Advertisement

Efficient and Unconditionally Secure Digital Signatures and a Security Analysis of a Multireceiver Authentication Code

  • Goichiro Hanaoka
  • Junji Shikata
  • Yuliang Zheng
  • Hideki Imai
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2274)

Abstract

Digital signatures whose security does not rely on any unproven computational assumption have recently received considerable attention. While these unconditionally secure digital signatures provide a foundation for long term integrity and non-repudiation of data, currently known schemes generally require a far greater amount of memory space for the storage of users’ secret information than a traditional digital signature. The focus of this paper is on methods for reducing memory requirements of unconditionally secure digital signatures. A major contribution of this paper is to propose two novel unconditionally secure digital signature schemes that have significantly shortened secret information for users. As a specific example, with a typical parameter setting the required memory size for a user is reduced to approximately 1/10 of that in previously known schemes. Another contribution of the paper is to demonstrate an attack on a multireceiver authentication code proposed by Safavi-Naini and Wang, and present a method to fix the problem of the code.

Keywords

Smart Card Signature Scheme Secret Information Signed Message Authentication Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Boneh and R. J. Lipton, “Quantum cryptanalysis of hidden linear functions,” Proc. of CRYPTO’95, LNCS 963, Springer-Verlag, pp.424–437, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. F. Brickell and D. R. Stinson, “Authentication codes with multiple arbiters,” Proc. of Eurocrypt’88, LNCS 330, Springer-Verlag, pp.51–55, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Cavallar, B. Dodson, A. K. Lenstra, et al., “Factorization of a 512-bit RSA modulus,” Proc. of Eurocrypt’00, LNCS 1807, Springer-Verlag, pp.1–18, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Chaum and S. Roijakkers, “Unconditionally secure digital signatures,” Proc. of CRYPTO’90, LNCS 537, Springer-Verlag, pp.206–215, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. Desmedt and M. Yung, “Arbitrated unconditionally secure authentication can be unconditionally protected against arbiter’s attack,” Proc. of CRYPTO’90, LNCS 537, Springer-Verlag, pp.177–188, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Desmedt, Y. Frankel and M. Yung, “Multi-receiver/Multi-sender network security: efficient authenticated multicast/feedback,” Proc. of IEEE Infocom’92, pp.2045–2054, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. N. Gilbert, F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane, “Codes which detect deception,” Bell System Technical Journal, 53, pp.405–425, 1974.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Johansson, “Further results on asymmetric authentication schemes,” Information and Computation, 151, pp.100–133, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Hanaoka, J. Shikata, Y. Zheng and H. Imai, “Unconditionally secure digital signature schemes admitting transferability,” Proc. of Asiacrypt2000, LNCS 1976, Springer-Verlag, pp.130–142, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Kurosawa, “New bound on authentication code with arbitration,” Proc. of CRYPTO’94, LNCS 839, Springer-Verlag, pp.140–149, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Pfitzmann and M. Waidner “Fail-stop signatures and their application,” Proc. of Securicom 91, 9thWorldwide Congress on Computer and Communications Security and Protection, pp.145–160, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. P. Pedersen and B. Pfitzmann, “Fail-stop signatures,” SIAM J. on Comp., 26, no.2, pp.291–330, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Safavi-Naini and H. Wang, “New results on multi-receiver authentication codes,” Proc. of Eurocrypt’98, LNCS 1403, pp.527–541, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Safavi-Naini and H. Wang, “Broadcast authentication in group communication,” Proc. of Asiacrypt’99, LNCS 1716, Springer-Verlag, pp.399–411, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Safavi-Naini and H. Wang, “Multireceiver authentication codes: models, bounds, constructions and extensions,” Information and Computation, 151, pp.148–172, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM J. Comp., 26, no.5, pp.1484–1509, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. J. Simmons, “Authentication theory/coding theory,” Proc. of CRYPTO’84, LNCS 196, Springer-Verlag, pp.411–431, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. J. Simmons, “Message authentication with arbitration of transmitter/receiver disputes,” Proc. of Eurocrypt’87, Springer-Verlag, pp.151–165, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. J. Simmons, “A Cartesian construction for unconditionally secure authentication codes that permit arbitration,” Journal of Cryptology, 2, pp.77–104, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Goichiro Hanaoka
    • 1
  • Junji Shikata
    • 1
  • Yuliang Zheng
    • 2
  • Hideki Imai
    • 1
  1. 1.Information & Systems, Institute of Industrial ScienceUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Software and Information SystemsUniversity City BlvdCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations