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

Stronger Security for Sanitizable Signatures

Sanitizable signature schemes (SSS) enable a designated party (called the sanitizer ) to alter admissible blocks of a signed message. This primitive can be used to remove or alter sensitive data from already signed messages without involvement of the original signer. Current state-of-the-art security definitions of SSSs only dene a \weak form of security. Namely, the unforgeability, accountability and transparency definitions are not strong enough to be meaningful in certain use-cases. We identify some of these use-cases, close this gap by introducing stronger definitions, and show how to alter an existing construction to meet our desired security level. Moreover, we clarify a small yet important detail in the state-of-the-art privacy definition. Our work allows to deploy this primitive in more and different scenarios

Practical Strongly Invisible and Strongly Accountable Sanitizable Signatures

Sanitizable signatures are a variant of digital signatures where a designated party (the sanitizer) can update admissible parts of a signed message. At PKC’17, Camenisch et al. introduced the notion of invisible sanitizable signatures that hides from an outsider which parts of a message are admissible. Their security definition of invisibility, however, does not consider dishonest signers. Along the same lines, their signer-accountability definition does not prevent the signer from falsely accusing the sanitizer of having issued a signature on a sanitized message by exploiting the malleability of the signature itself. Both issues may limit the usefulness of their scheme in certain applications. We revise their definitional framework, and present a new construction eliminating these shortcomings. In contrast to Camenisch et al.’s construction, ours requires only standard building blocks instead of chameleon hashes with ephemeral trapdoors. This makes this, now even stronger, primitive more attractive for practical use. We underpin the practical efficiency of our scheme by concrete benchmarks of a prototype implementation

Rethinking Privacy for Extended Sanitizable Signatures and a Black-Box Construction of Strongly Private Schemes

Sanitizable signatures, introduced by Ateniese et al. at ESORICS\u2705, allow to issue a signature on a message where certain predefined message blocks may later be changed (sanitized) by some dedicated party (the sanitizer) without invalidating the original signature. With sanitizable signatures, replacements for modifiable (admissible) message blocks can be chosen arbitrarily by the sanitizer. However, in various scenarios this makes sanitizers too powerful. To reduce the sanitizers power, Klonowski and Lauks at ICISC\u2706 proposed (among others) an extension that enables the signer to limit the allowed modifications per admissible block to a well defined set each. At CT-RSA\u2710 Canard and Jambert then extended the formal model of Brzuska et al. from PKC\u2709 to additionally include the aforementioned and other extensions. We, however, observe that the privacy guarantees of their model do not capture privacy in the sense of the original definition of sanitizable signatures. That is, if a scheme is private in this model it is not guaranteed that the sets of allowed modifications remain concealed. To this end, we review a stronger notion of privacy, i.e., (strong) unlinkability (defined by Brzuska et al. at EuroPKI\u2713), in this context. While unlinkability fixes this problem, no efficient unlinkable scheme supporting the aforementioned extensions exists and it seems to be hard to construct such schemes. As a remedy, in this paper, we propose a notion stronger than privacy, but weaker than unlinkability, which captures privacy in the original sense. Moreover, it allows to easily construct efficient schemes satisfying our notion from secure existing schemes in a black-box fashion

Routing and Security in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

A Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) consists of a set of nodes which can form a network among themselves. MANETs have applications in areas such as military, disaster rescue operations, monitoring animal habitats, etc. where establishing fixed communication infrastructure is not feasible. Routing protocols designed for MANETs can be broadly classified as position-based (geographic), topology-based and hybrid. Geographic routing uses location information of nodes to route messages. Topology-based routing uses network state information for route discovery and maintenance. Hybrid routing protocols use features in both position-based and topology-based approaches. Position-based routing protocols route packets towards the destination using greedy forwarding (i.e., an intermediate node forwards packets to a neighbor that is closer to the destination than itself). If a node has no neighbor that is closer to the destination than itself, greedy forwarding fails. In this case, we say there is void. Different position-based routing protocols use different methods for dealing with voids. Topology-based routing protocols can be classified into on-demand (reactive) routing protocols and proactive routing protocols. Generally, on-demand routing protocols establish routes when needed by flooding route requests throughout the entire network, which is not a scalable approach. Reactive routing protocols try to maintain routes between every pair of nodes by periodically exchanging messages with each other which is not a scalable approach also. This thesis addresses some of these issues and makes the following contribution. First, we present a position-based routing protocol called Greedy Routing Protocol with Backtracking (GRB) which uses a simple backtracking technique to route around voids, unlike existing position-based routing protocols which construct planarized graph of the local network to route around voids. We compare the performance of our protocol with the well known Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR) protocol and the Ad-Hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol as well as the Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol. Performance evaluation shows that our protocol has less control overhead than those of DSR, AODV, and GPSR. Performance evaluation also shows that our protocol has a higher packet-delivery ratio, lower end-to-end delay, and less hop count, on average, compared to AODV, DSR and GPSR. We then present an on-demand routing protocol called ``Hybrid On-demand Greedy Routing Protocol with Backtracking for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks which uses greedy approach for route discovery. This prevents flooding route requests, unlike the existing on-demand routing protocols. This approach also helps in finding routes that have lower hop counts than AODV and DSR. Our performance evaluation confirms that our protocol performs better than AODV and DSR, on average, with respect to hop count, packet-delivery ratio and control overhead. In MANETs, all nodes need to cooperate to establish routes. Establishing secure and valid routes in the presence of adversaries is a challenge in MANETs. Some of the well-known source routing protocols presented in the literature (e.g., Ariadne and endairA) which claim to establish secure routes are susceptible to hidden channel attacks. We address this issue and present a secure routing protocol called SAriadne, based on sanitizable signatures. We show that our protocol detects and prevents hidden channel attacks

