Formal to Practical Security pp 95-115

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5458) | Cite as

Anonymous Consecutive Delegation of Signing Rights: Unifying Group and Proxy Signatures

  • Georg Fuchsbauer
  • David Pointcheval

Abstract

We define a general model for consecutive delegations of signing rights with the following properties: The delegatee actually signing and all intermediate delegators remain anonymous. As for group signatures, in case of misuse, a special authority can open signatures to reveal all delegators’ and the signer’s identity. The scheme satisfies a strong notion of non-frameability generalizing the one for dynamic group signatures. We give formal definitions of security and show them to be satisfiable by constructing an instantiation proven secure under general assumptions in the standard model. Our primitive is a proper generalization of both group signatures and proxy signatures and can be regarded as non-frameable dynamic hierarchical group signatures.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BMW03]
    Bellare, M., Micciancio, D., Warinschi, B.: Foundations of group signatures: Formal definitions, simplified requirements, and a construction based on general assumptions. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 614–629. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [BSZ05]
    Bellare, M., Shi, H., Zhang, C.: Foundations of group signatures: The case of dynamic groups. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3376, pp. 136–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BDMP91]
    Blum, M., De Santis, A., Micali, S., Persiano, G.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof systems. SIAM Journal on Computing 20(6), 1084–1118 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [BPW03]
    Boldyreva, A., Palacio, A., Warinschi, B.: Secure proxy signature schemes for delegation of signing rights. IACR ePrint Archive: Report 2003/096 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. [BW07]
    Boyen, X., Waters, B.: Full-domain subgroup hiding and constant-size group signatures. In: Okamoto, T., Wang, X. (eds.) PKC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4450, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [CvH91]
    Chaum, D., van Heyst, E.: Group signatures. In: Davies, D.W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1991. LNCS, vol. 547, pp. 257–265. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [DDN00]
    Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Nonmalleable cryptography. SIAM Journal on Computing 30(2), 391–437 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [FP08]
    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
  9. [GMR88]
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rivest, R.: A digital signature scheme secure against adaptive chosen-message attacks. SIAM Journal on Computing 17(2), 281–308 (1988)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [Gro07]
    Groth, J.: Fully anonymous group signatures without random oracles. In: Kurosawa, K. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4833, pp. 164–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [GS08]
    Groth, J., Sahai, A.: Efficient non-interactive proof systems for bilinear groups. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 415–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [MUO96]
    Mambo, M., Usuda, K., Okamoto, E.: Proxy signatures for delegating signing operation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  13. [RS92]
    Rackoff, C., Simon, D.: Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof of knowledge and chosen ciphertext attack. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 433–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  14. [RST01]
    Rivest, R., Shamir, A., Tauman, Y.: How to leak a secret. In: Boyd, C. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2248, pp. 552–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Rom90]
    Rompel, J.: One-way functions are necessary and sufficient for secure signatures. In: 22nd Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 387–394. ACM, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  16. [Sah99]
    Sahai, A.: Non-malleable non-interactive zero knowledge and adaptive chosen-ciphertext security. In: 40th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 543–553. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  17. [SK02]
    Shum, K., Wei, V.K.: A strong proxy signature scheme with proxy signer privacy protection. In: 11th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE 2002), pp. 55–56. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  18. [TL04]
    Tan, Z., Liu, Z.: Provably secure delegation-by-certification proxy signature schemes. IACR ePrint Archive: Report 2004/148 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. [TW05]
    Trolin, M., Wikström, D.: Hierarchical group signatures. In: Caires, L., Italiano, G.F., Monteiro, L., Palamidessi, C., Yung, M. (eds.) ICALP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3580, pp. 446–458. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Fuchsbauer
    • 1
  • David Pointcheval
    • 1
  1. 1.École normale supérieure, LIENS - CNRS - INRIAParisFrance

Personalised recommendations