On the Security of Two-Round Multi-Signatures

Manu Drijvers, Kasra Edalatnejad, B. Ford, Eike Kiltz, J. Loss, G. Neven, Igors Stepanovs
{"title":"On the Security of Two-Round Multi-Signatures","authors":"Manu Drijvers, Kasra Edalatnejad, B. Ford, Eike Kiltz, J. Loss, G. Neven, Igors Stepanovs","doi":"10.1109/SP.2019.00050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A multi-signature scheme allows a group of signers to collaboratively sign a message, creating a single signature that convinces a verifier that every individual signer approved the message. The increased interest in technologies to decentralize trust has triggered the proposal of highly efficient two-round Schnorr-based multi-signature schemes designed to scale up to thousands of signers, namely BCJ by Bagherzandi et al. (CCS 2008), MWLD by Ma et al. (DCC 2010), CoSi by Syta et al. (S&P 2016), and MuSig by Maxwell et al. (ePrint 2018). In this work, we point out serious security issues in all currently known two-round multi-signature schemes (without pairings). First, we prove that none of the schemes can be proved secure without radically departing from currently known techniques. Namely, we show that if the one-more discrete-logarithm problem is hard, then no algebraic reduction exists that proves any of these schemes secure under the discrete-logarithm or one-more discrete-logarithm problem. We point out subtle flaws in the published security proofs of the above schemes (except CoSi, which was not proved secure) to clarify the contradiction between our result and the existing proofs. Next, we describe practical sub-exponential attacks on all schemes, providing further evidence to their insecurity. Being left without two-round multi-signature schemes, we present mBCJ, a variant of the BCJ scheme that we prove secure under the discrete-logarithm assumption in the random-oracle model. Our experiments show that mBCJ barely affects scalability compared to CoSi, allowing 16384 signers to collaboratively sign a message in about 2 seconds, making it a highly practical and provably secure alternative for large-scale deployments.","PeriodicalId":272713,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"83","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2019.00050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 83

Abstract

A multi-signature scheme allows a group of signers to collaboratively sign a message, creating a single signature that convinces a verifier that every individual signer approved the message. The increased interest in technologies to decentralize trust has triggered the proposal of highly efficient two-round Schnorr-based multi-signature schemes designed to scale up to thousands of signers, namely BCJ by Bagherzandi et al. (CCS 2008), MWLD by Ma et al. (DCC 2010), CoSi by Syta et al. (S&P 2016), and MuSig by Maxwell et al. (ePrint 2018). In this work, we point out serious security issues in all currently known two-round multi-signature schemes (without pairings). First, we prove that none of the schemes can be proved secure without radically departing from currently known techniques. Namely, we show that if the one-more discrete-logarithm problem is hard, then no algebraic reduction exists that proves any of these schemes secure under the discrete-logarithm or one-more discrete-logarithm problem. We point out subtle flaws in the published security proofs of the above schemes (except CoSi, which was not proved secure) to clarify the contradiction between our result and the existing proofs. Next, we describe practical sub-exponential attacks on all schemes, providing further evidence to their insecurity. Being left without two-round multi-signature schemes, we present mBCJ, a variant of the BCJ scheme that we prove secure under the discrete-logarithm assumption in the random-oracle model. Our experiments show that mBCJ barely affects scalability compared to CoSi, allowing 16384 signers to collaboratively sign a message in about 2 seconds, making it a highly practical and provably secure alternative for large-scale deployments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两轮多重签名的安全性研究
多重签名方案允许一组签名者协作签署消息,创建单个签名,使验证者确信每个签名者都批准了该消息。人们对去中心化信任技术的兴趣日益增加,引发了基于schnorr的高效两轮多重签名方案的提出,该方案旨在扩展到数千名签署人,即Bagherzandi等人的BCJ (CCS 2008), Ma等人的MWLD (DCC 2010), Syta等人的CoSi (S&P 2016)和Maxwell等人的MuSig (ePrint 2018)。在这项工作中,我们指出了目前已知的所有两轮多重签名方案(无配对)中存在的严重安全问题。首先,我们证明,如果不从根本上脱离目前已知的技术,任何方案都不能被证明是安全的。也就是说,我们证明了如果一个多离散对数问题是困难的,那么不存在任何代数约简来证明这些方案在离散对数或一个多离散对数问题下是安全的。我们指出了上述方案已公布的安全证明中的细微缺陷(CoSi除外,它没有被证明是安全的),以澄清我们的结果与现有证明之间的矛盾。接下来,我们描述了对所有方案的实际次指数攻击,进一步证明了它们的不安全性。在没有两轮多重签名方案的情况下,我们提出了mBCJ方案,这是BCJ方案的一种变体,我们在随机oracle模型的离散对数假设下证明了它的安全性。我们的实验表明,与CoSi相比,mBCJ几乎不影响可扩展性,允许16384个签名者在大约2秒内协作签署消息,使其成为大规模部署的高度实用且可证明安全的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The 9 Lives of Bleichenbacher's CAT: New Cache ATtacks on TLS Implementations CaSym: Cache Aware Symbolic Execution for Side Channel Detection and Mitigation PrivKV: Key-Value Data Collection with Local Differential Privacy Postcards from the Post-HTTP World: Amplification of HTTPS Vulnerabilities in the Web Ecosystem New Primitives for Actively-Secure MPC over Rings with Applications to Private Machine Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1