Constant-Size Hierarchical Identity-Based Signature/Signcryption without Random Oracles

We construct the first constant-size hierarchical identity-based signature (HIBS) without random oracles - the signature size is $O(\lambda_s)$ bits, where $\lambda_s$ is the security parameter, and it is independent of the number of levels in the hierarchy. We observe that an efficient hierarchical identity-based signcryption (HIBSC) scheme without random oracles can be compositioned from our HIBS and Boneh, Boyen, and Goh\u27s hierarchical identity-based encryption (HIBE). We further optimize it to a constant-factor efficiency improvement. This is the first constant-size HIBSC without random oracles

Identity based cryptography from pairings.

Yuen Tsz Hon.Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2006.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 109-122).Abstracts in English and Chinese.Abstract --- p.iAcknowledgement --- p.iiiList of Notations --- p.viiiChapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1Chapter 1.1 --- Identity Based Cryptography --- p.3Chapter 1.2 --- Hierarchical Identity Based Cryptosystem --- p.4Chapter 1.3 --- Our contributions --- p.5Chapter 1.4 --- Publications --- p.5Chapter 1.4.1 --- Publications Produced from This Thesis --- p.5Chapter 1.4.2 --- Publications During Author's Study in the Degree --- p.6Chapter 1.5 --- Thesis Organization --- p.6Chapter 2 --- Background --- p.8Chapter 2.1 --- Complexity Theory --- p.8Chapter 2.1.1 --- Order Notation --- p.8Chapter 2.1.2 --- Algorithms and Protocols --- p.9Chapter 2.1.3 --- Relations and Languages --- p.11Chapter 2.2 --- Algebra and Number Theory --- p.12Chapter 2.2.1 --- Groups --- p.12Chapter 2.2.2 --- Elliptic Curve --- p.13Chapter 2.2.3 --- Pairings --- p.14Chapter 2.3 --- Intractability Assumptions --- p.15Chapter 2.4 --- Cryptographic Primitives --- p.18Chapter 2.4.1 --- Public Key Encryption --- p.18Chapter 2.4.2 --- Digital Signature --- p.19Chapter 2.4.3 --- Zero Knowledge --- p.21Chapter 2.5 --- Hash Functions --- p.23Chapter 2.6 --- Random Oracle Model --- p.24Chapter 3 --- Literature Review --- p.26Chapter 3.1 --- Identity Based Signatures --- p.26Chapter 3.2 --- Identity Based Encryption --- p.27Chapter 3.3 --- Identity Based Signcryption --- p.27Chapter 3.4 --- Identity Based Blind Signatures --- p.28Chapter 3.5 --- Identity Based Group Signatures --- p.28Chapter 3.6 --- Hierarchical Identity Based Cryptography --- p.29Chapter 4 --- Blind Identity Based Signcryption --- p.30Chapter 4.1 --- Schnorr's ROS problem --- p.31Chapter 4.2 --- BIBSC and Enhanced IBSC Security Model --- p.32Chapter 4.2.1 --- Enhanced IBSC Security Model --- p.33Chapter 4.2.2 --- BIBSC Security Model --- p.36Chapter 4.3 --- Efficient and Secure BIBSC and IBSC Schemes --- p.38Chapter 4.3.1 --- Efficient and Secure IBSC Scheme --- p.38Chapter 4.3.2 --- The First BIBSC Scheme --- p.43Chapter 4.4 --- Generic Group and Pairing Model --- p.47Chapter 4.5 --- Comparisons --- p.52Chapter 4.5.1 --- Comment for IND-B --- p.52Chapter 4.5.2 --- Comment for IND-C --- p.54Chapter 4.5.3 --- Comment for EU --- p.55Chapter 4.6 --- Additional Functionality of Our Scheme --- p.56Chapter 4.6.1 --- TA Compatibility --- p.56Chapter 4.6.2 --- Forward Secrecy --- p.57Chapter 4.7 --- Chapter Conclusion --- p.57Chapter 5 --- Identity Based Group Signatures --- p.59Chapter 5.1 --- New Intractability Assumption --- p.61Chapter 5.2 --- Security Model --- p.62Chapter 5.2.1 --- Syntax --- p.63Chapter 5.2.2 --- Security Notions --- p.64Chapter 5.3 --- Constructions --- p.68Chapter 5.3.1 --- Generic Construction --- p.68Chapter 5.3.2 --- An Instantiation: IBGS-SDH --- p.69Chapter 5.4 --- Security Theorems --- p.73Chapter 5.5 --- Discussions --- p.81Chapter 5.5.1 --- Other Instantiations --- p.81Chapter 5.5.2 --- Short Ring Signatures --- p.82Chapter 5.6 --- Chapter Conclusion --- p.82Chapter 6 --- Hierarchical IBS without Random Oracles --- p.83Chapter 6.1 --- New Intractability Assumption --- p.87Chapter 6.2 --- Security Model: HIBS and HIBSC --- p.89Chapter 6.2.1 --- HIBS Security Model --- p.89Chapter 6.2.2 --- Hierarchical Identity Based Signcryption (HIBSC) --- p.92Chapter 6.3 --- Efficient Instantiation of HIBS --- p.95Chapter 6.3.1 --- Security Analysis --- p.96Chapter 6.3.2 --- Ordinary Signature from HIBS --- p.101Chapter 6.4 --- Plausibility Arguments for the Intractability of the OrcYW Assumption --- p.102Chapter 6.5 --- Efficient HIBSC without Random Oracles --- p.103Chapter 6.5.1 --- Generic Composition from HIBE and HIBS --- p.104Chapter 6.5.2 --- Concrete Instantiation --- p.105Chapter 6.6 --- Chapter Conclusion --- p.107Chapter 7 --- Conclusion --- p.108Bibliography --- p.10

