Still Wrong Use of Pairings in Cryptography

Several pairing-based cryptographic protocols are recently proposed with a wide variety of new novel applications including the ones in emerging technologies like cloud computing, internet of things (IoT), e-health systems and wearable technologies. There have been however a wide range of incorrect use of these primitives. The paper of Galbraith, Paterson, and Smart (2006) pointed out most of the issues related to the incorrect use of pairing-based cryptography. However, we noticed that some recently proposed applications still do not use these primitives correctly. This leads to unrealizable, insecure or too inefficient designs of pairing-based protocols. We observed that one reason is not being aware of the recent advancements on solving the discrete logarithm problems in some groups. The main purpose of this article is to give an understandable, informative, and the most up-to-date criteria for the correct use of pairing-based cryptography. We thereby deliberately avoid most of the technical details and rather give special emphasis on the importance of the correct use of bilinear maps by realizing secure cryptographic protocols. We list a collection of some recent papers having wrong security assumptions or realizability/efficiency issues. Finally, we give a compact and an up-to-date recipe of the correct use of pairings.Comment: 25 page

A New Cryptosystem Based On Hidden Order Groups

Let $G_1$ be a cyclic multiplicative group of order $n$. It is known that the Diffie-Hellman problem is random self-reducible in $G_1$ with respect to a fixed generator $g$ if $\phi(n)$ is known. That is, given $g, g^x\in G_1$ and having oracle access to a `Diffie-Hellman Problem' solver with fixed generator $g$, it is possible to compute $g^{1/x} \in G_1$ in polynomial time (see theorem 3.2). On the other hand, it is not known if such a reduction exists when $\phi(n)$ is unknown (see conjuncture 3.1). We exploit this ``gap'' to construct a cryptosystem based on hidden order groups and present a practical implementation of a novel cryptographic primitive called an \emph{Oracle Strong Associative One-Way Function} (O-SAOWF). O-SAOWFs have applications in multiparty protocols. We demonstrate this by presenting a key agreement protocol for dynamic ad-hoc groups.Comment: removed examples for multiparty key agreement and join protocols, since they are redundan

Foundations of Fully Dynamic Group Signatures

Group signatures are a central cryptographic primitive that has received a considerable amount of attention from the cryptographic community. They allow members of a group to anonymously sign on behalf of the group. Membership is overseen by a designated group manager. There is also a tracing authority that can revoke anonymity by revealing the identity of the signer if and when needed, to enforce accountability and deter abuse. For the primitive to be applicable in practice, it needs to support fully dynamic groups, i.e. users can join and leave at any time. In this work we take a close look at existing security definitions for fully dynamic group signatures. We identify a number of shortcomings in existing security definitions and fill the gap by providing a formal rigorous security model for the primitive. Our model is general and is not tailored towards a specific design paradigm and can therefore, as we show, be used to argue about the security of different existing constructions following different design paradigms. Our definitions are stringent and when possible incorporate protection against maliciously chosen keys. In the process, we identify a subtle issue inherent to one design paradigm, where new members might try to implicate older ones by means of back-dated signatures. This is not captured by existing models. We propose some inexpensive fixes for some existing constructions to avoid the issue

Lattice-Based Group Signatures: Achieving Full Dynamicity (and Deniability) with Ease

In this work, we provide the first lattice-based group signature that offers full dynamicity (i.e., users have the flexibility in joining and leaving the group), and thus, resolve a prominent open problem posed by previous works. Moreover, we achieve this non-trivial feat in a relatively simple manner. Starting with Libert et al.'s fully static construction (Eurocrypt 2016) - which is arguably the most efficient lattice-based group signature to date, we introduce simple-but-insightful tweaks that allow to upgrade it directly into the fully dynamic setting. More startlingly, our scheme even produces slightly shorter signatures than the former, thanks to an adaptation of a technique proposed by Ling et al. (PKC 2013), allowing to prove inequalities in zero-knowledge. Our design approach consists of upgrading Libert et al.'s static construction (EUROCRYPT 2016) - which is arguably the most efficient lattice-based group signature to date - into the fully dynamic setting. Somewhat surprisingly, our scheme produces slightly shorter signatures than the former, thanks to a new technique for proving inequality in zero-knowledge without relying on any inequality check. The scheme satisfies the strong security requirements of Bootle et al.'s model (ACNS 2016), under the Short Integer Solution (SIS) and the Learning With Errors (LWE) assumptions. Furthermore, we demonstrate how to equip the obtained group signature scheme with the deniability functionality in a simple way. This attractive functionality, put forward by Ishida et al. (CANS 2016), enables the tracing authority to provide an evidence that a given user is not the owner of a signature in question. In the process, we design a zero-knowledge protocol for proving that a given LWE ciphertext does not decrypt to a particular message

Foundations of Fully Dynamic Group Signatures

Group signatures allow members of a group to anonymously sign on behalf of the group. Membership is administered by a designated group manager. The group manager can also reveal the identity of a signer if and when needed to enforce accountability and deter abuse. For group signatures to be applicable in practice, they need to support fully dynamic groups, i.e., users may join and leave at any time. Existing security definitions for fully dynamic group signatures are informal, have shortcomings, and are mutually incompatible. We fill the gap by providing a formal rigorous security model for fully dynamic group signatures. Our model is general and is not tailored toward a specific design paradigm and can therefore, as we show, be used to argue about the security of different existing constructions following different design paradigms. Our definitions are stringent and when possible incorporate protection against maliciously chosen keys. We consider both the case where the group management and tracing signatures are administered by the same authority, i.e., a single group manager, and also the case where those roles are administered by two separate authorities, i.e., a group manager and an opening authority. We also show that a specialization of our model captures existing models for static and partially dynamic schemes. In the process, we identify a subtle gap in the security achieved by group signatures using revocation lists. We show that in such schemes new members achieve a slightly weaker notion of traceability. The flexibility of our security model allows to capture such relaxation of traceability