Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

One-More Assumptions Do Not Help Fiat-Shamir-type Signature Schemes in NPROM

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Topics in Cryptology – CT-RSA 2020 (CT-RSA 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 12006))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

On the Fiat-Shamir-type signature schemes, there are several impossibility results concerning their provable security. Most of these impossibility results employ the non-programmable random oracle model (NPROM), and to the best of our knowledge, all impossibilities deal with the security reductions from the non-interactive cryptographic assumptions except for the result on the security of Schnorr signature scheme from the One-More DL (OM-DL) assumption in ProvSec2017.

In this paper, we extend the impossibility result above concerning Schnorr signature scheme and the OM-DL assumption to a wider class of the Fiat-Shamir-type signature schemes, and aim to find out the conditions so that such impossibility results hold. We show that a specific class of the Fiat-Shamir-type signature schemes, including Schnorr signature scheme, cannot be proven to be euf-cma secure in NPROM from the generalized One-More cryptographic assumptions. This is just a generalization of the impossibility concerning Schnorr signature scheme and the OM-DL assumption. Our result also suggests that for some Fiat-Shamir-type signature schemes, which is not covered by our impossibility (e.g. the RSA-based schemes), there may exist a successful security proof in NPROM from the interactive cryptographic assumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abdalla, M., An, J.H., Bellare, M., Namprempre, C.: From identification to signatures via the Fiat-Shamir transform: necessary and sufficient conditions for security and forward-security. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54(8), 3631–3646 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2008.926303

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdalla, M., Fouque, P.A., Lyubashevsky, V., Tibouchi, M.: Tightly secure signatures from lossy identification schemes. J. Cryptol. 29(3), 597–631 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-015-9203-7

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bader, C., Jager, T., Li, Y., Schäge, S.: On the impossibility of tight cryptographic reductions. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 273–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bellare, M., Neven, G.: Multi-signatures in the plain public-key model and a general forking lemma. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2006, pp. 390–399. ACM, New York (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1180405.1180453

  5. Bellare, M., Palacio, A.: GQ and schnorr identification schemes: proofs of security against impersonation under active and concurrent attacks. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45708-9_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 1993, pp. 62–73. ACM, New York (1993). https://doi.org/10.1145/168588.168596

  7. Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: The exact security of digital signatures-how to sign with RSA and rabin. In: Maurer, U. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 399–416. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68339-9_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernstein, D.J., Duif, N., Lange, T., Schwabe, P., Yang, B.Y.: High-speed high-security signatures. J. Cryptogr. Eng. 2(2), 77–89 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13389-012-0027-1

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Boneh, D., Venkatesan, R.: Breaking RSA may not be equivalent to factoring. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 59–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0054117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Coron, J.S.: Optimal security proofs for PSS and other signature schemes. In: Knudsen, L.R. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2332, pp. 272–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46035-7_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Cramer, R., Shoup, V.: Signature schemes based on the strong RSA assumption. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3(3), 161–185 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/357830.357847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dierks, T., Allen, C.: The TLS protocol version 1.0 (1999). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2246

  13. Fiat, A., Shamir, A.: How to prove yourself: practical solutions to identification and signature problems. In: Odlyzko, A.M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1986. LNCS, vol. 263, pp. 186–194. Springer, Heidelberg (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47721-7_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischlin, M., Fleischhacker, N.: Limitations of the meta-reduction technique: the case of Schnorr signatures. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 444–460. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Fischlin, M., Lehmann, A., Ristenpart, T., Shrimpton, T., Stam, M., Tessaro, S.: Random oracles with(out) programmability. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 303–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17373-8_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Fleischhacker, N., Jager, T., Schröder, D.: On tight security proofs for Schnorr signatures. J. Cryptol. 32(2), 566–599 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-019-09311-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Fukumitsu, M., Hasegawa, S.: Impossibility on the provable security of the Fiat-Shamir-type signatures in the non-programmable random oracle model. In: Bishop, M., Nascimento, A.C.A. (eds.) ISC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9866, pp. 389–407. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45871-7_23

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Fukumitsu, M., Hasegawa, S.: Impossibility of the provable security of the Schnorr signature from the one-more DL assumption in the non-programmable random oracle model. In: Okamoto, T., Yu, Y., Au, M.H., Li, Y. (eds.) ProvSec 2017. LNCS, vol. 10592, pp. 201–218. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68637-0_12

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Fukumitsu, M., Hasegawa, S.: Black-box separations on Fiat-Shamir-type signatures in the non-programmable random oracle model. IEICE Trans. Fundam. Electron. Commun. Comput. Sci. E101.A(1), 77–87 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1587/transfun.E101.A.77

