Category: Voting

Coconut E-Petition Implementation

An interesting new multi-authority selective-disclosure credential scheme called Coconut has been recently released, which has the potential to enable applications that were not possible before. Selective-disclosure credential systems allow issuance of a credential (having one or more attributes) to a user, with the ability to unlinkably reveal or “show” said credential at a later instance, for purposes of authentication or authorization. The system also provides the user with the ability to “show” specific attributes of that credential or a specific function of the attributes embedded in the credential; e.g. if the user gets issued an identification credential and it has an attribute x representing their age, let’s say x = 25, they can show that f(x) > 21 without revealing x.

High-level overview of Coconut, from the Coconut paper

A particular use-case for this scheme is to create a privacy-preserving e-petition system. There are a number of anonymous electronic petition systems that are currently being developed but all lack important security properties: (i) unlinkability – the ability to break the link between users and specific petitions they signed, and (ii) multi-authority – the absence of a single trusted third party in the system. Through multi-authority selective disclosure credentials like Coconut, these systems can achieve unlinkability without relying on a single trusted third party. For example, if there are 100 eligible users with a valid credential, and there are a total of 75 signatures when the petition closes, it is not possible to know which 75 people of the total 100 actually signed the petition.

Continue reading Coconut E-Petition Implementation

Coconut: Threshold Issuance Selective Disclosure Credentials with Applications to Distributed Ledgers

Selective disclosure credentials allow the issuance of a credential to a user, and the subsequent unlinkable revelation (or ‘showing’) of some of the attributes it encodes to a verifier for the purposes of authentication, authorisation or to implement electronic cash. While a number of schemes have been proposed, these have limitations, particularly when it comes to issuing fully functional selective disclosure credentials without sacrificing desirable distributed trust assumptions. Some entrust a single issuer with the credential signature key, allowing a malicious issuer to forge any credential or electronic coin. Other schemes do not provide the necessary re-randomisation or blind issuing properties necessary to implement modern selective disclosure credentials. No existing scheme provides all of threshold distributed issuance, private attributes, re-randomisation, and unlinkable multi-show selective disclosure.

We address these challenges in our new work Coconut – a novel scheme that supports distributed threshold issuance, public and private attributes, re-randomization, and multiple unlinkable selective attribute revelations. Coconut allows a subset of decentralised mutually distrustful authorities to jointly issue credentials, on public or private attributes. These credentials cannot be forged by users, or any small subset of potentially corrupt authorities. Credentials can be re-randomised before selected attributes being shown to a verifier, protecting privacy even in the case all authorities and verifiers collude.

Applications to Smart Contracts

The lack of full-featured selective disclosure credentials impacts platforms that support ‘smart contracts’, such as Ethereum, Hyperledger and Chainspace. They all share the limitation that verifiable smart contracts may only perform operations recorded on a public blockchain. Moreover, the security models of these systems generally assume that integrity should hold in the presence of a threshold number of dishonest or faulty nodes (Byzantine fault tolerance). It is desirable for similar assumptions to hold for multiple credential issuers (threshold aggregability). Issuing credentials through smart contracts would be very useful. A smart contract could conditionally issue user credentials depending on the state of the blockchain, or attest some claim about a user operating through the contract—such as their identity, attributes, or even the balance of their wallet.

As Coconut is based on a threshold issuance signature scheme, that allows partial claims to be aggregated into a single credential,  it allows collections of authorities in charge of maintaining a blockchain, or a side chain based on a federated peg, to jointly issue selective disclosure credentials.

System Overview

Coconut is a fully featured selective disclosure credential system, supporting threshold credential issuance of public and private attributes, re-randomisation of credentials to support multiple unlikable revelations, and the ability to selectively disclose a subset of attributes. It is embedded into a smart contract library, that can be called from other contracts to issue credentials. The Coconut architecture is illustrated below. Any Coconut user may send a Coconut request command to a set of Coconut signing authorities; this command specifies a set of public or encrypted private attributes to be certified into the credential (1). Then, each authority answers with an issue command delivering a partial credentials (2). Any user can collect a threshold number of shares, aggregate them to form a consolidated credential, and re-randomise it (3). The use of the credential for authentication is however restricted to a user who knows the private attributes embedded in the credential—such as a private key. The user who owns the credentials can then execute the show protocol to selectively disclose attributes or statements about them (4). The showing protocol is publicly verifiable, and may be publicly recorded.

