
United States Election Assistance Commission EAC UOCAVA Documents: Status &Update EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee Meeting (TGDC)
Demystifying the Independent Test Authority (ITA)
12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Vote-by-Phone David Flater / Sharon Laskowski National Institute of Standards and Technology
Anual Workshop February 5th, Anonymous yet reliable ePoll application Italo Dacosta SecAnon-DistriNet.
25 October Elections and Voting. Punch Card Machine Punch cards stacked here Punched here.
CPS 82, Fall Illustrated History of Voting l l.
12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting NIST Research on UOCAVA Voting Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of Standards and Technology
UOCAVA Report Overview and Status July 2008 Andrew Regenscheid Computer Security Division National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Electronic Voting Ronald L. Rivest MIT Laboratory for Computer Science.
6. Esoteric Protocols secure elections and multi-party computation Kim Hyoung-Shick.
Audit Trail
UOCAVA Voting in Four States A Study of Election Administration.
Course code: ABI 204 Introduction to E-Commerce Chapter 5: Security Threats to Electronic Commerce AMA University 1.
Nathanael Paul CRyptography Applications Bistro February 3, 2004.
Security Overview  System protection requirements areas  Types of information protection  Information Architecture dimensions  Public Key Infrastructure.
Evoting using collaborative clustering Justin Gray Osama Khaleel Joey LaConte Frank Watson.
Online voting: a legal perspective
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Accessibility and Usability Considerations for UOCAVA Remote Electronic Voting Systems Sharon Laskowski, PhD National Institute.
TGDC Meeting, July 2010 Security Considerations for Remote Electronic UOCAVA Voting Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of Standards and Technology
TGDC Meeting, July 2010 Report of the UOCAVA Working Group John Wack National Institute of Standards and Technology DRAFT.
BY: CHRIS GROVES Privacy in the Voting Booth. Reason for Privacy Voters worry that their vote may be held against them in the future  People shouldn’t.
Electronic Voting R. Newman. Topics Defining anonymity Need for anonymity Defining privacy Threats to anonymity and privacy Mechanisms to provide anonymity.
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Review of UOCAVA Roadmap Nelson Hastings National Institute of Standards and Technology
The Administration of Elections Extent of Federal control Elections need to be free, honest, and accurate Most election law in the U.S. is State Law.
Secure Remote Electronic Voting CSE-681 Fall 2006 David Foster and Laura Stapleton Laura StapletonLaura Stapleton.
Election Reform The Open Voting Consortium. Elections are important Voting is how we ultimately control.our government Many elections are decided by just.
12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting The VVSG Version 1.1 Overview John P. Wack National Institute of Standards and Technology
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Development of High Level Guidelines for UOCAVA voting systems Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of Standards and Technology.
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Report from Workshop on UOCAVA Remote Voting Systems Nelson Hastings National Institute of Standards and Technology
SemiCorp Inc. Presented by Danu Hunskunatai GGU ID #
What is electronic voting An electronic voting (e-voting) system is a voting system in which the election data is recorded, stored and processed primarily.
1 Network Security. 2 Security Services Confidentiality: protection of any information from being exposed to unintended entities. –Information content.
Secure, verifiable online voting 29 th June 2016.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Ronald L. Rivest MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
VOTING ASSISTANCE ELEMENT 49..
CONFIDENCE IN COLORADO’S ELECTIONS
Electronic voting – safe or not?
UOCAVA Electronic Blank Ballot Delivery Use Case
Voting Assistance Element 49.
Voting Assistance Element 49.
Voting Assistance Element pg.208.
Voting Assistance Element 49 pg.217.
Voting Assistance Element 49 pg.217.
Voting Assistance Element 49 pg.217.
Voting Assistance Element 49 pg.217.
Voting Assistance Element 49 pg.208.
Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System (ETPBS)
Voting Assistance Element 49 P. 217.
Voting Assistance Element 49 P. 217.
Presentation transcript:

Internet Voting Ashok CS 395T

What is “E-voting” Thomas Edison received US patent number 90,646 for an electrographic vote recorder in Specific implementations : 1)electronic counting 2)kiosk voting – Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines 3)remote electronic voting (REV) – Internet (voting applet, website), text messaging, touch-tone phone, etc. DREs and REVs fail to provide voter-verifiable audit trails, undermining voter confidence.

Security Criteria Criteria fall in 2 categories - keep votes secret, and provide secure and reliable voting infrastructure. Most popularly accepted (technological) : 1)system integrity and reliability – vote counting must produce reproducibly correct results 2)data integrity and reliability 3)voter anonymity and data confidentiality – voting counts must be protected from outside reading during voting process 4)operator authentication – no trapdoors for maintenance or setup! 5)system accountability

Security Criteria cont’d 6)system disclosability 7)system availability 8)usability Challenge comes from contradiction between voter confidentiality and system accountability.

Problems & Attacks Overriding problem is voter disenfranchisement

Problems & Attacks cont’d uInternet voting should at a minimum address issues and doubts of absentee voting uCoercion even more problematic with Internet voting Internet facilitates large-scale vote selling and buying, perhaps automated uMalicious software and access to shared computers uData in system need not need modification but public disclosure, even after polling period u(last-day) DoS attacks uDNS attacks uPriority of electronic vs. traditional ballots

Framework

Trustworthy Entities

Blinding Signatures and Anonymous Channels

Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) uBuilt by Accenture and DoD Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) Covered by Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) uFollow-up to Voting Over the Internet (VOI) Built by Booz-Allen & Hamilton with different architecture and codebase Used in 2000 election to collect 84 votes in Florida, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah FVAP’s 2001 Voting Over the Internet Pilot Project Assessment Report - 50 votes in Florida! Abandoned over DoS and malicious software exposure

Submitted from ActiveX control from IE SERVE cont’d Voter SERVE { Ballot } Kleo LEO { Ballot, V } Kserve Download request for encrypted votes and voter list LEO can download fast enough to deduce vote - voter mapping SERVE admins can maybe view vote! SERVE retains encrypted ballot

SERVE cont’d uVote selling / buying still possible selling of voting credentials vote from different addresses using proxy server; orgs that use same IP address from all users in domain uBackdoors – OS, games, device drivers, multimedia, browser plugins, screen savers, etc. ActiveX control itself u No voter verification uAdversary can spoof voting server