Abstract
Most prior designated confirmer signature schemes either prove security in the random oracle model (ROM) or use general zero-knowledge proofs for NP statements (making them impractical). By slightly modifying the definition of designated confirmer signatures, Goldwasser and Waisbard presented an approach in which the Confirm and ConfirmedSign protocols could be implemented without appealing to general zero-knowledge proofs for NP statements (their “Disavow” protocol still requires them). The Goldwasser-Waisbard approach could be instantiated using Cramer-Shoup, GMR, or Gennaro-Halevi-Rabin signatures.
In this paper, we provide an alternate generic transformation to convert any signature scheme into a designated confirmer signature scheme, without adding random oracles. Our key technique involves the use of a signature on a commitment and a separate encryption of the random string used for commitment. By adding this “layer of indirection,” the underlying protocols in our schemes admit efficient instantiations (i.e., we can avoid appealing to general zero-knowledge proofs for NP statements) and furthermore the performance of these protocols is not tied to the choice of underlying signature scheme. We illustrate this using the Camenisch-Shoup variation on Paillier’s cryptosystem and Pedersen commitments. The confirm protocol in our resulting scheme requires 10 modular exponentiations (compared to 320 for Goldwasser-Waisbard) and our disavow protocol requires 41 modular exponentiations (compared to using a general zero-knowledge proof for Goldwasser-Waisbard). Previous schemes use the “encryption of a signature” paradigm, and thus run into problems when trying to implement the “confirm” and “disavow” protocols efficiently.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Asokan, N., Shoup, V., Waidner, M.: Optimistic fair exchange of digital signatures. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 18(4), 591–610 (2000)
Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: A paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: ACM CCS 1993 (1993)
Bellare, M., Goldreich, O.: On defining proofs of knowledge. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 390–420. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
Camenisch, J., Michels, M.: Confirmer Signature Schemes Secure Against Adaptive Adversaries. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, p. 243. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Camenisch, J., Lysyanskaya, A.: Signature Schemes and Anonymous Credentials from Bilinear Maps. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 56–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Camenisch, J., Shoup, V.: Practical Verifable Encryption and Decryption of Discrete Logarithms. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 126–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2003); Full version available from www.shoup.net
Chaum, D.: Designated Confirmer Signatures. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 86–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
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)
Chaum, D., van Antwerpen, H.: Undeniable Signatures. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 212–216. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)
Cramer, R., Shoup, V.: Signature Schemes Based on the Strong RSA Assumption. In: ACM CCS 1999 (1999)
Damgard, I.: Efficient concurrent zero-knowledge in the auxiliary string model. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, p. 418. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Cramer, R., Shoup, V.: A Practical Public Key Cryptosystem Provably Secure Against Adaptive Chosen Message Attack. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) CRYPTO 1998. LNCS, vol. 1462, p. 13. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Cramer, R., Damgard, I., Shoup, V.: Efficient Zero-Knowledge Proofs of Knowledge without Intractability Assumptions. In: Imai, H., Zheng, Y. (eds.) PKC 2000. LNCS, vol. 1751, pp. 354–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Gennaro, R., Halevi, S., Rabin, T.: Secure Hash-and-Sign Signatures Without the Random Oracle. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, p. 123. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Goldreich, O., Kahan, A.: How to Construct Constant-Round Zero-Knowledge Proof Systems for NP. Journal of Cryptology 9(3), 167–189
Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rivest, R.: A Digital Signature Scheme Secure Against Adaptive Chosen Message Attacks. SICOMP 17(2), 281–308 (1988)
Goldwasser, S., Waisbard, E.: Transformation of Digital Signature Schemes into Designated Confirmer Signature Schemes. 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)
Cramer, R., Damgard, I., Schoenmakers, B.: Proofs of partial knowledge and simplified design of witness hiding protocols. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1994. LNCS, vol. 839, pp. 174–187. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Naor, M., Yung, M.: Public-key cryptosystems provably secure against chosen ciphertext attacks. In: STOC 1990 (1990)
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 residue classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, p. 223. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Pedersen, T.P.: A threshold cryptosystem without a trusted third party. In: Davies, D.W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1991. LNCS, vol. 547, pp. 522–526. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)
Schnorr, C.P.: Efficient Identification and Signatures for Smart Cards. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 498–506. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)
Shamir, A., Tauman, Y.: Improved Online-Offline Signature Schemes. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, p. 355. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
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)
Garay, J., MacKenzie, P., Yang, K.: Strengthening Zero-Knowledge Protocols Using Signatures. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 177–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
MacKenzie, P., Yang, K.: On Simulation-Sound Trapdoor Commitments. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 382–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gentry, C., Molnar, D., Ramzan, Z. (2005). Efficient Designated Confirmer Signatures Without Random Oracles or General Zero-Knowledge Proofs. In: Roy, B. (eds) Advances in Cryptology - ASIACRYPT 2005. ASIACRYPT 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3788. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11593447_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11593447_36
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-30684-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32267-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)