R. Canetti, R. Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder, Nikolaos Makriyannis, Udi Peled
{"title":"具有可识别终止的UC非交互式、主动、阈值ECDSA","authors":"R. Canetti, R. Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder, Nikolaos Makriyannis, Udi Peled","doi":"10.1145/3372297.3423367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Building on the Gennaro & Goldfeder and Lindell & Nof protocols (CCS '18), we present two threshold ECDSA protocols, for any number of signatories and any threshold, that improve as follows over the state of the art: -- For both protocols, only the last round requires knowledge of the message, and the other rounds can take place in a preprocessing stage, lending to a non-interactive threshold ECDSA protocol. -- Both protocols withstand adaptive corruption of signatories. Furthermore, they include a periodic refresh mechanism and offer full proactive security. -- Both protocols realize an ideal threshold signature functionality within the UC framework, in the global random oracle model, assuming Strong RSA, DDH, semantic security of the Paillier encryption, and a somewhat enhanced variant of existential unforgeability of ECDSA. -- Both protocols achieve accountability by identifying corrupted parties in case of failure to generate a valid signature. The two protocols are distinguished by the round-complexity and the identification process for detecting cheating parties. Namely: -- For the first protocol, signature generation takes only 4 rounds (down from the current state of the art of 8 rounds), but the identification process requires computation and communication that is quadratic in the number of parties. -- For the second protocol, the identification process requires computation and communication that is only linear in the number of parties, but signature generation takes 7 rounds. These properties (low latency, compatibility with cold-wallet architectures, proactive security, identifiable abort and composable security) make the two protocols ideal for threshold wallets for ECDSA-based cryptocurrencies.","PeriodicalId":20481,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"84","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts\",\"authors\":\"R. Canetti, R. Gennaro, Steven Goldfeder, Nikolaos Makriyannis, Udi Peled\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3372297.3423367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Building on the Gennaro & Goldfeder and Lindell & Nof protocols (CCS '18), we present two threshold ECDSA protocols, for any number of signatories and any threshold, that improve as follows over the state of the art: -- For both protocols, only the last round requires knowledge of the message, and the other rounds can take place in a preprocessing stage, lending to a non-interactive threshold ECDSA protocol. -- Both protocols withstand adaptive corruption of signatories. Furthermore, they include a periodic refresh mechanism and offer full proactive security. -- Both protocols realize an ideal threshold signature functionality within the UC framework, in the global random oracle model, assuming Strong RSA, DDH, semantic security of the Paillier encryption, and a somewhat enhanced variant of existential unforgeability of ECDSA. -- Both protocols achieve accountability by identifying corrupted parties in case of failure to generate a valid signature. The two protocols are distinguished by the round-complexity and the identification process for detecting cheating parties. Namely: -- For the first protocol, signature generation takes only 4 rounds (down from the current state of the art of 8 rounds), but the identification process requires computation and communication that is quadratic in the number of parties. -- For the second protocol, the identification process requires computation and communication that is only linear in the number of parties, but signature generation takes 7 rounds. These properties (low latency, compatibility with cold-wallet architectures, proactive security, identifiable abort and composable security) make the two protocols ideal for threshold wallets for ECDSA-based cryptocurrencies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"84\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3423367\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3423367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
UC Non-Interactive, Proactive, Threshold ECDSA with Identifiable Aborts
Building on the Gennaro & Goldfeder and Lindell & Nof protocols (CCS '18), we present two threshold ECDSA protocols, for any number of signatories and any threshold, that improve as follows over the state of the art: -- For both protocols, only the last round requires knowledge of the message, and the other rounds can take place in a preprocessing stage, lending to a non-interactive threshold ECDSA protocol. -- Both protocols withstand adaptive corruption of signatories. Furthermore, they include a periodic refresh mechanism and offer full proactive security. -- Both protocols realize an ideal threshold signature functionality within the UC framework, in the global random oracle model, assuming Strong RSA, DDH, semantic security of the Paillier encryption, and a somewhat enhanced variant of existential unforgeability of ECDSA. -- Both protocols achieve accountability by identifying corrupted parties in case of failure to generate a valid signature. The two protocols are distinguished by the round-complexity and the identification process for detecting cheating parties. Namely: -- For the first protocol, signature generation takes only 4 rounds (down from the current state of the art of 8 rounds), but the identification process requires computation and communication that is quadratic in the number of parties. -- For the second protocol, the identification process requires computation and communication that is only linear in the number of parties, but signature generation takes 7 rounds. These properties (low latency, compatibility with cold-wallet architectures, proactive security, identifiable abort and composable security) make the two protocols ideal for threshold wallets for ECDSA-based cryptocurrencies.