Re: [Cfrg] Internet-Draft: Collective Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm

Daniel Slamanig <daniel.slamanig@tugraz.at> Thu, 06 July 2017 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel.slamanig@tugraz.at>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D008812EB69 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tugraz.at
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5waHpx5huRXa for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at (mailrelay.tugraz.at [129.27.2.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95CE9126B6D for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.27.152.210] (nat-hiding.iaik.tugraz.at [129.27.152.126]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailrelay2.tugraz.at (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id v668YboV010680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:34:38 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1499330081; bh=Rn5nCYH4P21Vqc7j3lNlvracpkMuib+YvK6nmy4/r40=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=UrXWu2sWGgPxCwoqai/RhJTHsYYQR2N6iKURjAshOvSPTn1WyStIAt07gceg021PN 8cpHlfQrWDQXs2BgtcPfiDxIs81uADdbBMtMXPmFZJdQsjE1k1N3ffU9KIfghw6Ksh 9YlBLSxbfwaf1n+yWy6+QpmUyxhOSfCMfw4Ecx8E=
To: Bryan Ford <brynosaurus@gmail.com>
Cc: Philipp Jovanovic <philipp@jovanovic.io>, cfrg@irtf.org
References: <8AE29DD0-26FE-4AB6-A4A9-2BB9169BAB13@jovanovic.io> <11cc5d3f-ecf9-2fd0-825c-c8b441bd2813@tugraz.at> <A423CB6E-D649-4320-BB76-2E3783D6AFE0@gmail.com>
From: Daniel Slamanig <daniel.slamanig@tugraz.at>
Message-ID: <1e0faffa-370c-bf81-4973-55bfd36de510@tugraz.at>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:34:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A423CB6E-D649-4320-BB76-2E3783D6AFE0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TUG-Backscatter-control: lAa1Aa+Pa1hp/miybLoRww
X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001
X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.7
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/MBVLP-Nw4LqN3BKMrZuyzI1cwnA>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Internet-Draft: Collective Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 08:34:49 -0000

Hi Bryan,

thank you very much for your detailed comments. I have to admit that I 
was not aware of the S&P paper before reading the draft and so I 
somewhat missed the big picture and simply "analyzed" the collective 
signing as described in the draft without specific context.

You are correct in that with a chameleon hash (CH) the leader needs to 
be somehow trusted (it however does not seem to me that the leader has 
more power than producing invalid signatures by messing up with the CH - 
which would work in any case - but I guess one needs to evaluate that in 
a bit more details). Moreover, in such a CH approach the leader must be 
involved in the final step of the signature generation. It seems to me 
that this is not the case in your approach as everyone could complete 
the multi-signature. Clearly, the CH approach is much more susceptible 
to DoS attacks.

Another observation regarding committing to the bitmask Z. If you do not 
commit to the bitmask Z, then users could cooperate in setting up their 
public keys, lets say A_i and A_j cooperate. Then one of them could take 
part in the signing, but in the end one could use the attack with the 
rogue keys outlined in my initial mail so that A_j can claim that he 
took part in the signing process although A_i actually took part. As far 
as I see not even using a delinearization scheme would help here. 
Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is not a valid attack vector when 
I look at the paper (but as you do not formally specify a security model 
for your approach in the paper this is hard to tell). Note that such an 
attack would even work if users have to register the public keys and 
prove that they know the secret key corresponding to the public key, 
e.g., via a (NI)ZK proof of the secret key - which I have seen is 
mentioned in the paper, but not discussed in the draft. Summing up, 
without commiting to Z in the signature, you would trivially not be able 
to achieve strong EUF-CMA security of the multi-signature due to the 
malleability, but as far as I see standard EUF-CMA should still hold 
(which seems sufficient for your application).

