PI-Cut-Choo and Friends: Compact Blind Signatures via Parallel Instance Cut-and-Choose and More
Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Lucjan Hanzlik, Julian Loss, Anna Lysyanskaya, Benedikt Wagner
Abstract
. Blind signature schemes are one of the best-studied tools for privacy-preserving authentication. Unfortunately, known constructions of provably secure blind signatures either rely on non-standard hardness assumptions, or require parameters that grow linearly with the number of concurrently issued signatures, or involve prohibitively inefficient general techniques such as general secure two-party computation. Recently, Katz, Loss and Rosenberg (ASIACRYPT’21) gave a technique that, for the security parameter n , transforms blind signature schemes secure for O (log n ) concurrent executions of the blind signing protocol into ones that are secure for any poly ( n ) concurrent executions. This transform has two drawbacks that we eliminate in this paper: 1) the communication complexity of the resulting blind signing protocol grows linearly with the number of signing interactions; 2) the resulting schemes inherit a very loose security bound from the underlying scheme and, as a result, require impractical parameter sizes. In this work, we give an improved transform for obtaining a secure blind signing protocol tolerating any poly ( n ) concurrent executions from one that is secure for O (log n ) concurrent executions. While preserving the advantages of the original transform, the communication complexity of our new transform only grows logarithmically with the number of interactions. Under the CDH and RSA assumptions, we improve on this generic transform in terms of concrete efficiency and give (1) a BLS-based blind signature scheme over a standard-sized group where signatures are of size roughly 3 KB and communication per signature is roughly 120 KB; and (2) an Okamoto-Guillou-Quisquater-based blind signature scheme with signatures and communication of roughly 9 KB and 8 KB, respectively.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- Pairing-Free Blind Signatures from CDH AssumptionsRutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Stefano Tessaro, Chenzhi ZhuCRYPTO 2024 · 18 citations
- Pairing-Free Blind Signatures from Standard Assumptions in the ROMJulia Kastner, Ky Nguyen, Michael ReichleCRYPTO 2024 · 11 citations
Builds on4
- Blind Schnorr Signatures and Signed ElGamal Encryption in the Algebraic Group ModelGeorg Fuchsbauer, Antoine Plouviez, Yannick SeurinEUROCRYPT 2020 · 109 citations
- On the (in)security of ROSFabrice Benhamouda, Tancrède Lepoint, Julian Loss, Michele Orrù et al.EUROCRYPT 2021 · 74 citations
- Lattice-Based Blind Signatures, RevisitedEduard Hauck, Eike Kiltz, Julian Loss, Ngoc Khanh NguyenCRYPTO 2020 · 56 citations
- Short Pairing-Free Blind Signatures with Exponential SecurityStefano Tessaro, Chenzhi ZhuEUROCRYPT 2022 · 47 citations
Related papers
- Rai-Choo! Evolving Blind Signatures to the Next LevelLucjan Hanzlik, Julian Loss, Benedikt WagnerEUROCRYPT 2023 · 23 citations
- A New Framework for More Efficient Round-Optimal Lattice-Based (Partially) Blind Signature via Trapdoor SamplingRafaël del Pino, Shuichi KatsumataCRYPTO 2022 · 50 citations
- M&M'S: Mix and Match Attacks on Schnorr-Type Blind Signatures with RepetitionKhue Do, Lucjan Hanzlik, Eugenio ParacucchiEUROCRYPT 2024 · 8 citations
- Blind Signatures from Proofs of InequalityMichael Klooß, Michael ReichleCRYPTO 2025 · 7 citations
- Practical, Round-Optimal Lattice-Based Blind SignaturesShweta Agrawal, Elena Kirshanova, Damien Stehlé, Anshu YadavCCS 2022 · 52 citations
