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

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

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

An Identity-Based Group Signature with Membership Revocation in the Standard Model

Group signatures allow group members to sign an arbitrary number\ud of messages on behalf of the group without revealing their\ud identity. Under certain circumstances the group manager holding a\ud tracing key can reveal the identity of the signer from the\ud signature. Practical group signature schemes should support\ud membership revocation where the revoked member loses the\ud capability to sign a message on behalf of the group without\ud influencing the other non-revoked members. A model known as\ud \emph{verifier-local revocation} supports membership revocation.\ud In this model the trusted revocation authority sends revocation\ud messages to the verifiers and there is no need for the trusted\ud revocation authority to contact non-revoked members to update\ud their secret keys. Previous constructions of verifier-local\ud revocation group signature schemes either have a security proof in the\ud random oracle model or are non-identity based. A security proof\ud in the random oracle model is only a heuristic proof and\ud non-identity-based group signature suffer from standard Public Key\ud Infrastructure (PKI) problems, i.e. the group public key is not\ud derived from the group identity and therefore has to be certified.\ud \ud \ud In this work we construct the first verifier-local revocation group\ud signature scheme which is identity-based and which has a security proof in the standard model. In\ud particular, we give a formal security model for the proposed\ud scheme and prove that the scheme has the\ud property of selfless-anonymity under the decision Linear (DLIN)\ud assumption and it is fully-traceable under the\ud Computation Diffie-Hellman (CDH) assumption. The proposed scheme is based on prime order bilinear\ud groups

A-MAKE: an efficient, anonymous and accountable authentication framework for WMNs

In this paper, we propose a framework, named as A-MAKE, which efficiently provides security, privacy, and accountability for communications in wireless mesh networks. More specifically, the framework provides an anonymous mutual authentication protocol whereby legitimate users can connect to network from anywhere without being identified or tracked. No single party (e.g., network operator) can violate the privacy of a user, which is provided in our framework in the strongest sense. Our framework utilizes group signatures, where the private key and the credentials of the users are generated through a secure three-party protocol. User accountability is implemented via user revocation protocol that can be executed by two semitrusted authorities, one of which is the network operator. The assumptions about the trust level of the network operator are relaxed. Our framework makes use of much more efficient signature generation and verification algorithms in terms of computation complexity than their counterparts in literature, where signature size is comparable to the shortest signatures proposed for similar purposes so far

An Institutional Framework for Heterogeneous Formal Development in UML

We present a framework for formal software development with UML. In contrast to previous approaches that equip UML with a formal semantics, we follow an institution based heterogeneous approach. This can express suitable formal semantics of the different UML diagram types directly, without the need to map everything to one specific formalism (let it be first-order logic or graph grammars). We show how different aspects of the formal development process can be coherently formalised, ranging from requirements over design and Hoare-style conditions on code to the implementation itself. The framework can be used to verify consistency of different UML diagrams both horizontally (e.g., consistency among various requirements) as well as vertically (e.g., correctness of design or implementation w.r.t. the requirements)

Thoughts on opportunities in high-energy nuclear collisions

This document reflects thoughts on opportunities from high-energy nuclear collisions in the 2020s.Comment: 10 pages, pd