Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MuSig2: Simple Two-Round Schnorr Multi-signatures

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2021 (CRYPTO 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 12825))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Multi-signatures enable a group of signers to produce a joint signature on a joint message. Recently, Drijvers et al. (S&P’19) showed that all thus far proposed two-round multi-signature schemes in the pure DL setting (without pairings) are insecure under concurrent signing sessions. While Drijvers et al. proposed a secure two-round scheme, this efficiency in terms of rounds comes with the price of having signatures that are more than twice as large as Schnorr signatures, which are becoming popular in cryptographic systems due to their practicality (e.g., they will likely be adopted in Bitcoin). If one needs a multi-signature scheme that can be used as a drop-in replacement for Schnorr signatures, then one is forced to resort either to a three-round scheme or to sequential signing sessions, both of which are undesirable options in practice.

In this work, we propose \(\mathsf {MuSig2} \), a simple and highly practical two-round multi-signature scheme. This is the first scheme that simultaneously i) is secure under concurrent signing sessions, ii) supports key aggregation, iii) outputs ordinary Schnorr signatures, iv) needs only two communication rounds, and v) has similar signer complexity as ordinary Schnorr signatures. Furthermore, it is the first multi-signature scheme in the pure DL setting that supports preprocessing of all but one rounds, effectively enabling a non-interactive signing process without forgoing security under concurrent sessions. We prove the security of \(\mathsf {MuSig2} \) in the random oracle model, and the security of a more efficient variant in the combination of the random oracle and the algebraic group model. Both our proofs rely on a weaker variant of the OMDL 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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since we do not impose any constraint on the key setup, the adversary can choose corrupted public keys arbitrarily and duplicate public keys can appear in L.

  2. 2.

    Remarkably, both Maxwell et al. [21] and Drijvers et al. [11] were apparently unaware of the much earlier work by Nicolosi et al. [29].

  3. 3.

    We refer the interested reader to the full version [27] for a high-level explanation of why the meta-reduction cannot be adapted to work with our scheme.

  4. 4.

    Observe that \(\mathsf {InsecureMuSig} \) is identical to an imaginary \(\mathsf {MuSig2} \) with a just a single nonce, i.e., \(\nu = 1\).

  5. 5.

    This is exactly the issue which had been observed earlier by Nicolisi et al. [29], and which is exploited in the meta-reduction by Drijvers et al. [11].

  6. 6.

    Note that there are multiple different formal definitions of falsifiability in the literature. In this work we work with the commonly used definition by Gentry and Wichs [14, 15] which unlike the definition by Naor [25] allows for interactive assumptions.

  7. 7.

    In fact, it is easy to see that the adversary can only guess the value of the aggregate public key \(\widetilde{X}\) corresponding to L at random before making the relevant queries \(\mathsf {H}_{\mathrm {agg}}(L,X_i)\) for \(X_i\in L\), so that the query \(\mathsf {H}_{\mathrm {sig}}(\widetilde{X},R,m)\) can only come after the relevant queries \(\mathsf {H}_{\mathrm {agg}}(L,X_i)\) except with negligible probability.

  8. 8.

    This computation can be saved by caching the result when handling the internal \(\mathsf {H}_{\mathrm {non}}\) query.

  9. 9.

    Theorem 1 states the security of \(\mathsf {MuSig2} \) only for \(\nu =4\), because there is no reason to use more than four nonces in practice. The proof works for any \(\nu \ge 4\).

  10. 10.

    For example, the adversary may have replied with different L, m or R values in different executions, or algorithm may have received different “\(h_{\mathrm {non}}\)” values.

  11. 11.

    For example, all four executions (as visualized in Fig. 4) are in the same component if the corresponding \(T_{\mathrm {non}}\) value was set before the \(\mathsf {H}_{\mathrm {agg}}\) fork point, and two executions in the same branch of the \(\mathsf {H}_{\mathrm {agg}}\) fork are in the same component if the \(T_{\mathrm {non}}\) value was set before the \(\mathsf {H}_{\mathrm {sig}}\) fork point.

References

  1. Alper, H.K., Burdges, J.: Two-round trip schnorr multi-signatures via delinearized witnesses. In: CRYPTO 2021, 2021. https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1245

  2. Bagherzandi, A., Cheon, J.H., Jarecki, S.: Multisignatures secure under the discrete logarithm assumption and a generalized forking lemma. In: Ning, P., Syverson, P.F., Jha, S. (eds.) ACM CCS 2008, pp. 449–458. ACM Press, October 2008. https://doi.org/10.1145/1455770.1455827

  3. Bellare, M., Namprempre, C., Pointcheval, D., Semanko, M.: The one-more-RSA-inversion problems and the security of Chaum’s blind signature scheme. J. Cryptol. 16(3), 185–215 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-002-0120-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bellare, M., Neven, G.: Multi-signatures in the plain public-key model and a general forking lemma. In: Juels, A., Wright, R.N., De Capitani di Vimercati, S. (eds.) ACM CCS 2006, pp. 390–399. ACM Press, October/November 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., Shoup, S.: Two-tier signatures, strongly unforgeable signatures, and Fiat-Shamir without Random Oracles. In: Okamoto, T., Wang, X. (eds.) PKC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4450, pp. 201–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71677-8_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Benhamouda, F., Lepoint, T., Loss, J., Orrù, M., Raykova, M.: On the (in)security of ROS. In: Canteaut, A., Standaert, F.-X. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2021. LNCS, vol. 12696, pp. 33–53. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77870-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Boldyreva, A.: Threshold signatures, multisignatures and blind signatures based on the gap-Diffie-Hellman-group signature scheme. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) PKC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2567, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36288-6_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Boneh, D., Drijvers, M., Neven, G.: Compact multi-signatures for smaller blockchains. In: Peyrin, T., Galbraith, S. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 11273, pp. 435–464. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03329-3_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaum, D., Pedersen, T.P.: Wallet databases with observers. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48071-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Drijvers, M., et al.: On the security of two-round multi-signatures. In: 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 1084–1101. IEEE Computer Society Press, May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2019.00050

