Abstract
Recently, Mu and Varadharajan proposed an efficient electronic-voting schemes. They claimed to protect voter’s anonymity, to detect double voting, and to authenticate the voters. In this article, we will show the failures of the claimed functions: (1) the authority can easily identify the owner of a cast ballot; (2) a valid voter or any one can vote more than once without being detected; (3) any one can forge ballot without being authenticated. In addition to the failures of the claimed functions, we also point out other weaknesses in Mu–Varadharajan’s scheme.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
