BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Steve Schneider

Steve Schneider contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Cryptography and SecuritySoftware Engineeringcs.CYLogic in Computer Science

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting in Practice: the use of vVote in the Victorian State Election

The November 2014 Australian State of Victoria election was the first statutory political election worldwide at State level which deployed an end-to-end verifiable electronic voting system in polling places. This was the first time blind voters have been able to cast a fully secret ballot in a verifiable way, and the first time a verifiable voting system has been used to collect remote votes in a political election. The code is open source, and the output from the election is verifiable. The system took 1121 votes from these particular groups, an increase on 2010 and with fewer polling places.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A Peered Bulletin Board for Robust Use in Verifiable Voting Systems

The Web Bulletin Board (WBB) is a key component of verifiable election systems. It is used in the context of election verification to publish evidence of voting and tallying that voters and officials can check, and where challenges can be launched in the event of malfeasance. In practice, the election authority has responsibility for implementing the web bulletin board correctly and reliably, and will wish to ensure that it behaves correctly even in the presence of failures and attacks. To ensure robustness, an implementation will typically use a number of peers to be able to provide a correct service even when some peers go down or behave dishonestly. In this paper we propose a new protocol to implement such a Web Bulletin Board, motivated by the needs of the vVote verifiable voting system. Using a distributed algorithm increases the complexity of the protocol and requires careful reasoning in order to establish correctness. Here we use the Event-B modelling and refinement approach to establish correctness of the peered design against an idealised specification of the bulletin board behaviour. In particular we show that for n peers, a threshold of t > 2n/3 peers behaving correctly is sufficient to ensure correct behaviour of the bulletin board distributed design. The algorithm also behaves correctly even if honest or dishonest peers temporarily drop out of the protocol and then return. The verification approach also establishes that the protocols used within the bulletin board do not interfere with each other. This is the first time a peered web bulletin board suite of protocols has been formally verified.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Managing LTL properties in Event-B refinement

Refinement in Event-B supports the development of systems via proof based step-wise refinement of events. This refinement approach ensures safety properties are preserved, but additional reasoning is required in order to establish liveness and fairness properties. In this paper we present results which allow a closer integration of two formal methods, Event-B and linear temporal logic. In particular we show how a class of temporal logic properties can carry through a refinement chain of machines. Refinement steps can include introduction of new events, event renaming and event splitting. We also identify a general liveness property that holds for the events of the initial system of a refinement chain. The approach will aid developers in enabling them to verify linear temporal logic properties at early stages of a development, knowing they will be preserved at later stages. We illustrate the results via a simple case study.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

A CSP Account of Event-B Refinement

Event-B provides a flexible framework for stepwise system development via refinement. The framework supports steps for (a) refining events (one-by-one), (b) splitting events (one-by-many), and (c) introducing new events. In each of the steps events can moreover possibly be anticipated or convergent. All such steps are accompanied with precise proof obligations. Still, it remains unclear what the exact relationship - in terms of a behaviour-oriented semantics - between an Event-B machine and its refinement is. In this paper, we give a CSP account of Event-B refinement, with a treatment for the first time of splitting events and of anticipated events. To this end, we define a CSP semantics for Event-B and show how the different forms of Event-B refinement can be captured as CSP refinement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access