![](bgf.png)
9 CONCLUSION
We have presented the model of a benchmarking sys-
tem that is typically used by an organization to es-
tablish the benchmark standard and provide bench-
mark as a service. We highlighted the security chal-
lenges that the current benchmark model face, and
therefore, a need to develop more secure benchmark-
ing system is also justified. The security limitation of
current benchmarking systems may hinder sharing of
important information between the submitters and the
benchmark authorities. Therefore, the requirements
of a secure benchmarking system are established. We
proposed a novel approach to solving the security lim-
itation of benchmarking systems by adopting the se-
cure cryptographic proofs from the field of secure
electronic voting. We demonstrated how a bench-
marking system could be mapped to the electronic
voting system by mapping its protocol, structure, and
concepts. We also demonstrated how the different
formats of benchmark question can be presented and
how the benchmark result can be calculated using the
concepts of electronic voting. Our solution is based
on the electronic voting protocol that provides secure
transmission of the benchmark responses throughout
the system. Furthermore, the identity of the response
submitter is preserved by secrecy provided by the
cryptographic protocols. The members who partici-
pate in the benchmark process can ensure that their
responses have been counted correctly while calcu-
lating the benchmark result. Afterward, we demon-
strated that how a secure benchmark can be designed
for UnRizkNow platform using the concepts of EV
system. We showed that a benchmarking system is
more secure if it follows EV system approach as it
can satisfy the necessary security requirements. We
adopted Hi10 scheme to demonstrate the feasibility
of our approach for UnRizkNow platform, but other
relevant EV schemes can also be adapted to perform
the benchmark on UnRizkNow platform.
REFERENCES
ABB (2017). Cyber security benchmark.
Agrawal, V. (2016). Towards the ontology of iso/iec 27005:
2011 risk management standard. In HAISA, pages
101–111.
Agrawal, V. and Snekkenes, E. A. (2017). Factors Affecting
the Willingness to Share Knowledge in the Communi-
ties of Practice, pages 32–39. Springer International
Publishing, Cham.
Agrawal, V. and Szekeres, A. (2017). Cira perspective on
risks within unrizknow - a case study. In 2017 IEEE
4th International Conference on Cyber Security and
Cloud Computing (CSCloud), pages 121–126.
Agrawal, V., Wasnik, P., and Snekkenes, E. A. (2017). Fac-
tors influencing the participation of information secu-
rity professionals in electronic communities of prac-
tice. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint
Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge En-
gineering and Knowledge Management, pages 50–60.
Chaum, D., Ryan, P. Y. A., and Schneider, S. (2005). A
practical voter-verifiable election scheme. In Proceed-
ings of the 10th European Conference on Research
in Computer Security, ESORICS’05, pages 118–139,
Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.
Chaum, D. L. (1981). Untraceable electronic mail, return
addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM,
24(2):84–90.
Chen, C.-L., Chen, Y.-Y., Jan, J.-K., and Chen, C.-C.
(2014). A secure anonymous e-voting system based
on discrete logarithm problem. Applied Mathematics
& Information Sciences, 8(5):2571.
Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., and Izabachene,
M. (2014a). Election verifiability for helios under
weaker trust assumptions. In European Symposium
on Research in Computer Security, pages 327–344.
Springer.
Cortier, V., Galindo, D., Glondu, S., and Izabach
`
ene,
M. (2014b). Election Verifiability for Helios under
Weaker Trust Assumptions, pages 327–344. Springer
International Publishing, Cham.
ESMA-EBA (2013). Final report:esma-eba principles for
benchmark-setting processes in the eu. Technical re-
port.
Forum, I. S. (2017). Benchmark as a service - informa-
tion security forum. https://www.securityforum.org/
products-services/benchmark-as-a-service/. Online;
accessed 28 November 2017.
Gerlach, J. and Gasser, U. (2009). Three case studies from
switzerland: E-voting. Berkman Center Research
Publication No, 3:2009.
Gregor, S. and Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and pre-
senting design science research for maximum impact.
MIS Q., 37(2):337–356.
Gritzalis, D. A. (2002). Principles and requirements for a
secure e-voting system. Comput. Secur., 21(6):539–
556.
Haenni, R., Koenig, R. E., Locher, P., and Dubuis, E.
(2017). Chvote system specification. IACR Cryptol-
ogy ePrint Archive, 2017:325.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004).
Design science in information systems research. MIS
Q., 28(1):75–105.
Hidalgo, A. and Albors, J. (2008). Innovation management
techniques and tools: a review from theory and prac-
tice. R&D Management, 38(2):113–127.
Hirt, M. (2001). Multi Party Computation: Efficient Pro-
tocols, General Adversaries, and Voting. Hartung-
Gorre.
Hirt, M. (2010). Towards trustworthy elections. chapter
Receipt-free K-out-of-L Voting Based on Elgamal En-
Secure Benchmarking using Electronic Voting
39