Chameleon-Hashes with Dual Long-Term Trapdoors and Their Applications

A chameleon-hash behaves likes a standard collision-resistant hash function for outsiders. If, however, a trapdoor is known, arbitrary collisions can be found. Chameleon-hashes with ephemeral trapdoors (CHET; Camenisch et al., PKC ’17) allow prohibiting that the holder of the long-term trapdoor can find collisions by introducing a second, ephemeral, trapdoor. However, this ephemeral trapdoor is required to be chosen freshly for each hash. We extend these ideas and introduce the notion of chameleon-hashes with dual long-term trapdoors (CHDLTT). Here, the second trapdoor is not chosen freshly for each new hash; Rather, the hashing party can decide if it wants to generate a fresh second trapdoor or use an existing one. This primitive generalizes CHETs, extends their applicability and enables some appealing new use-cases, including three-party sanitizable signatures, group-level selectively revocable signatures and break-the-glass signatures. We present two provably secure constructions and an implementation which demonstrates that this extended primitive is efficient enough for use in practice

Protean Signature Schemes

We introduce the notion of Protean Signature schemes. This novel type of signature scheme allows to remove and edit signer-chosen parts of signed messages by a semi-trusted third party simultaneously. In existing work, one is either allowed to remove or edit parts of signed messages, but not both at the same time. Which and how parts of the signed messages can be modified is chosen by the signer. Thus, our new primitive generalizes both redactable (Steinfeld et al., ICISC \u2701, Johnson et al., CT-RSA \u2702 & Brzuska et al., ACNS\u2710) and sanitizable signatures schemes (Ateniese et al., ESORICS \u2705 & Brzuska et al., PKC\u2709). We showcase a scenario where either primitive alone is not sufficient. Our provably secure construction (offering both strong notions of transparency and invisibility) makes only black-box access to sanitizable and redactable signature schemes, which can be considered standard tools nowadays. Finally, we have implemented our scheme; Our evaluation shows that the performance is reasonable

Fully Invisible Protean Signatures Schemes

Protean Signatures (PS), recently introduced by Krenn et al. (CANS \u2718), allow a semi-trusted third party, named the sanitizer, to modify a signed message in a controlled way. The sanitizer can edit signer-chosen parts to arbitrary bitstrings, while the sanitizer can also redact admissible parts, which are also chosen by the signer. Thus, PSs generalize both redactable signature (RSS) and sanitizable signature (SSS) into a single notion. However, the current definition of invisibility does not prohibit that an outsider can decide which parts of a message are redactable - only which parts can be edited are hidden. This negatively impacts on the privacy guarantees provided by the state-of-the-art definition. We extend PSs to be fully invisible. This strengthened notion guarantees that an outsider can neither decide which parts of a message can be edited nor which parts can be redacted. To achieve our goal, we introduce the new notions of Invisible RSSs and Invisible Non-Accountable SSSs (SSS\u27), along with a consolidated framework for aggregate signatures. Using those building blocks, our resulting construction is significantly more efficient than the original scheme by Krenn et al., which we demonstrate in a prototypical implementation

Policy-Based Sanitizable Signatures

Sanitizable signatures are a variant of signatures which allow a single, and signer-defined, sanitizer to modify signed messages in a controlled way without invalidating the respective signature. They turned out to be a versatile primitive, proven by different variants and extensions, e.g., allowing multiple sanitizers or adding new sanitizers one-by-one. However, existing constructions are very restricted regarding their flexibility in specifying potential sanitizers. We propose a different and more powerful approach: Instead of using sanitizers\u27 public keys directly, we assign attributes to them. Sanitizing is then based on policies, i.e., access structures defined over attributes. A sanitizer can sanitize, if, and only if, it holds a secret key to attributes satisfying the policy associated to a signature, while offering full-scale accountability