1. 1 Sequential Aggregate Signatures and Multisignatures Without Random Oracles Steve Lu, Rafail Ostrovsky, Amit Sahai, Hovav Shacham, and Brent Waters

2. 2 Secure BGP  BGP “Speakers” send path updates messages  S-BGP sequence of messages + sigs.  4096 byte size limit (M1,  1 ) (M1,  1 ), (M2,  2 ) (M1,  1 ), (M2,  2 ), (M3,  3 )

3. 3 Aggregate Sigs [BGLS03] SignAggregate

4. 4 Aggregate Signatures [BGLS03]  A single short aggregate provides nonrepudiation for many different messages under many different keys  More general than multisignatures  Applications:  X.509 certificate chains  Secure BGP route attestations  PGP web of trust Verisign Versign Europe NatWest NatWest WWW

5. 5 BGLS Aggregate Sigs BLS Sigs: PK = g a SK=a Sign(SK,M):  =H(M) a Verify(PK,M,  ): e( ,g)=e( H(M), PK) Secure in R.O. Model --- Deterministic Signatures

6. 6 BGLS Aggregate Sigs PK i = g a i SK i =a i Sign(SK i,M i ):  i =H(M  )  i Aggregate(  1,…  n ):  *=  i=1…  i Verify(PK i,M 1,…,M n,  *): e(  *,g)=  i=1,…n e( H(M i ), PK i ) Verification requires n pairings

7. 7 Difficulty w/o Random Oracles  Known efficient signatures have a random component Strong RSA sigs[GHR’ 99, CS’99] B-Map [BB’04,CL’04.W’05] Tree- sigs  Difficult to aggregate Independent signatures => Independent randomness

8. 8 Sequential Aggregates [LMRS’04]  Signing and Aggregation are a single operation  Inherently sequenced; not appropriate for PGP Sign and Aggregate

9. 9 Our Approach  Build from W’05 signatures  Signer uses same randomess from previous sig  Then re-randomizes

10. 10 Our Aggregate Sigs W’05 Sigs: PK = e(g,g) a,h, u 1,…,u m SK=a Sign(SK,M):  =(  ’,  ’’)=g a (h  i=1,…m u M i ) r, g -r Verify(PK,M,  ): e(  ’,g) e(  ’’, h  i=1,…m u M i )=e(g,g) a Secure w/o R.O.s

11. 11 Our Aggregate Sigs PK i = e(g,g) a i,h i =g y i ’, u i,1 =g y i,1 …,u m, =g y i,m SK =a i,y i ’, y i,1,…,y i,m Agg(SK i,M i,  *=  1,  2 ): x=DL(h  j=1,…m u M i,j )   =(  ’,  ’’)=g a  2 x  1,  2  Verify(PK,M 1,…M n,  *=(  ’,  ’’)): e(  ’,g) e(  ’’,  i  1…n h j  j=1,…m u M i,j )=  i=1…n e(g,g) a i Know DL PK

12. 12 Comparisons SchemeR.O.SequentialSizeVer.Sign BGLSYESNO160 bits n+1 parings 1 exp. LMRS-2YES 1024 bits 4 mult.Ver. + 1 exp. OursNOYES320 bits 2 pairingsVer. + 1 exp. Shorter than LMRSFaster Ver. than BGLS

13. 13 Summary and Open Problems  Sequential Aggregate Signatures w/o R.O. Use same randomness sequentially Arguably better Performance than R.O. schemes  Multi-Sigs and Verifiable Enc. Sigs  Shorter Public Parameters Certificate Chains  Full Aggregate Signatures

14. 14 THE END

15. 15 Sequential Aggregate Chosen- Key Model  Nontriviality:  σ * is a valid sequential aggregate  challenge key pk = pk j * for some j;  No oracle query at pk 1 *,…,pk j *;M 1 *,…,M j *. Adversary AggSign() oracle