Computer Based Lottery for Yelahanka Project

Computer Based Lottery for
Yelahanka Project
Chandra Nath ∗
January 31, 2013
∗ nath@computer.org He is an Independent researcher engaged in research in informa-
tion security, privacy, law & justice.
1

Contents
I Introduction 2
II Complexity 2
III Verification & Validation 3
IV Conclusion 4
Real Courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in
the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant
and disapproving herd. Jon Roland, 1976
It is an ironic truism that while technical luddites are most enthusiastic
on computer based solutions, it is the security savvy that
are extremely cautious.
I INTRODUCTION
This has reference to the forth-coming computerized lottery allocation of specific
DSUs based on choices expressed by the allottees of AWHO Yelahanka
Project.
I feel duty bound to appraise the security risks of the computerized lottery
based solution to the problem of resource allocation since it seems to be
inadequately appreciated by AWHO and its EDP team.
II COMPLEXITY
The very fact that the edp team accepted the task leads one to conclude that
the team does not appreciate the complexity of the problem much less appreciate
the risks in providing a trustable, secure and non-tamperable solution
to the problem.
If the team can define the following accurately, it would be the first step
in convincing the allottees that their solution may be trusted compared to
2

a simple visibly convincing tambola like drawing which can be convincingly
understood by one and all among the allottees:
1. A formal definition of the problem & its constraints.
2. A formal definition of an ideal algorithm that satisfies the solution.
3. A formal proof of correctness.
4. A protocol of how to ensure that the algorithm is not tampered with by
interested agents including the agent who is organizing the draw with
out having to trust the organisers blindly based on faith alone.
5. A formal validity, security and non-tamperability testing process.
6. How and why a knowledgeable agent (NOT an ordinary naïvetè allottee
who trusts the system blindly) should believe the validity of the system
including algorithm correctness, testing adequacy and adequacy of
privacy and security of the solution.
III VERIFICATION & VALIDATION
Please provide me all the documents which are “necessary and sufficient”
to verify & validate the accuracy, non-tamperaility, privacy and security to
create a level of confidence in the solution.
In case the edp team finds difficulty in inferring what documents are
“necessary and sufficient”, you (and we all in turn) might be able to conclude
that their understanding of the complexity of a credible solution is severely
limited and the Bangalore Yelahanka Part A allottes may be spared the home
baked solution and in place, a simple tambola type physical draw based
solution, the fairness of which can be appreciated even by the uninitiated
in computer science, random numbers generation, algorithms, cryptography,
privacy and security.
I am a computer science professional with a M.S in Computer Science
from University of California from as far back as 1984 and taught M Tech
and MCA courses in Advanced algorithms in Jawharlal Nehru University
Computer Science Department and have a cryptography product of my own
design and programming based on 256 bit AES to my credit as far back as
2003 and my other security credentials can be verified from internet sources.
3

IV CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I sincerely urge the following:
1. PLEASE DO NOT HOLD COMPUTER BASED RANDOM DRAW –
since most are NOT computer security savvy and as such are not aware
that any solution is easily tamperable and any security claimed is just
farcical at best. For a Security professional like me it is evidently tamperabile
and its security is questionable and the results in a computer
based draw can be manipuated by a motivated, skillful professional
and one with opportunity to manipulate. If I as a security professional
can manipulate the results, given an opportunity, so can any one with
sufficient understanding and motivation.
2. I express my strong dissent to the method because of easy tamperability
and the real risks that can not be mitigated except with very prohibitive
cost.
3. Instead, please consider an open tambola like draw – which would be
transparent and hence visible and acceptable to every Indian Army
Officer, JCO, Jawan & War widow, who constitute the allottees.
4. This is all the more important in view of the demonstrated lack of transparency
AWHO had exhibited over many of the transactions which have
been decidedly against the interests of the so called “welfare recipients”.
Chandra Nath,
Member, AWHO (Project EOF/DS4/98722/AR/Bangalore/2004)
4