Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Margaret MacAlpine

dblp:153/5837 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 87% Privacy and data protection · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security
election security
0.212014
Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System · CCS 2014
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.212014
Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System · CCS 2014
Privacy and data protection › anonymity
voter privacy
0.112014
Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System · CCS 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

threat modeling · 0.2code review · 0.2adversarial testing · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System
abstract
Estonia was the first country in the world to use Internet voting nationally, and today more than 30% of its ballots are cast online. In this paper, we analyze the security of the Estonian I-voting system based on a combination of in-person election observation, code review, and adversarial testing. Adopting a threat model that considers the advanced threats faced by a national election system---including dishonest insiders and state-sponsored attacks---we find that the I-voting system has serious architectural limitations and procedural gaps that potentially jeopardize the integrity of elections. In experimental attacks on a reproduction of the system, we demonstrate how such attackers could target the election servers or voters' clients to alter election results or undermine the legitimacy of the system. Our findings illustrate the practical obstacles to Internet voting in the modern world, and they carry lessons for Estonia, for other countries considering adopting such systems, and for the security research community.
Drew Springall, Travis Finkenauer, Zakir Durumeric, Jason Kitcat, Harri Hursti, Margaret MacAlpine, J. Alex Halderman
CCS6