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 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). https://doi.org/10.1137/0217017

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Guillou, L.C., Quisquater, J.J.: A practical zero-knowledge protocol fitted to security microprocessor minimizing both transmission and memory. In: Barstow, D., et al. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1988. LNCS, vol. 330, pp. 123–128. Springer, Heidelberg (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45961-8_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Hasegawa, S., Isobe, S.: A lossy identification scheme using the subgroup decision assumption. IEICE Trans. Fundam. Electron. Commun. Comput. Sci. E97.A(6), 1296–1306 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1587/transfun.E97.A.1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hasegawa, S., Isobe, S.: Lossy identification schemes from decisional RSA. Interdisc. Inf. Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.4036/iis.2019.R.01

  24. Hess, F.: Efficient identity based signature schemes based on pairings. In: Nyberg, K., Heys, H. (eds.) SAC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2595, pp. 310–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36492-7_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Kakvi, S.A., Kiltz, E.: Optimal security proofs for full domain hash, revisited. In: Pointcheval, D., Johansson, T. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7237, pp. 537–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29011-4_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Katz, J., Wang, N.: Efficiency improvements for signature schemes with tight security reductions. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2003, pp. 155–164. ACM, New York (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/948109.948132

  27. Lv, X., Xu, F., Ping, P., Liu, X., Su, H.: Schnorr ring signature scheme with designated verifiability. In: 2015 14th International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications for Business Engineering and Science (DCABES), pp. 163–166, August 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/DCABES.2015.48

  28. Lyubashevsky, V.: Lattice-based identification schemes secure under active attacks. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) PKC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4939, pp. 162–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78440-1_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Morgan, A., Pass, R.: On the security loss of unique signatures. In: Beimel, A., Dziembowski, S. (eds.) TCC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11239, pp. 507–536. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03807-6_19

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Nakamoto, S., et al.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  31. Ohta, K., Okamoto, T.: A digital multisignature scheme based on the Fiat-Shamir scheme. In: Imai, H., Rivest, R.L., Matsumoto, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1991. LNCS, vol. 739, pp. 139–148. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57332-1_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Okamoto, T.: Provably secure and practical identification schemes and corresponding signature schemes. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 31–53. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48071-4_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Paillier, P., Vergnaud, D.: Discrete-log-based signatures may not be equivalent to discrete log. In: Roy, B. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3788, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11593447_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Pass, R.: Limits of provable security from standard assumptions. In: Proceedings of the Forty-third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2011, pp. 109–118. ACM, New York (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1993636.1993652

  35. Pointcheval, D., Stern, J.: Provably secure blind signature schemes. In: Kim, K., Matsumoto, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1163, pp. 252–265. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0034852

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Pointcheval, D., Stern, J.: Security arguments for digital signatures and blind signatures. J. Cryptol. 13(3), 361–396 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s001450010003

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Schnorr, C.P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. J. Cryptol. 4(3), 161–174 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00196725

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Shamir, A.: Identity-based cryptosystems and signature schemes. In: Blakley, G.R., Chaum, D. (eds.) CRYPTO 1984. LNCS, vol. 196, pp. 47–53. Springer, Heidelberg (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39568-7_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Tor: Tor. https://www.torproject.org/

  40. Ylonen, T.: The secure shell (SSH) transport layer protocol (2006). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4253

  41. Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang, Z.: Black-box separations for one-more (static) CDH and its generalization. In: Sarkar, P., Iwata, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8874, pp. 366–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45608-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., Chow, S.S.M., Hanaoka, G., Cao, Z., Zhao, Y.: Black-box separations of hash-and-sign signatures in the non-programmable random oracle model. In: Au, M.-H., Miyaji, A. (eds.) ProvSec 2015. LNCS, vol. 9451, pp. 435–454. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26059-4_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. A part of this work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 18K11288 and 19K20272.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information Media, Hokkaido Information University, Nishi-Nopporo 59-2 Ebetsu, Hokkaido, 069-8585, Japan

    Masayuki Fukumitsu

  2. Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University, 41 Kawauchi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8576, Japan

    Shingo Hasegawa

Authors
  1. Masayuki Fukumitsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shingo Hasegawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masayuki Fukumitsu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    Stanislaw Jarecki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Fukumitsu, M., Hasegawa, S. (2020). One-More Assumptions Do Not Help Fiat-Shamir-type Signature Schemes in NPROM. In: Jarecki, S. (eds) Topics in Cryptology – CT-RSA 2020. CT-RSA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12006. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40186-3_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40186-3_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40185-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40186-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation