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

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 brief review of revocable ID-based public key cryptosystem

SummaryThe design of ID-based cryptography has received much attention from researchers. However, how to revoke the misbehaviour/compromised user in ID-based public key cryptosystem becomes an important research issue. Recently, Tseng and Tsai proposed a novel public key cryptosystem called revocable ID-based public key cryptosystem (RIBE) to solve the revocation problem. Later on, numerous research papers based on the Tseng-Tsai key RIBE were proposed. In this paper, we brief review Tseng and Tsai's RIBE. We hope this review can help the readers to understand the Tseng and Tsai's revocable ID-based public key cryptosystem