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

Joe Wadsworth

dblp:255/4925 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1 · 1 since 2021

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
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › electronic voting
end-to-end verifiable e-voting
0.812024
Towards End-to-End Verifiable Online Voting: Adding Verifiability to Established Voting Systems · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › electronic voting
verifiable voting
0.812024
Towards End-to-End Verifiable Online Voting: Adding Verifiability to Established Voting Systems · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › electronic voting › verifiable voting
voter verification
0.812024
Towards End-to-End Verifiable Online Voting: Adding Verifiability to Established Voting Systems · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024

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

tracker-based vote verification · 0.8selene verifiability layer · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Towards End-to-End Verifiable Online Voting: Adding Verifiability to Established Voting Systems
abstract
Online voting for independent elections is generally supported by trusted election providers. Typically these providers do not offer any way in which a voter can verify their vote, and hence the providers are trusted with ballot privacy and in ensuring correctness. Despite the desire to offer online voting for political elections, this lack of transparency and verifiability is often seen as a significant barrier to the large-scale adoption of online elections. Adding verifiability to an online election increases transparency and integrity, as well as allowing voters to verify that the vote they cast has been recorded correctly and included in the tally. However, replacing existing online systems with those that provide verifiable voting requires new algorithms and code to be deployed, and this presents a significant business risk to commercial election providers, as well as the societal risk for official elections selecting for public office. In this paper we present the first step in an incremental approach which minimises the business risk but demonstrates the advantages of verifiability, by developing an implementation of key elements of a Selene-based verifiability layer and adding it to an operational online voting system. Selene is a verifiable voting protocol that publishes votes in plaintext alongside a voter's tracker. These trackers enable voters to confirm that their votes have been captured correctly by the system, such that the election provider does not know which tracker has been allocated to which voter. This results in a system where even a “dishonest but cautious” election authority running the system cannot be sure of changing the result in an undetectable way, and hence gives stronger guarantees on the integrity of the election than were previously present. We explore the challenges presented by adding a verifiability layer to an operational system. The system was used in two initial trials conducted within real contested elections. We conclude by outlining the further steps in the road-map towards the deployment of a fully trustworthy online voting system.
Mohammed Alsadi 0001, Matthew Casey 0001, Constantin Catalin Dragan, François Dupressoir, Luke Riley, Muntadher Fadhil Sallal, Steve A. Schneider, Helen Treharne, Joe Wadsworth, Phil Wright
IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput.9