Re: [saag] [Cfrg] Recommendations Regarding Deterministic Signatures

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

The objections to the deterministic signature approach raised in that NIST
paper could be avoided by applying the Kocher blinding approach whose
patent has recently expired as I point out in another message.

However, there is also NIST interest in threshold cryptography and while
{Ed/X}{25519/448} support threshold key generation and threshold decryption
and threshold key agreement, RFC8032 does not appear to be viable as a good
threshold signature scheme. (It is possible to do multi-signatures of
course and I have a defective threshold scheme that might make sense in a
TPM environment)

I will be submitting an Internet Draft describing threshold key generation
and threshold decryption by the end of the year (the code runs) and I
should have a threshold key agreement draft shortly after. It would be
really nice if we had a threshold signature scheme to complete the set (get
that 20% matched set armor rating).

In particular, I believe that we need a threshold signature scheme that is
non-interactive. This is because I need to be able to explain the scheme to
a layperson who does not understand the signature scheme. For example: The
Alice+Bob aggregate signature is secure because it is constructed a
signature contribution from Alice and a signature contribution from Bob,
both of which are secure signatures in their own right and both of which
have the same exact construction with respect to Alice and Bob's public key
as the aggregate signature does to the aggregate key.