Score:1

Security of anonymous group credential issued over multiple user secret keys plus a common/public system message

gl flag

In a group signature scheme based on Pointcheval-Sanders (PS) single-message signature, the anonymous credential $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ issued by the group manager (GM) with secret key $sk = (x,y) \in \mathbb{Z}_p^2$ and public key $pk = (\tilde X,\tilde Y) \leftarrow (\tilde g^x,\tilde g ^y )$ to a user $\mathcal{U}_i$ with a single secret key $sk_i \in \mathbb{Z}_p $ is computed as $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2) \leftarrow (g^\mu,(g^x.\tau^y)^\mu)$, where $\tau = g^{sk_i}$ is the commitment and $\mu \in \mathbb{Z}_p$.

Similarly, we could construct a group signature scheme based on PS multi-message signature. In this case, the anonymous credential $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ issued by the GM with secret key $sk = (x,y_1,...,y_n) \in \mathbb{Z}_p^{n+1}$ and public key $pk = (\tilde X,\tilde Y_1,...,\tilde Y_n) \leftarrow (\tilde g^x,\tilde g ^{y_1},...,\tilde g^{y_n} )$ to a user $\mathcal{U}_i$ with multiple secret keys $sk_1,...,sk_n \in \mathbb{Z}_p^n $ is computed as $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2) \leftarrow (g^\mu,(g^x\cdot\tau_1^{y_1}\cdot...\cdot\tau_n^{y_n})^\mu)$, where $\tau_i = g^{sk_i}$ is the commitment of $sk_i$ and $\mu \in \mathbb{Z}_p$.

I would like to construct a new group signature scheme in which the system users prove the possession of an anonymous credential valid under a publicly known message $m$ plus their respective secret keys. It appears that I could use the PS multi-message setting to acheive my objective. While issuing the credential for a user, GM would simply compute $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2) \leftarrow (g^\mu,(g^x\cdot\tau_1^{y_1}\cdot...\cdot\tau_{n-1}^{y_{n-1}}\cdot g^{my_n})^\mu)$.

Would such a scheme adhere to the security notions of anonymity, traceability and non-frameability?

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.