Thanks and cheers,
Daniel

On 05.07.2017 15:11, Bryan Ford wrote:
> Hi Daniel, thanks for your thoughts on the commitment-to-the-bitmask issue.
> 
> Your proposal of using a chameleon hash, to allow the leader to “adjust” 
> the bit mask after the commit c has been established, is an interesting 
> idea. However, if I understand it correctly, if the leader holds the 
> trapdoor key for the chameleon hash, wouldn’t that still make the final 
> collective signature malleable for the leader (or for anyone the 
> leader’s trapdoor key might leak to)?  The CoSi protocol as currently 
> defined is intended to ensure that the leader has no special privilege 
> or trust with respect to other cosigners: i.e., the leader is merely an 
> ordinary participant, but is simply the one who for whatever reason 
> decides to initiate the cosigning operation.  Giving the leader special 
> powers - e.g., making the signature malleable to the leader but not to 
> others - would break this principle and need to be extremely carefully 
> considered I think.
> 
> To follow up on my last message to Oleg, again I suggest reading section 
> IV of our CoSi paper from IEEE S&P last year 
> (http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/papers/witness-abs), as it discusses 
> several related issues, especially the potential desire to allow the 
> leader to complete a collective signing procedure even with only a 
> subset of “committed” participants remaining present in the “response” 
> phase.  In particular, the leader can form all the individual Schnorr 
> commits into a Merkle tree, and make the real commit c be the root of 
> that Merkle tree.  In this way, the leader is committing not so much to 
> a particular collective Schnorr commit but rather to *all possible* 
> Schnorr commits that can be composed from any subset of the individual 
> Schnorr commits within that Merkle tree.  This way, if some of the 
> participants whose commits are present in that Merkle tree remain 
> available during the response phase but others drop out, the leader can 
> still use the commit c and form a correct and verifiable collective 
> signature against the particular subset of Schnorr commits from nodes 
> that remained available throughout the process, without restarting.
> 
> I guess this approach does, in a slightly different way, make the 
> resulting collective signatures slightly malleable to the leader: from a 
> given set of commit-time and response-time information, the leader could 
> put together distinct collective signatures representing different 
> subsets of response-time participants.  Some form of 
> “leader-malleability” of this kind seems unavoidably essential to 
> enabling the leader to complete a collective signing round in the 
> presence of partial failures without restarting.  Perhaps the same 
> limited leader-malleability is more-or-less the same property your 
> suggestion of using chameleon hashes has, although I haven’t had a 
> chance to compare them deeply yet.
> 
> But at any rate, the higher-level tradeoff here to consider is whether 
> it’s better to (a) enforce strict non-malleability of collective 
> signatures (by anyone, leader included), at the cost of O(N)-round DoS 
> attack vulnerability during signing due to the need to restart partially 
> failed rounds, or (b) provide some limited form of limited 
> leader-malleability in order to support restart-free operation and avoid 
> DoS attacks during signing, at the cost of a more complex protocol (and 
> perhaps slightly more “special” trust in the leader than we might like).
> 
> Again, further thoughts on this and other topics are most welcome.
> 
> Thanks
> Bryan
> 
>> On Jul 3, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Daniel Slamanig <daniel.slamanig@tugraz.at 
>> <mailto:daniel.slamanig@tugraz.at>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Philipp,
>>
>> looks interesting!
>>
>> After looking at the protocol I also have some security concerns 
>> (related to what has been raised by Oleg in a previous mail).
>>
>> Not committing to Z as well as the actual sum of signers public keys 
>> A' in the computation of the hash c for the signature seems to be 
>> problematic.
>>
>> It seems to me that committing Z in the signature in plain as well as 
>> A' does not work given the later application of the signing procedure 
>> (where till the end of the protocol it is not clear who actually 
>> participates in the signing but c must be known at the beginning).
>>
>> Committing to neither of both however seems problematic as it does not 
>> fix the set of actual signers.
>>
>> This could be circumvented by allowing an honest leader to adapt the 
>> commitment to the final Z (and A') after it knows the signers without 
>> modifying the initially computed c using a chameleon hash (trapdoor 