  12. Fuchsbauer, G., Kiltz, E., Loss, J.: The algebraic group model and its applications. In: Shacham, H., Boldyreva, A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2018. LNCS, vol. 10992, pp. 33–62. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96881-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuchsbauer, G., Plouviez, A., Seurin, Y.: Blind schnorr signatures and signed ElGamal encryption in the algebraic group model. In: Canteaut, A., Ishai, Y. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2020. LNCS, vol. 12106, pp. 63–95. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45724-2_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Gentry, C., Wichs, D.: Separating succinct non-interactive arguments from all falsifiable assumptions. In: Fortnow, L., Vadhan, S.P. (eds.) 43rd ACM STOC, pp. 99–108. ACM Press, June 2011. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993636.1993651

  15. Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T.: Cryptographic assumptions: A position paper. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/907 (2015). https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/907

  16. Horster, P., Michels, M., Petersen, H.: Meta-multisignature schemes based on the discrete logarithm problem. In: IFIP/Sec ’95, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, pp. 128–142. Springer (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Itakura, K., Nakamura, K.: A public-key cryptosystem suitable for digital multisignatures. NEC Res. Dev. 71, 1–8 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Komlo, C., Goldberg, I.: FROST: flexible round-optimized schnorr threshold signatures. In: SAC 2020, 2020. To be published. https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/852

  19. Langford, S.K.: Weaknesses in some threshold cryptosystems. In: Koblitz, N. (ed.) CRYPTO 1996. LNCS, vol. 1109, pp. 74–82. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68697-5_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Ma, C., Weng, J., Li, Y., Deng, R.H.: Efficient discrete logarithm based multi-signature scheme in the plain public key model. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 54(2), 121–133 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623-009-9313-z

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Maxwell, G., Poelstra, A., Seurin, Y., Wuille, P.: Simple Schnorr multi-signatures with applications to Bitcoin. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2018/068, Version 20180118:124757, 2018. Preliminary obsolete version of [22]. https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/068/20180118:124757

  22. Maxwell, G., Poelstra, A., Seurin, Y., Wuille, P.: Simple Schnorr multi-signatures with applications to Bitcoin. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 87(9), 2139–2164 (2019). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/068.pdf

  23. Micali, S., Ohta, K., Reyzin, L.: Accountable-subgroup multisignatures: extended abstract. In: Reiter, M.K., Samarati, P., (eds.) ACM CCS 2001, pp. 245–254. ACM Press, November 2001. https://doi.org/10.1145/501983.502017

  24. Michels, M., Horster, P.: On the risk of disruption in several multiparty signature schemes. In: Kim, K., Matsumoto, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1163, pp. 334–345. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0034859

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Naor, M.: On cryptographic assumptions and challenges. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 96–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45146-4_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Nick, J.: Insecure shortcuts in MuSig (2019). https://medium.com/blockstream/insecure-shortcuts-in-musig-2ad0d38a97da

  27. Nick, J., Ruffing, T., Seurin, Y.: MuSig2: simple two-round schnorr multi-signatures. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2020/1261 (2020). https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1261

  28. Nick, J., Ruffing, T., Seurin, Y., Wuille, P.: MuSig-DN: schnorr multi-signatures with verifiably deterministic nonces. In: Ligatti, J., Ou, X., Katz, J., Vigna, G., (eds.) ACM CCS 20, pp. 1717–1731. ACM Press, November 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417236

  29. Nicolosi, A., Krohn, M.N., Dodis, Y., Mazières, D.: Proactive two-party signatures for user authentication. In: NDSS 2003. The Internet Society, February 2003. https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2003/proactive-two-party-signatures-user-authentication/

  30. 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 

  31. Ristenpart, T., Yilek, S.: The power of proofs-of-possession: securing multiparty signatures against rogue-key attacks. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 228–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72540-4_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. Schnorr, C.P.: Security of blind discrete log signatures against interactive attacks. In: Qing, S., Okamoto, T., Zhou, J. (eds.) ICICS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2229, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45600-7_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Shoup, V.: Lower bounds for discrete logarithms and related problems. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 256–266. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69053-0_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Stinson, D.R., Strobl, R.: Provably secure distributed schnorr signatures and a (t, n) threshold scheme for implicit certificates. In: Varadharajan, V., Mu, Y. (eds.) ACISP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2119, pp. 417–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47719-5_33

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Syta, E., et al.: Keeping authorities “honest or bust” with decentralized witness cosigning. In: 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 526–545. IEEE Computer Society Press, May 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2016.38

  37. Wagner, D.: A generalized birthday problem. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45708-9_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Wuille, P., Nick, J., Ruffing, T.: Schnorr signatures for secp256k1. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 340 (2020). https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Blockstream, Victoria, Canada

    Jonas Nick & Tim Ruffing

  2. ANSSI, Paris, France

    Yannick Seurin

Authors
  1. Jonas Nick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Ruffing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yannick Seurin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA

    Tal Malkin

  2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Chris Peikert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 International Association for Cryptologic Research

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Nick, J., Ruffing, T., Seurin, Y. (2021). MuSig2: Simple Two-Round Schnorr Multi-signatures. In: Malkin, T., Peikert, C. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2021. CRYPTO 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12825. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84242-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84242-0_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84241-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84242-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation