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.

Tigran Antonyan

dblp:83/8522 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1 · 1 first-author

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
Digital forensics and information hiding · 44% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 44% Authentication and access control · 13%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › electronic voting
electronic voting security
0.112009
State-wide elections, optical scan voting systems, and the pursuit of integrity · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2009

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

audit procedure design · 0.1adversarial modeling · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 State-wide elections, optical scan voting systems, and the pursuit of integrity
abstract
In recent years, two distinct electronic voting technologies have been introduced and extensively utilized in election procedures: direct recording electronic systems and optical scan (OS) systems. The latter are typically deemed safer, as they inherently provide a voter-verifiable paper trail that enables hand-counted audits and recounts that rely on direct voter input. For this reason, OS machines have been widely deployed in the United States. Despite the growing popularity of these machines, they are known to suffer from various security vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, can compromise the integrity of elections in which the machines are used. This article studies general auditing procedures designed to enhance the integrity of elections conducted with optical scan equipment and, additionally, describes the specific auditing procedures currently in place in the State of Connecticut. We present an abstract view of a typical OS voting technology and its relationship to the general election process. With this in place, we lay down a ldquotemporal-resourcerdquo adversarial model, providing a simple language for describing the disruptive power of a potential adversary. Finally, we identify how audit procedures, injected at various critical stages before, during, and after an election, can frustrate such adversarial interference and so contribute to election integrity. We present the implementation of such auditing procedures for elections in the State of Connecticut utilizing the Premiere (Diebold) AccuVote OS; these audits were conducted by the UConn VoTeR Center, at the University of Connecticut, on request of the Office of the Secretary of the State. We discuss the effectiveness of such procedures in every stage of the process and we present results and observations gathered from the analysis of past election data.
Tigran Antonyan, Seda Davtyan, Sotiris Kentros, Aggelos Kiayias, Laurent D. Michel, Nicolas C. Nicolaou, Alexander Russell, Alexander A. Schwarzmann
IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur.1