 

Implementation

We use Coconut to implement a generic smart contract library for Chainspace and one for Ethereum, performing public and private attribute issuing, aggregation, randomisation and selective disclosure. We evaluate their performance, and cost within those platforms. In addition, we design three applications using the Coconut contract library: a coin tumbler providing payment anonymity, a privacy preserving electronic petitions, and a proxy distribution system for a censorship resistance system. We implement and evaluate the first two former ones on the Chainspace platform, and provide a security and performance evaluation. We have released the Coconut white-paper, and the code is available as an open-source project on Github.

Performance

Coconut uses short and computationally efficient credentials, and efficient revelation of selected attributes and verification protocols. Each partial credentials and the consolidated credential is composed of exactly two group elements. The size of the credential remains constant, and the attribute showing and verification are O(1) in terms of both cryptographic computations and communication of cryptographic material – irrespective of the number of attributes or authorities/issuers. Our evaluation of the Coconut primitives shows very promising results. Verification takes about 10ms, while signing an attribute is 15 times faster. The latency is about 600 ms when the client aggregates partial credentials from 10 authorities distributed across the world.

Summary

Existing selective credential disclosure schemes do not provide the full set of desired properties needed to issue fully functional selective disclosure credentials without sacrificing desirable distributed trust assumptions. To fill this gap, we presented Coconut which enables selective disclosure credentials – an important privacy enhancing technology – to be embedded into modern transparent computation platforms. The paper includes an overview of the Coconut system, and the cryptographic primitives underlying Coconut; an implementation and evaluation of Coconut as a smart contract library in Chainspace and Ethereum, a sharded and a permissionless blockchain respectively; and three diverse and important application to anonymous payments, petitions and censorship resistance.

 

We have released the Coconut white-paper, and the code is available as an open-source project on GitHub.  We would be happy to receive your feedback, thoughts, and suggestions about Coconut via comments on this blog post.

The Coconut project is developed, and funded, in the context of the EU H2020 Decode project, the EPSRC Glass Houses project and the Alan Turing Institute.

Thinking about fake news – As a security incident?

In Tristan and David’s Philosophy, Politics and Economics of Security and Privacy class, Jono gave a little information about incident response.  As a result, we have been thinking about the recent furor over fake news. There are some big questions circling this topic, and we’re going to try to focus on a part we have some competence in: what an understanding of fake news as a security incident can contribute to the wider debate. Our goal here is mostly to highlight some lessons from security research that should be applicable, so we can help constrain the solution space. Ultimately, any solution will need to engage with wider civil society.

The lessons we will argue for in the following are:

  • Solutions need to support the elector’s primary task. Education to avoid cognitive biases is not a short- or medium-term solution.
  • Focus on aligning the incentives of the media companies and the voters. Reduce the return on investment for the adversary.
  • Any blocking should be strategically useful, and not merely reactionary.

First, we want a more specific term, as well as a less charged one. Fake news includes politically or financially motivated stories presented as factual reports on the world that are fictional in material ways, and usually are intended to stir strong feelings. This definition is hardly complete. Furthermore, similar to the term “post-truth” as discussed by Jasanoff and Simmet, the term “fake news” makes several value judgement we’d like to avoid. “Fake news” carries a strong suggestion that we, the speakers, know what is true and what isn’t, and it also indicates some condescension by the speaker for anyone who believes an item of fake news. We want to avoid such insults. Instead, let’s say we want to focus on the following hypothetical security policy: democratic elections should be free from foreign interference.

Grounding out this policy definition hangs on the term “interference.” This is hard. Ultimately, the will of an elector in a free and fair election needs to be respected. This makes it particularly challenging to agree on constraints to what information an elector has access to. In practice, no elector is omniscient, so some constraints de facto exist. But weighing in on this issue is outside our competence. Let’s assume for now that public policy will provide an assessment of “interference” eventually. The UK recently announced a “dedicated national security communications unit” would be charged with “combating disinformation by state actors and others.” In France, Emmanuel Macron plans legislation to fight interference from foreign sources during elections. Various social media platforms have likewise announced attempted fixes, which means they have some functional definition of what “interference” they’re seeking to remove. Unfortunately, “none of the tech giants claim to be ready” for the November 2018 elections in the US.

