On-line Non-transferable Signatures Revisited

  • Jacob C. N. Schuldt
  • Kanta Matsuura
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6571)

Abstract

Undeniable signatures, introduced by Chaum and van Antwerpen, and designated confirmer signatures, introduced by Chaum, allow a signer to control the verifiability of his signatures by requiring a verifier to interact with the signer to verify a signature. An important security requirement for these types of signature schemes is non-transferability which informally guarantees that even though a verifier has confirmed the validity of a signature by interacting with the signer, he cannot prove this knowledge to a third party. Recently Liskov and Micali pointed out that the commonly used notion of non-transferability only guarantees security against an off-line attacker which cannot influence the verifier while he interacts with the signer, and that almost all previous schemes relying on interactive protocols are vulnerable to on-line attacks. To address this, Liskov and Micali formalized on-line non-transferable signatures which are resistant to on-line attacks, and proposed a generic construction based on a standard signature scheme and an encryption scheme. In this paper, we revisit on-line non-transferable signatures. Firstly, we extend the security model of Liskov and Micali to cover not only the sign protocol, but also the confirm and disavow protocols executed by the confirmer. Our security model furthermore considers the use of multiple (potentially corrupted or malicious) confirmers, and guarantees security against attacks related to the use of signer specific confirmer keys. We then present a new approach to the construction of on-line non-transferable signatures, and propose a new concrete construction which is provably secure in the standard model. Unlike the construction by Liskov and Micali, our construction does not require the signer to issue “fake” signatures to maintain security, and allows the confirmer to both confirm and disavow signatures. Lastly, our construction provides noticeably shorter signatures than the construction by Liskov and Micali.

Keywords

signatures on-line non-transferability standard model 

References

  1. 1.
    Boneh, D., Shen, E., Waters, B.: Strongly Unforgeable Signatures Based on Computational Diffie-Hellman. In: Yung, M., Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T.G. (eds.) PKC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3958, pp. 229–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Camenisch, J., Michels, M.: Confirmer signature schemes secure against adaptive adversaries. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 243–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaum, D.: Zero-knowledge undeniable signatures. In: Damgård, I.B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1990. LNCS, vol. 473, pp. 458–464. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaum, D.: Designated Confirmer Signatures. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 86–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaum, D., van Antwerpen, H.: Undeniable Signatures. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 212–216. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damgård, I.: Efficient Concurrent Zero-Knowledge in the Auxiliary String Model. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 418–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galbraith, S.D., Mao, W., Paterson, K.G.: RSA-Based Undeniable Signatures for General Moduli. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) CT-RSA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2271, pp. 200–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gentry, C., Molnar, D., Ramzan, Z.: Efficient Designated Confirmer Signatures Without Random Oracles or General Zero-Knowledge Proofs. In: Roy, B. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3788, pp. 662–681. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang, X., Mu, Y., Susilo, W., Wu, W.: Provably Secure Pairing-Based Convertible Undeniable Signature with Short Signature Length. In: Takagi, T., Okamoto, T., Okamoto, E., Okamoto, T. (eds.) Pairing 2007. LNCS, vol. 4575, pp. 367–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakobsson, M., Sako, K., Impagliazzo, R.: Designated Verifier Proofs and Their Applications. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 143–154. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kudla, C., Paterson, K.G.: Non-interactive Designated Verifier Proofs and Undeniable Signatures. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) Cryptography and Coding 2005. LNCS, vol. 3796, pp. 136–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurosawa, K., Heng, S.-H.: 3-Move Undeniable Signature Scheme. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 181–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liskov, M., Micali, S.: Online-Untransferable Signatures. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) PKC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4939, pp. 248–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michels, M., Stadler, M.: Generic Constructions for Secure and Efficient Confirmer Signature Schemes. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 406–421. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Monnerat, J., Vaudenay, S.: Short 2-Move Undeniable Signatures. In: Nguyên, P.Q. (ed.) VIETCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4341, pp. 19–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Steinfeld, R., Bull, L., Wang, H., Pieprzyk, J.: Universal Designated-Verifier Signatures. In: Laih, C.-S. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2894, pp. 523–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teranishi, I., Oyama, T., Ogata, W.: General Conversion for Obtaining Strongly Existentially Unforgeable Signatures. In: Barua, R., Lange, T. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4329, pp. 191–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waters, B.: Efficient Identity-Based Encryption Without Random Oracles. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 114–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob C. N. Schuldt
    • 1
  • Kanta Matsuura
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Center for Information SecurityAISTJapan
  2. 2.Institute of Industrial ScienceThe University of TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations