GURKE: Group Unidirectional Ratcheted Key Exchange
Daniel Collins, Paul Rösler
Abstract
Continuous Group Key Agreement (CGKA) is a primitive with which members of a group can continuously establish shared keys. With every interaction, these members also update their individual, local secrets such that temporary corruptions of these secrets only affect the security of shared keys established shortly before (Forward Security; FS) and after the corruption (Post-Compromise Security; PCS). Due to these interactive updates–possibly enriched by dynamic group membership changes–, CGKA is a very powerful but also very complex primitive.
In this work, we limit the power of CGKA to identify and analyze its core components. More concretely, we consider the case that all members of a group are always either senders or receivers. Thus, the interaction is strictly unidirectional from the former to the latter: a group of senders Alice establishes shared keys with a group of receivers Bob. With every shared key, Alice updates her local state to achieve FS and PCS; when receiving an established key, each Bob also updates their local state to achieve FS. This notion naturally lifts the so called Unidirectional Ratcheted Key Exchange concept (Bellare et al., Crypto 2017; Poettering and Rösler, Crypto 2018) to the group setting and, thereby, captures and generalizes Signal's Sender Key Mechanism, which is the core of WhatsApp and Signal's group chat protocols. We modularize this concept of Group Unidirectional RKE (GURKE) by considering either single or multiple senders, single or multiple receivers, and static or dynamic membership on each of both sides of the group.
To instantiate these new primitives, we develop a building block called Updatable Broadcast KEM (UB-KEM). Using UB-KEM, our GURKE constructions for static groups only use standard Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs) and induce only a constant communication overhead. Our GURKE constructions for dynamic groups are based on general Non-Interactive Key Exchange (NIKE) and offer a constant communication overhead as long as the set of members is unchanged; only for adding and removing users, a communication overhead logarithmic in the group size is induced. We discuss the benefits of replacing the Sender Key Mechanism in Signal and WhatsApp with our constructions, and demonstrate their practicality with a performance evaluation of our proof of concept UB-KEM implementation.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get 5749adf2-fcce-4a4e-8601-e65905cccd3eCited by top-tier papers2
- Anamorphic Messaging: Analyzing the Double Ratchet, Triple Ratchet, PQ3, and MLSHien Chu, Alessandro Corsi, Paul RöslerUSENIX Security 2026
- Generic Anonymity Wrapper for Messaging ProtocolsLea Thiemt, Paul Rösler, Alexander Bienstock, Rolfe Schmidt et al.CCS 2025
Related papers
- A Concrete Treatment of Efficient Continuous Group Key Agreement via Multi-Recipient PKEsKeitaro Hashimoto, Shuichi Katsumata, Eamonn W. Postlethwaite, Thomas Prest et al.CCS 2021 · 1 citation
- Server-Aided Continuous Group Key AgreementJoël Alwen, Dominik Hartmann, Eike Kiltz, Marta MularczykCCS 2022 · 19 citations
- How to Hide MetaData in MLS-Like Secure Group Messaging: Simple, Modular, and Post-QuantumKeitaro Hashimoto, Shuichi Katsumata, Thomas PrestCCS 2022 · 12 citations
- Continuous Group-Key Agreement: Concurrent Updates Without PruningBenedikt Auerbach, Miguel Cueto Noval, Boran Erol, Krzysztof PietrzakCRYPTO 2025 · 2 citations
- On the Tight Security of the Double RatchetDaniel Collins, Doreen Riepel, Si An Oliver TranCCS 2024 · 3 citations
