Digital signature with secretly embedded warning

• Autorzy: Durnoga K. , Pomykała J. , Trabszys T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We present a digital signature scheme with secretly embedded warning. The embedded warning is a protection mechanism in case of restraint or blackmail. Extending ordinary digital signatures we propose schemes where a signer, approached by a powerful adversary that demands handing over a signing key, can disclose his private key. In our solution the signer is able to generate a feigned key indistinguishable from the genuine one. Then such a key can be used to embed a special warning message within a signature to indicate coercion. Such warnings can be transferred via subliminal channel to some trusted authority.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

public key cryptography; digital signature; one-way permutation; subliminal channel; deniable encryption; blackmail; secretly embedded warning; translucent sets

• Wydawca: Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Control and Cybernetics
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 42, no. 4
• Strony: 805--824
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 26 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Durnoga K.

• Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics and Mechanics University of Warsaw, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland

autor

Pomykała J.

autor

Trabszys T.

Bibliografia

• 1. Bellare, M. and Rogaway, P. (1993) Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York,USA, 62-73.
• 2. Bellare, M. and Miner, S. (1999) A forward-secure digital signature scheme. Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO ’99. 1666 (1999) Springer-Verlag, 431–448.
• 3. Bellare, M., Micciancio, D. and Warinschi, B. (2003) Foundations of Group Signatures: Formal Definitions, Simplified Requirements, and a Construction Based on General Assumptions. Advances in Cryptology – Eurocrypt ’03. 2656 (2003) Springer-Verlag, available at http://wwwcse. ucsd.edu/ mihir/papers/gs.pdf.
• 4. Boldyreva, A., Palacio, A. and Warinschi, B. (2013) Secure Proxy Signature Schemes for Delegation of Signing Rights. Journal of Cryptology, 25, 1, 57-115.
• 5. Boneh, D., Gentry, C. (2003) Aggregate and Verifiability Encrypted Signatures from Bilinear Maps. In: Advances in Cryptology – Eurocrypt ’03, 2656, Springer-Verlag, 416–432.
• 6. Canetti, R., Dwork, C., Naor, M. and Ostrovsky, R. (1996) Deniable Encryption. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1294, 90–104.
• 7. Chaum, D. and van Heyst, E. (2003) Group Signatures. In: Advances in Cryptology – Eurocrypt ’91. Springer-Verlag, 257–265.
• 8. Dreyfus, S. The Idiot Savants’ Guide to Rubberhose. Available at http://iq. org/ proff/ rubberhose.org/current/src/doc/maruguide.pdf
• 9. Coron, J. S., Joye, M., Paillier, P. and Naccache, D. (2002) Universal Padding Schemes for RSA. Proc. Crypto’02. 2442, LNCS, 226-241.
• 10. Dürmuth, M., Freeman, D. M. (2011) Deniable encryption with negligible detection probability: an interactive construction. Proceedings of the 30th Annual international conference on Theory and applications of cryptographic techniques: advances in cryptology, EUROCRYPT’11. Springer, Tallin, Estonia, 610–626.
• 11. El Gamal, T. (1985) A Public Key Cryptosystem and a Signature Scheme based on Discrete Logarithms. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 31, 4, 469–472.
• 12. Feige, U., Fiat, A., Shamir, A. (1988) Zero Knowledge Proof of Identity. Journal of Cryptology 1, 77-94.
• 13. Geambasu, R., Kohno, T., Levy, A. and Levy, H. M. (2009) Vanish: Increasing Data Privacy with Self-Destructing Data. Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium. Available at http://vanish.cs.washington. edu/pubs/usenixsec09-geambasu.pdf
• 14. Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rivest, R. (1988) A Digital Signature Scheme Secure Against Adaptive Chosen-Message Attacks. SIAM Journal on Computing 17, 2, 281–308.
• 15. Håstad, J., Jonnson, J., Juels, A. and Yung, M. (2000) Funkspiel schemes: an alternative to conventional tamper resistance. CCS ’00, Proc. of the 7th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York, 125–133.
• 16. Hołyst, B. and Pomykała, J. (2010) Electronic Signature and Biometric Methods of Identification (in Polish). WSM publications, Warsaw.
• 17. Itkis, G. (2003) Cryptographic tamper evidence. CCS ’03, 355–364.
• 18. Kubiak, P. and Kutyłowski, M. (2013) Lightweight Digital Signature with Secretly Embedded Warning. Control and Cybernetics 42, 4, 825–827.
• 19. Klonowski, M., Kubiak, P. and Kutyłowski, M. (2008) Practical Deniable Encryption. SOFSEM 2008: Proc. of the 34th Conference on Current trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science. Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg, 599–609.
• 20. Mambo, M., Usuda, K. and Okamoto, E. (1996) Proxy Signatures for Delegating Signing Operation. 3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 48–57.
• 21. Naccache, D., Pointcheval, D. and Tymen, C. (2002) Monotone signatures. Financial Cryptography, LNCS 2339, 305–318.
• 22. Pfitzman, B. and Waidner, M. (1991) Fail-stop signatures and their application. SECURICOM 91: 9th Worldwide Congress on Computer and Communications Security and Protection. SEDEP/Blenheim, Paris, 145–160.
• 23. Pomykała, J. and Trabszys, T. (2009) Anonymous signer verifiable encrypted signature from bilinear pairing. Control and Cybernetics 38 (3), 705–712.
• 24. Pomykała, J. (2009) Id-based Digital Signatures with Security Enhanced Approach. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology 4, 146–153.
• 25. Simmons, G. (1985) The Subliminal Channel and Digital Signatures. Advances in Cryptology – Eurocrypt ’84 Proceedings. Springer, 364–378.
• 26. Yao, D. and Tamassia , R. (2006) Cascaded Authorization with Anonymous-Signer Aggregate Signatures. proc. of the 2006 IEEE Information Assurance Workshop, IEEE, 84–91.