On the Security of the PKCS#1 v1.5 Signature Scheme
Tibor Jager, Saqib A. Kakvi, Alexander May
Abstract
The RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature algorithm is the most widely used digital signature scheme in practice. Its two main strengths are its extreme simplicity, which makes it very easy to implement, and that verification of signatures is significantly faster than for DSA or ECDSA. Despite the huge practical importance of RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures, providing formal evidence for their security based on plausible cryptographic hardness assumptions has turned out to be very difficult. Therefore the most recent version of PKCS#1 (RFC 8017) even recommends a replacement the more complex and less efficient scheme RSA-PSS, as it is provably secure and therefore considered more robust. The main obstacle is that RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures use a deterministic padding scheme, which makes standard proof techniques not applicable. We introduce a new technique that enables the first security proof for RSA-PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures. We prove full existential unforgeability against adaptive chosen-message attacks (EUF-CMA) under the standard RSA assumption. Furthermore, we give a tight proof under the Phi-Hiding assumption. These proofs are in the random oracle model and the parameters deviate slightly from the standard use, because we require a larger output length of the hash function. However, we also show how RSA-PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures can be instantiated in practice such that our security proofs apply. In order to draw a more complete picture of the precise security of RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures, we also give security proofs in the standard model, but with respect to weaker attacker models (key-only attacks) and based on known complexity assumptions. The main conclusion of our work is that from a provable security perspective RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 can be safely used, if the output length of the hash function is chosen appropriately.
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.
Cited by top-tier papers5
- Seems Legit: Automated Analysis of Subtle Attacks on Protocols that Use SignaturesDennis Jackson, Cas Cremers, Katriel Cohn-Gordon, Ralf SasseCCS 2019 · 53 citations
- CRYLOGGER: Detecting Crypto Misuses DynamicallyLuca Piccolboni, Giuseppe Di Guglielmo, Luca P. Carloni, Simha SethumadhavanS&P 2021 · 51 citations
- Passive SSH Key Compromise via LatticesKeegan Ryan, Kaiwen He, George Arnold Sullivan, Nadia HeningerCCS 2023 · 8 citations
- Morpheus: Bringing The (PKCS) One To Meet the OracleMoosa Yahyazadeh, Sze Yiu Chau, Li Li, Man Hong Hue et al.CCS 2021 · 5 citations
- Open to a fault: On the passive compromise of TLS keys via transient errorsGeorge Arnold Sullivan, Jackson Sippe, Nadia Heninger, Eric WustrowUSENIX Security 2022
Related papers
- The Provable Security of Ed25519: Theory and PracticeJacqueline Brendel, Cas Cremers, Dennis Jackson, Mang ZhaoS&P 2021 · 78 citations
- Machine-Checked Security for rmXMSS as in RFC 8391 and Manuel Barbosa, François Dupressoir, Benjamin Grégoire, Andreas Hülsing et al.CRYPTO 2023 · 3 citations
- On the Provable Security of (EC)DSA SignaturesManuel Fersch, Eike Kiltz, Bertram PoetteringCCS 2016 · 55 citations
- Secure Two-party Threshold ECDSA from ECDSA AssumptionsJack Doerner, Yashvanth Kondi, Eysa Lee, Abhi ShelatS&P 2018 · 171 citations
- That's Not My Signature! Fail-Stop Signatures for a Post-quantum WorldCecilia Boschini, Hila Dahari, Moni Naor, Eyal RonenCRYPTO 2024 · 2 citations