>> commitment). I use P as a generator below, omit the brackets [a]P 
>> notation for scalar multiplication and write it from the perspective 
>> of the leader, i.e., the signer that initiates the protocol.
>>
>> The leader could choose chameleon hash parameters sk_ch=y for random y 
>> and pk_ch=(P,Y=yP) and add pk_ch and chameleon hash CH(Z'):=h(Z')P+u'Y 
>> for randomly chosen u' to the computation of c, i.e., set 
>> c=H(R||A||pk_ch||CH(Z')||S), where h() is a collision resistant hash 
>> function (this is just the standard way of constructing a chameleon 
>> hash from DL for arbitrary message spaces as propsed in [1]). If Z' is 
>> not yet known one simply sets Z' to some fixed string at the 
>> beginning, e.g., Z':=0. At the end of the protocol, when the leader 
>> knows the exact signers, it can update Z' to the final value Z and use 
>> sk_ch to compute a collision in the chameleon hash, i.e., such that 
>> CH(Z)=CH(Z') by solving h(Z')+u'y = h(Z)+uy for u. He then adds u and 
>> Z as well as pk_ch to the signature, i.e., sets it as (R,s,u,Z,pk_ch) 
>> and discards sk_ch and u'. If Z is known beforehand, one simply 
>> computes the chameleon hash once and does not need to compute a 
>> collision. Clearly, the use of a chameleon hash allows to simply adapt 
>> to the actual set of signers representing Z without modifying c (with 
>> the knowledge of sk_ch - but it does not work without the knowledge of 
>> sk_ch). This would resolve the issue with the unknown Z at the time of 
>> signing.
>>
>> Also, A is committed in the signature, but not the concrete A'=\sum 
>> A_i of keys used for computing the signature (I guess also due to the 
>> reason that one does not know the correct set of signers when 
>> computing the hash c). That can be problematic in a rogue key scenario 
>> in the current protocol, i.e., when not all signers need to prove 
>> knowledge of the secret key when they register their public keys but 
>> their public keys could be functions of other public keys (guess this 
>> could be a problem here). For instance, a malicious A^* could just 
>> take some key from A, say A_j, and compute and publish A^*=a^*A_j. And 
>> then given a collective signature (R,s,Z) where A_j participated, the 
>> signer can update s to s^* = s+a^*c as well as Z^* to exclude A_j and 
>> include A^* (as Z is not committed in the signature generation) and 
>> the signature (R,s^*,Z^*) will be a valid signature that certifies 
>> that A^* participated in signing - although he didn't.
>>
>> If Z is committed as proposed above and it is checked during the 
>> verification, then this should no longer work. One could also adapt 
>> the hash c=H(R||pk_ch||CH(Z'||A)||S) to include a chameleon hash to 
>> CH(Z||A'), where A' is the real set of signers that participated in 
>> the signature generation and is adapted before finalizing the 
>> signature when known as above.
>>
>> I hope that what I proposed is not just complete nonsense :) Also it 
>> produces quite a bit of an overhead. There may also be easier ways to 
>> avoid the issues.
>>
>> Some editorial issues: the message to be signed is sometimes called a 
>> satement S and later then message msg. S could be confusing as part of 
>> the signature is s and your semantic is that scalars are lowercase and 
>> points are uppercase. Also in 4.2 "Signature Generation" steps 2 and 3 
>> are confusing as I guess that in the protocol all the signer compute 
>> their own [r_i]B values and R=\sum R_i instead of R=[r]B which would 
>> mean that they would send their r_i's (hope they will not do so).
>>
>> Also I find it somewhat confusing that the bitmask Z identifies the 
>> non-signers with a bit set to 1. Why not identifying the signers with 
>> a bit set to 1?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> [1] Hugo Krawczyk, Tal Rabin: Chameleon Signatures. NDSS 2000
>>
>> On 01.07.2017 23:58, Philipp Jovanovic wrote:
>>> Hi CFRG,
>>> Here’s a first version of an Internet-Draft on “Collective 
>>> Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithms” based on Ed25519 and 
>>> Ed448: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ford-cfrg-cosi/
>>> We plan to give a short presentation on that topic at the next CFRG 
>>> meeting in Prague.
>>> Any feedback is more than welcome. Thanks!
>>> All the best,
>>> Philipp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>> Cfrg@irtf.org <mailto:Cfrg@irtf.org>
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Daniel Slamanig
>> Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
>> Graz University of Technology
>> Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria.
>> Phone: +43 316 873 5509
>> http://www.iaik.tugraz.at
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> 


--
Dr. Daniel Slamanig
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Phone: +43 316 873 5509
http://www.iaik.tugraz.at