ciphergoth: (Default)
[personal profile] ciphergoth
For the three or so cryptographers on my friends list:

The Goh-Jarecki-Katz-Wang DDH-based signature scheme not only has a tight reduction to the hardness of DDH - it also has a loose reduction to DL using the forking lemma in the same way as Schnorr. I mention this because it's currently my favourite scheme, and the authors didn't know about the reduction...

Date: 2007-03-15 09:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cryptodragon.livejournal.com
Thank you, I've just spent the last hour looking over that algorithm rather than sleeping. :)

Date: 2007-03-15 09:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] purplerabbits.livejournal.com
I thought you said forking lemon there for a moment. Which would have made sense. Well, as much sense...

Date: 2007-03-15 10:29 am (UTC)

Date: 2007-03-15 01:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] just-becky.livejournal.com
OOh I love it when you talk dirty! :-D

has a tight reduction to the hardness of DDH
Saucy!

Date: 2007-03-15 04:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zwol.livejournal.com
Could I have a reference to that algorithm, please? I am not finding it.

Date: 2007-03-15 06:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ciphergoth.livejournal.com
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jkatz/papers/dh-sigs-full.pdf

You may be interested to note that it's carefully engineered to give the same signature for a given message every time, which helps the security reductions...

Date: 2007-03-16 08:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ciphergoth.livejournal.com
You may be interested to note that it's carefully engineered to give the same signature for a given message every time

although actually, I would not preserve that property in an implementation. The reduction is still pretty tight without it, and without it you can do most of the heavy lifting on signature generation in advance.

Date: 2007-03-15 09:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] strangerover.livejournal.com
Damn, and I thought that was a start of a Mornington Crescent post...

Date: 2007-03-16 12:55 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Cute. You may want to write a short eprint note about this, or if you feel like it that's the kind of thing that could be a PKC or RSA paper. I expect others would be interested to see the reduction, too.

Date: 2007-03-16 08:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ciphergoth.livejournal.com
An eprint note would be about right - it's a very straightforward result, really, the proof is practically identical to the corresponding proof about Schnorr in

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ohta98concrete.html

I'll try to write it up when I have time, which might be a while. I'll also include the other observation I had, which was that if you have a hash function H' which maps the group onto itself, then your public key can be (g^x, H'(g^x)^x), which is a third shorter.

Date: 2007-03-16 08:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ciphergoth.livejournal.com
BTW please at least sign anonymous posts with a nom. I didn't know that anyone in Microsoft Research read my journal... thanks!

Date: 2007-03-17 01:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ephermata.livejournal.com
sorry, that was me. I didn't really notice that I wasn't signed in.

Saw this, and thought of you :)

Date: 2007-03-16 02:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aster13.livejournal.com
I'm probably just showing up how little i know about cryptography, here (which let's face it, could probably fit on the back of a stamp!) but, in case it's of interest:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/cryptographer_s.html

Profile

ciphergoth: (Default)
Paul Crowley

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678 91011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 17th, 2026 10:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios