Advertisement

Warrant-Hiding Delegation-by-Certificate Proxy Signature Schemes

  • Christian Hanser
  • Daniel Slamanig
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8250)

Abstract

Proxy signatures allow an entity (the delegator) to delegate his signing capabilities to other entities (called proxies), who can then produce signatures on behalf of the delegator. Typically, a delegator may not want to give a proxy the power to sign any message on his behalf, but only messages from a well defined message space. Therefore, the so called delegation by warrant approach has been introduced. Here, a warrant is included into the delegator’s signature (the so called certificate) to describe the message space from which a proxy is allowed to choose messages to produce valid signatures for. Interestingly, in all previously known constructions of proxy signatures following this approach, the warrant is made explicit and, thus, is an input to the verification algorithm of a proxy signature. This means, that a verifier learns the entire message space for which the proxy has been given the signing power. However, it may be desirable to hide the remaining messages in the allowed message space from a verifier. This scenario has never been investigated in context of proxy signatures, but seems to be interesting for practical applications. In this paper, we resolve this issue by introducing so called warrant-hiding proxy signatures. We provide a formal security definition of such schemes by augmenting the well established security model for proxy signatures by Boldyreva et al. Furthermore, we discuss strategies how to realize this warrant-hiding property and we also provide two concrete instantiations of such a scheme. They enjoy different advantages, but are both entirely practical. Moreover, we prove them secure with respect to the augmented security model.

Keywords

Signature Scheme Proxy Signature Commitment Scheme Message Space Proxy Signature Scheme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    An, J.H., Dodis, Y., Rabin, T.: On the security of joint signature and encryption. In: Knudsen, L.R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2332, pp. 83–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awasthi, A.K., Lal, S.: ID-based Ring Signature and Proxy Ring Signature Schemes from Bilinear Pairings. I. J. Network Security 4(2), 187–192 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benaloh, J.C., de Mare, M.: One-Way Accumulators: A Decentralized Alternative to Digital Signatures. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 274–285. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boldyreva, A., Palacio, A., Warinschi, B.: Secure proxy signature schemes for delegation of signing rights. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2003, 96 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boldyreva, A., Palacio, A., Warinschi, B.: Secure Proxy Signature Schemes for Delegation of Signing Rights. J. Cryptology 25(1), 57–115 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catalano, D., Fiore, D.: Vector Commitments and Their Applications. In: Kurosawa, K., Hanaoka, G. (eds.) PKC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7778, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Catalano, D., Fiore, D., Messina, M.: Zero-Knowledge Sets with Short Proofs. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 433–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chase, M., Healy, A., Lysyanskaya, A., Malkin, T., Reyzin, L.: Mercurial Commitments with Applications to Zero-Knowledge Sets. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 422–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuchsbauer, G., Pointcheval, D.: Anonymous Proxy Signatures. In: Ostrovsky, R., De Prisco, R., Visconti, I. (eds.) SCN 2008. LNCS, vol. 5229, pp. 201–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rivest, R.L.: A Digital Signature Scheme Secure Against Adaptive Chosen-Message Attacks. SIAM J. Comput. 17(2), 281–308 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanser, C., Slamanig, D.: Warrant-Hiding Delegation-by-Certificate Proxy Signature Schemes. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2013/ (2013), http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/544
  12. 12.
    Kate, A., Zaverucha, G.M., Goldberg, I.: Constant-Size Commitments to Polynomials and Their Applications. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 177–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mambo, M., Usuda, K., Okamoto, E.: Proxy Signatures for Delegating Signing Operation. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 1996), pp. 48–57. ACM (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Micali, S., Rabin, M.O., Kilian, J.: Zero-Knowledge Sets. In: Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 80–91. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-Interactive and Information-Theoretic Secure Verifiable Secret Sharing. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 129–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schuldt, J.C.N., Matsuura, K., Paterson, K.G.: Proxy Signatures Secure Against Proxy Key Exposure. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) PKC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4939, pp. 141–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steinfeld, R., Bull, L., Zheng, Y.: Content Extraction Signatures. In: Kim, K.-c. (ed.) ICISC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2288, pp. 285–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan, Z., Liu, Z., Tang, C.: Digital Proxy Blind Signature Schemes Based on DLP and ECDLP. Tech. rep., MM Research Preprints, MMRC, AMSS, Academia, Sinica, Beijing (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, G.: Designated-verifier proxy signatures for e-commerce. In: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, ICME 2004, pp. 1731–1734 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, H., Pieprzyk, J.: Efficient One-Time Proxy Signatures. In: Laih, C.-S. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2894, pp. 507–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, K.: Threshold Proxy Signature Schemes. In: Okamoto, E., Davida, G., Mambo, M. (eds.) ISW 1997. LNCS, vol. 1396, pp. 282–290. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Hanser
    • 1
  • Daniel Slamanig
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications (IAIK)Graz University of Technology (TUG)GrazAustria

Personalised recommendations