Primary-Secondary-Resolver Membership Proof Systems

We consider Primary-Secondary-Resolver Membership Proof Systems (PSR for short) and show different constructions of that primitive. A PSR system is a 3-party protocol, where we have a primary, which is a trusted party which commits to a set of members and their values, then generates a public and secret keys in order for secondaries (provers with knowledge of both keys) and resolvers (verifiers who only know the public key) to engage in interactive proof sessions regarding elements in the universe and their values. The motivation for such systems is for constructing a secure Domain Name System (DNSSEC) that does not reveal any unnecessary information to its clients. We require our systems to be complete, so honest executions will result in correct conclusions by the resolvers, sound, so malicious secondaries cannot cheat resolvers, and zero-knowledge, so resolvers will not learn additional information about elements they did not query explicitly. Providing proofs of membership is easy, as the primary can simply precompute signatures over all the members of the set. Providing proofs of non-membership, i.e. a denial-of-existence mechanism, is trickier and is the main issue in constructing PSR systems. We provide three different strategies to construct a denial of existence mechanism. The first uses a set of cryptographic keys for all elements of the universe which are not members, which we implement using hierarchical identity based encryption and a tree based signature scheme. The second construction uses cuckoo hashing with a stash, where in order to prove non-membership, a secondary must prove that a search for it will fail, i.e. that it is not in the tables or the stash of the cuckoo hashing scheme. The third uses a verifiable ``random looking\u27\u27 function which the primary evaluates over the set of members, then signs the values lexicographically and secondaries then use those signatures to prove to resolvers that the value of the non-member was not signed by the primary. We implement this function using a weaker variant of verifiable random/unpredictable functions and pseudorandom functions with interactive zero knowledge proofs. For all three constructions we suggest fairly efficient implementations, of order comparable to other public-key operations such as signatures and encryption. The first approach offers perfect ZK and does not reveal the size of the set in question, the second can be implemented based on very solid cryptographic assumptions and uses the unique structure of cuckoo hashing, while the last technique has the potential to be highly efficient, if one could construct an efficient and secure VRF/VUF or if one is willing to live in the random oracle model

Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABBRA) in New Jersey: a case study of the implementation of regulatory policy

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate year two of the implementation of the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABBRA). The environment of accountability has become increasingly prominent through the ongoing development of regulatory policy in the field of education (Anderson, 2011; Fowler, 2009; Limber & Small, 2003; Peterson & West, 2003; Rudalevige, 2003; United States Department of Education, 2011; White House, 2011). This investigation focused on the gap between crafted policy and implementation of policy due to prior anti-bullying legislation throughout the country having been unsuccessful in the implementation phase (Glover, Cartwright, Gough, & Johnson, 1998; Kester & Mann, 2008; Smith-Canty, 2010). Analysis procedures utilized the method of qualitative research as grounded theory with case study as a strategy (Charmaz, 2010; Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Yin, 2012). Versus Coding provided the method for analysis (Saldana, 2009). Data indicated that several codes emerged illuminating a single explanatory theme of Control versus Freedom. Implications were suggested for policy implementers, policy makers and further theory development