On the Relations Between Diffie-Hellman and ID-Based Key Agreement from Pairings

This paper studies the relationships between the traditional Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol and the identity-based (ID-based) key agreement protocol from pairings. For the Sakai-Ohgishi-Kasahara (SOK) ID-based key construction, we show that identical to the Diffie-Hellman protocol, the SOK key agreement protocol also has three variants, namely \emph{ephemeral}, \emph{semi-static} and \emph{static} versions. Upon this, we build solid relations between authenticated Diffie-Hellman (Auth-DH) protocols and ID-based authenticated key agreement (IB-AK) protocols, whereby we present two \emph{substitution rules} for this two types of protocols. The rules enable a conversion between the two types of protocols. In particular, we obtain the \emph{real} ID-based version of the well-known MQV (and HMQV) protocol. Similarly, for the Sakai-Kasahara (SK) key construction, we show that the key transport protocol underlining the SK ID-based encryption scheme (which we call the "SK protocol") has its non-ID counterpart, namely the Hughes protocol. Based on this observation, we establish relations between corresponding ID-based and non-ID-based protocols. In particular, we propose a highly enhanced version of the McCullagh-Barreto protocol

Analysis of two pairing-based three-party password authenticated key exchange protocols

Password-Authenticated Key Exchange (PAKE) protocols allow parties to share secret keys in an authentic manner based on an easily memorizable password. Recently, Nam et al. showed that a provably secure three-party password-based authenticated key exchange protocol using Weil pairing by Wen et al. is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. In doing so, Nam et al. showed the flaws in the proof of Wen et al. and described how to fix the problem so that their attack no longer works. In this paper, we show that both Wen et al. and Nam et al. variants fall to key compromise impersonation by any adversary. Our results underline the fact that although the provable security approach is necessary to designing PAKEs, gaps still exist between what can be proven and what are really secure in practice