Interference in elections is a type of information warfare. An appropriate security policy needs to assess the threat environment and the capabilities of the adversaries. In particular, the Russian Federation has been assessed as a highly motivated and well-resourced actor in this space. We should note that Russia, in turn, assesses the intent and capability of the USA similarly. Tools and tactics within information warfare, particularly disinformation campaigns, help define “interference” within our security policy.

In this context, what can the security research community recommend? Well, the main target of the disinformation campaign are usual citizens. They are targetable largely due to inherent cognitive biases in the way humans process and reason about information. In security terms, we could see these biases as vulnerabilities in the system. Classically, we have two options to secure the system: patch the vulnerability, or prevent the adversary from exploiting it by controlling or filtering the attack before it reaches the target.

Patch in this case would mean teaching people to avoid cognitive biases in their day-to-day reasoning. Psychology tells us this is hard. Intelligence analysts train for months or years for this. And the research in usable security has affirmed time and time again that the users are not the enemy. That is, the system must alleviate the burden on the user’s attention and not interfere with their primary task, or else the user will subvert or avoid the protections put in place. Any changes in user culture are slow. This leads us to lesson 1 on preventing disinformation campaigns for election interference: solutions need to support the elector’s primary task. Education to avoid cognitive biases is not a short-term or medium-term solution.

Controlling the attack vectors is more promising, although filtering them is not. A key aspect of any information security policy is aligning the economic incentives of the actors. Economics is a main reason why infosec is hard. It may not be easy to reorganize the incentives in the advertising and news distribution media space. However, as long as organizations profit from more clicks on an article no matter the content, there will be an incentive to drive viewers that is ultimately at cross-purposes with our security goal. Such misaligned incentives often swamp any technical security solutions. And any adversary with an economic incentive to attack usually will. Thus our second lesson: focus on aligning the incentives of the media companies and the voters; reduce the return on investment for the adversary. Exactly how to do these things will require future work.

There are huge issues about human rights and free speech for blocking access to information. However, the technical aspects of blacklisting are worth understanding before even attempting such human-rights debates. Blacklists of internet resources, such as domain names, IP addresses, or web pages, are useful. But they’re not a final solution. Whether blacklists move at the speed of national legislatures or are updated every five minutes, their main impact is to cause the adversary to move around.  Blacklists alone are not enough. We would need to look for suspiciously mobile resources (i.e. fast-flux), and eventually whitelist resources. Blacklists such as implemented by Facebook in response to Congress are helpful. But we should carefully consider how they drive the disinformation campaigns into a place we are better able to counteract them, and be sure we don’t make such campaigns harder to find instead. Lesson 3 is therefore that any blocking should be strategically useful, and not merely reactionary.

We’d be happy for further comments on fake news, disinformation campaigns that interfere with elections, lessons we’ve missed, disagreements about the value of security research to this topic, and other comments you might have! This is a wide open topic, and we’re still sounding it all out.

Chainspace: A Sharded Smart Contracts Platform

Thanks to their resilience, integrity, and transparency properties, blockchains have gained much traction recently, with applications ranging from banking and energy sector to legal contracts and healthcare. Blockchains initially received attention as Bitcoin’s underlying technology. But for all its success as a popular cryptocurrency, Bitcoin suffers from scalability issues: with a current block size of 1MB and 10 minute inter-block interval, its throughput is capped at about 7 transactions per second, and a client that creates a transaction has to wait for about 10 minutes to confirm that it has been added to the blockchain. This is several orders of magnitude slower that what mainstream payment processing companies like Visa currently offer: transactions are confirmed within a few seconds, and have ahigh throughput of 2,000 transactions per second on average, peaking up to 56,000 transactions per second. A reparametrization of Bitcoin can somewhat assuage these issues, increasing throughput to to 27 transactions per second and 12 second latency. Smart contract platforms, such as Ethereum inherit those scalability limitations. More significant improvements, however, call for a fundamental redesign of the blockchain paradigm.

This week we published a pre-print of our new Chainspace system—a distributed ledger platform for high-integrity and transparent processing of transactions within a decentralized system. Chainspace uses smart contracts to offer extensibility, rather than catering to specific applications such as Bitcoin for a currency, or certificate transparency for certificate verification. Unlike Ethereum, Chainspace’s sharded architecture allows for a ledger linearly scalable since only the nodes concerned with the transaction have to process it. Our modest testbed of 60 cores achieves 350 transactions per second. In comparison, Bitcoin achieves a peak rate of less than 7 transactions per second for over 6k full nodes, and Ethereum currently processes 4 transactions per second (of a theoretical maximum of 25). Moreover, Chainspace is agnostic to the smart contract language, or identity infrastructure, and supports privacy features through modern zero-knowledge techniques. We have released the Chainspace whitepaper, and the code is available as an open-source project on GitHub.

