Efficient Round Optimal Blind Signatures

  • Sanjam Garg
  • Divya Gupta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8441)


Known constructions of blind signature schemes suffer from at least one of the following limitations: (1) rely on parties having access to a common reference string or a random oracle, (2) are not round-optimal, or (3) are prohibitively expensive.

In this work, we construct the first blind-signature scheme that does not suffer from any of these limitations. In other words, besides being round optimal and having a standard model proof of security, our scheme is very efficient. Specifically, in our scheme, one signature is of size 6.5 KB and the communication complexity of the signing protocol is roughly 100 KB. An amortized variant of our scheme has communication complexity less that 1 KB.


Signature Scheme Communication Complexity Proof System Random Oracle Blind Signature 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abe, M.: A secure three-move blind signature scheme for polynomially many signatures. In: Pfitzmann, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2045, pp. 136–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abe, M., Chase, M., David, B., Kohlweiss, M., Nishimaki, R., Ohkubo, M.: Constant-size structure-preserving signatures: Generic constructions and simple assumptions. In: Wang, X., Sako, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7658, pp. 4–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abe, M., Haralambiev, K., Ohkubo, M.: Signing on elements in bilinear groups for modular protocol design. IACR ePrint 2010/133 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abe, M., Ohkubo, M.: A framework for universally composable non-committing blind signatures. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 435–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellare, M., Namprempre, C., Pointcheval, D., Semanko, M.: The power of rsa inversion oracles and the security of chaum’s rsa-based blind signature scheme. In: Syverson, P.F. (ed.) FC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2339, pp. 309–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellare, M., Ristenpart, T.: Simulation without the artificial abort: Simplified proof and improved concrete security for waters’ ibe scheme. In: Joux, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5479, pp. 407–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Optimal asymmetric encryption. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 92–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Camenisch, J.L., Koprowski, M., Warinschi, B.: Efficient blind signatures without random oracles. In: Blundo, C., Cimato, S. (eds.) SCN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3352, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaum, D.: Blind signatures for untraceable payments. In: CRYPTO, pp. 199–203 (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischlin, M.: Round-optimal composable blind signatures in the common reference string model. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 60–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischlin, M., Schröder, D.: On the impossibility of three-move blind signature schemes. In: Gilbert, H. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6110, pp. 197–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuchsbauer, G.: Automorphic signatures in bilinear groups and an application to round-optimal blind signatures. IACR ePrint 2009/320 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galindo, D.: The exact security of pairing based encryption and signature schemes. In: Based on a talk at Workshop on Provable Security, INRIA, Paris (2004), http://www.dgalindo.es/galindoEcrypt.pdf
  15. 15.
    Garg, S., Gupta, D.: Efficient round optimal blind signatures. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2014/081 (2014), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  16. 16.
    Garg, S., Rao, V., Sahai, A., Schröder, D., Unruh, D.: Round optimal blind signatures. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 630–648. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groth, J.: Simulation-sound nizk proofs for a practical language and constant size group signatures. In: Lai, X., Chen, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4284, pp. 444–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Hazay, C., Katz, J., Koo, C.-Y., Lindell, Y.: Concurrently-secure blind signatures without random oracles or setup assumptions. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 323–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Juels, A., Luby, M., Ostrovsky, R.: Security of blind digital signatures (extended abstract). In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 150–164. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiayias, A., Zhou, H.-S.: Concurrent blind signatures without random oracles. In: De Prisco, R., Yung, M. (eds.) SCN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4116, pp. 49–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meiklejohn, S., Shacham, H., Freeman, D.M.: Limitations on transformations from composite-order to prime-order groups: The case of round-optimal blind signatures. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 519–538. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okamoto, T.: Efficient blind and partially blind signatures without random oracles. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 80–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pass, R.: Limits of provable security from standard assumptions. In: STOC, pp. 109–118 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pointcheval, D.: Strengthened security for blind signatures. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1403, pp. 391–405. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pointcheval, D., Stern, J.: Provably secure blind signature schemes. In: Kim, K.-C., Matsumoto, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1163, pp. 252–265. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pointcheval, D., Stern, J.: Security proofs for signature schemes. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 387–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pointcheval, D., Stern, J.: Security arguments for digital signatures and blind signatures. Journal of Cryptology 13(3), 361–396 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjam Garg
    • 1
  • Divya Gupta
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM T. J. WatsonUSA
  2. 2.UCLAUSA

Personalised recommendations