Abstract
Previous definitions of designated confirmer signatures in the literature are incomplete, and the proposed security definitions fail to capture key security properties, such as unforgeability against malicious confirmers and non-transferability. We propose new definitions.
Previous schemes rely on the random oracle model or set-up assumptions, or are secure with respect to relaxed security definitions. We construct a practical scheme that is provably secure with respect to our security definition under the strong RSA-assumption, the decision composite residuosity assumption, and the decision Diffie-Hellman assumption.
To achieve our results we introduce several new relaxations of standard notions. We expect these techniques to be useful in the construction and analysis of other efficient cryptographic schemes.
This is an extended abstract. The full paper [23] is available at the Cryptology ePrint Archive, http://eprint.iacr.org.
Chapter PDF
References
Boudot, F.: Efficient proofs that a committed number lies in an interval. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 431–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
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)
Camensisch, J., Shoup, V.: Practical verifiable encryption and decryption of discrete logarithms. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 126–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Chaum, D.: Designated confirmer signatures. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 86–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Chaum, D., van Antwerpen, H.: Undeniable signatures. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 212–216. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)
Cramer, R., Damgård, I., MacKenzie, P.D.: Efficient zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge without intractability assumptions. In: Imai, H., Zheng, Y. (eds.) PKC 2000. LNCS, vol. 1751, pp. 354–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Cramer, R., Damgård, I., Pedersen, T.P.: Efficient and provable security amplifications. In: Lomas, M. (ed.) Security Protocols. LNCS, vol. 1189, pp. 101–109. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Cramer, R., Shoup, V.: Universal hash proofs and a paradigm for adaptive chosen ciphertext secure public-key encryption (June 1999), http://homepages.cwi.nl/cramer/
I. Damgård and E. Fujisaki. A statistically-hiding integer commitment scheme based on groups with hidden order. In Advances in Cryptology – Asiacrypt 2002, volume 2501 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 125–142. Springer Verlag, 2002.
W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman. New directions in cryptography. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 22(6):644–654, 1976.
Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Non-malleable cryptography. In: 23rd ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 542–552. ACM Press, New York (1991)
Fujisaki, E., Okamoto, T.: Statistical zero knowledge protocols to prove modular polynomial relations. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Gentry, C., Molnar, D., Ramzan, Z.: Efficient designated confirmer signatures without random oracles or zero-knowledge proofs (extended abstract). In: Roy, B. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3788, pp. 662–681. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Goldreich, O.: A uniform-complexity treatment of encryption and zeroknowledge. Journal of Cryptology 6(1), 21–53 (1993)
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)
Goldwasser, S., Waisbard, E.: Transformation of digital signature schemes into designated confirmer signatures. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 77–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
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)
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)
Okamoto, T.: Designated confirmer signatures and public key encryption are equivalent. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1994. LNCS, vol. 839, pp. 61–74. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Paillier, P.: Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Pass, R., Rosen, A.: New and improved constructions of non-malleable cryptographic protocols. In: 37th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 533–542. ACM Press, New York (2005)
Shoup, V., Gennaro, R.: Securing threshold cryptosystems against chosen ciphertext attack. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Wikström, D.: Designated confirmer signatures revisited. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report, 2006/123 (2006), http://eprint.iacr.org/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wikström, D. (2007). Designated Confirmer Signatures Revisited. In: Vadhan, S.P. (eds) Theory of Cryptography. TCC 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4392. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70936-7_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70936-7_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-70935-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70936-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)