System Overview

The figure above illustrates the system design of Chainspace. Chainspace is comprised of a network of infrastructure nodes that manage valid objects and ensure that only valid transactions on those objects are committed.  Let’s look at the data model of Chainspace first. An object represents a unit of data in the Chainspace system (e.g., a bank account), and is in one of the following three states: active (can be used by a transaction), locked (is being processed by an existing transaction), or inactive (was used by a previous transaction).  Objects also have a type that determines the unique identifier of the smart contract that defines them. Smart contract procedures can operate on active objects only, while inactive objects are retained just for the purposes of audit. Chainspace allows composition of smart contracts from different authors to provide ecosystem features. Each smart contract is associated with a checker to enable private processing of transactions on infrastructure nodes since checkers do not take any secret local parameters. Checkers are pure functions (i.e., deterministic, and have no side-effects) that return a boolean value.

Now, a valid transaction accepts active input objects along with other ancillary information, and generates output objects (e.g., transfers money to another bank account). To achieve high transaction throughput and low latency, Chainspace organizes nodes into shards that manage the state of objects, keep track of their validity, and record transactions aborted or committed. We implemented this using Sharded Byzantine Atomic Commit (S-BAC)—a protocol that composes existing Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) agreement and atomic commit primitives in a novel way. Here is how the protocol works:

  • Intra-shard agreement. Within each shard, all honest nodes ensure that they consistently agree on accepting or rejecting a transaction.
  • Inter-shard agreement. Across shards, nodes must ensure that transactions are committed if all shards are willing to commit the transaction, and rejected (or aborted) if any shards decide to abort the transaction.

Consensus on committing (or aborting) transactions takes place in parallel across different shards. A nice property of S-BAC’s atomic commit protocol is that the entire shard—rather than a third party—acts as a coordinator. This is in contrast to other sharding-based systems with cryptocurrency application like OmniLedger or RSCoin where an untrusted client acts as the coordinator, and is incentivized to act honestly. Such incentives do not hold for a generalized platform like Chainspace where objects may have shared ownership.

Continue reading Chainspace: A Sharded Smart Contracts Platform

Yes, we have no receipts

Internet voting is a hard problem: there are many ways to fail, and the cost of failing is high. Furthermore, the security requirements appear to be self-contradicting at times. Verifiability requires that a voter, let’s say Alice, must have sufficient knowledge about her ballot to detect if it was tampered with, while Privacy requires that Alice’s vote remains secret, even if Alice herself is bribed or forced into revealing everything she knows.

Can we build a system that allows Alice to verify that her ballot remains unchanged, but also allows her to “forget” who she voted for?

In joint work with Véronique Cortier, Georg Fuchsbauer and David Galindo we present a solution to this problem, in the form of BeleniosRF. We use rerandomizable encryption to change how ballots are encrypted without changing their contents. Digital signatures and zero knowledge techniques ensure ballot integrity, and prevent any tampering during the rerandomization.

Verifiability and privacy

Verifiability means that there must be some way for voters to monitor the election such that they can detect foul play from other voters, or even officials. This is often split into two notions: individual verifiability, dealing with a voter monitoring the way her vote was processed (i.e. that it was not changed or simply thrown away), and universal verifiability, covering requirements for the entirety of the election (e.g. “every ballot must be valid”).

Privacy, in its simplest form, keeps the contents of a vote secret from malicious observers, or even authorities and other compromised voters. In plain terms, we don’t want hackers to decrypt votes, and we don’t allow authorities to decrypt votes when they’re not supposed to; current systems anonymize votes by shuffling or summing them before they are decrypted.

Unfortunately, the above discussion fails to cover one potential adversary: the voter herself. An adversarial voter might be fully corrupt, as in the case of a vote seller who does not value her vote apart from any potential financial gain, or simply be placed in a coercive environment where she is “encouraged” to vote the “right” way. A good voting system should aim to hinder vote sellers and protect coerced users. This might not be possible in all cases: if a voter is monitored 24/7 or simply prevented from voting, the problem may well be unsolvable.

Continue reading Yes, we have no receipts