Undeniable signature systems

• US 4,947,430 A
• Filed: 11/23/1987
• Issued: 08/07/1990
• Est. Priority Date: 11/23/1987
• Status: Expired due to Term

• Current Assignee: Van Detsan Networks LLC (Intellectual Ventures LLC)
• Original Assignee: David Chaum
• Inventors: Chaum, David
• Primary Examiner(s): Tarcza, Thomas H.
• Assistant Examiner(s): CAIN, DAVID C
• Application Number:
  US07/123,703
• Time in Patent Office: 988 Days
• Field of Search: 380/30, 380/23, 380/25
• US Class Current: 713/180
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/3678 e-cash details, e.g. blinded, divisible or detecting double spending
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/3825 Use of electronic signatures
• CPC Class Codes: G07F 7/1016 Devices or methods for securing the PIN and other transaction-data, e.g. by encryption arrangements for secret communication, see H04L9/00
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 9/3257 using blind signatures
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 9/3271 using challenge-response

Abstract

Cryptographic methods and apparatus for forming, checking, blinding, and unblinding of undeniable signatures are disclosed. The validity of such signatures is based on public keys and they are formed by a signing party with access to a corresponding private key, much as with public key digital signatures. A difference is that whereas public key digital signatures can be checked by anyone using the corresponding public key, the validity of undeniable signatures is in general checked by a protocol conducted between a checking party and the signing party. During such a protocol, the signing party may improperly try to deny the validity of a valid signature, but the checking party will be able to detect this with substantially high probability. In case the signing party is not improperly performing the protocol, the checking party is further able to determine with high probability whether or not the signature validly corresponds to the intended message and public key. Blinding can be used while obtaining undeniable signatures, while providing them to other parties, and while checking their validity.

Claims

1. A cryptographic method for forming and checking undeniable signatures where the signatures are called "undeniable" because they can be verified in a protocol between a signing party and a checking party and the signing party is unable to conduct the protocol improperly so as to "deny" the validity of a valid undeniable signature previously issued by the signing party without such improper denial giving at least a probability with at least a known lower bound that the checking party will learn that the signing party has conducted the protocol improperly, the method comprising the steps of:

forming an undeniable signature from an unsigned message by said signing party using a private key corresponding to a public key, and the resulting undeniable signature being issued to at least one party other than the signing party;

forming at least one challenge by a checking party using a challenge key known to said checking party, the challenge key being unknown to said signing party at least until a response by said signing party is committed to by the signing party, and the challenge at least partially depending on at least one member of a pair having a purported undeniable signature and said unsigned message, and supplying the at least one challenge to said signing party;

transforming at least one said challenge received by said signing party using knowledge of said private key and returning to said checking party the result of the transformation as said response; and

checking at least one said response received by said checking party using values at least depending on said challenge key, to give at least a probability having a known lower bound that the signing party is unable to prevent the checking party from distinguishing between three cases;

(a) that said purported undeniable signature is a valid undeniable signature corresponding both to said public key and to said unsigned message, (b) that the purported undeniable signature is not a valid undeniable signature corresponding both to the public key and to the unsigned message, and (c) that the response by the signing party is an improper response.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein said signing party is unable with said probability having a known lower bound to prevent the checking party from distinguishing between said three cases because of the inability of the signing party to perform certain computations in a predetermined available time period.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said signing party is unable with said probability having a known lower bound to prevent said checking party from distinguishing between said three cases regardless of the computational resources available to the signing party.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said signing party develops said public key and corresponding private key from a substantially randomly chosen seed and the signing party issues the public key making it receivable to said checking party.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein said signing party receives substantially said unsigned message from a providing party and the signing party returns said undeniable signature to the providing party.

6. The method according to claim 5, wherein said providing party supplies said undeniable signature to said checking party and the checking party is distinct from the providing party.

7. The method according to claim 3, wherein said signing step comprises raising said unsigned message to a signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where the inverse of such exponents is unknown.

8. The method according to claim 1 further including the step of:

creating a public key and a corresponding private key, and distributing them so that the private key is known to said signing party and the public key but not the private key is known to a checking party.

9. The method as in claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

blinding said unsigned message responsive to a blinding key before providing the resulting blinded unsigned message to said signing party in place of said unsigned message; and

unblinding said undeniably signed message returned by said signing party responsive to said blinding key.

10. The method as in claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

blinding, responsive to a blinding key, said undeniably signed message and also said corresponding unsigned message; and

using said blinded undeniably signed and said blinded unsigned messages in place of said undeniably signed and said unsigned message, respectively, by said checking party in

11. The method as in claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

blinding, responsive to a blinding key, at least part of one of said challenge and said response; and

unblinding, responsive to said blinding key, at least part of the other one of said challenge and said response.

12. The method according to claim 9, 10 or 11 wherein:

said signing step includes raising said unsigned message to a secret signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where it is defined;

said blinding step includes the operation of raising the message to be blinded to a power derived from said blinding key; and

said unblinding step includes raising the message to be unblinded to a power that acts as an inverse operation to that of said blinding operation.

13. The method according to claims 9, 10 or 11 wherein:

said signing step includes raising said unsigned message to a secret signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where it is defined;

said blinding step includes forming a product of at least a first message which is raised to a blinding power derived from said blinding key times at least a second message to be blinded; and

said unblinding step includes forming a product of the multiplicative inverse of the undeniably signed form of said first message raised to the blinding power times said second message.

37. The method according to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, 33, 34, or 35, wherein said lower bound on said probability is known to be at least one half.

38. The method according to claim 37, wherein said lower bound on said probability is known to be at least one minus a value that is more than linear in the size of the challenge message.

39. The method according to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 36, 31, 32, 33, 34, or 35, wherein said signing step comprises raising said unsigned message to a secret signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where it is defined.

40. The method according to claim 39, wherein said raising to said secret signing power is performed in a finite group.

41. The method according to claim 40, wherein:

at least part of said challenge is formed responsive to at least two undeniable signatures by raising the signatures to powers derived from said challenge key;

at least part of said response is formed by raising at least part of said challenge to a power that acts substantially as the inverse of said secret signing power; and

said checking is performed at least in part by raising the at least two unsigned messages corresponding to said at least two undeniable signatures to powers derived from said challenge key.

42. The method according to claim 41, wherein at least one of said two unsigned messages is a fixed constant and at least one of said two undeniable signatures is at least a part of said public key.

43. The method according to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 36, 31, 32, 33, 34, or 35, wherein the forming, transforming and checking steps comprise computations over a group of prime order.

46. The method according to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 36, 44, 45, 7, 31, 32, 33, 34, or 35, wherein:

at least part of said challenge is formed responsive to at least two unsigned messages by raising the two unsigned messages to powers derived from said challenge key;

at least part of said response is formed by raising at least part of said challenge to a signing power; and

said checking is performed at least in part by raising at least part of said response to powers derived from said challenge key.

47. The method according to claim 46, wherein at least one of said two unsigned messages is a public constant and at least one of said two undeniable signatures is at least a part of said public key.

48. The method according to claim 1 or 31 including the steps of:

issuing a public key digital signature by said signing party responsive to at least one said challenge and one said response; and

checking said public key digital signature.

14. Cryptographic apparatus for forming and checking undeniable signatures where the signatures are called "undeniable" because they can be verified in a protocol between a signing party and a checking party and the signing party is unable to conduct the protocol improperly so as to "deny" the validity of a valid undeniable signature previously issued by the signing party without such improper denial giving at least a probability with at least a known lower bound that the checking party will learn that the signing party has conducted the protocol improperly, said apparatus comprising:

means for forming an undeniable signature from an unsigned message by said signing party using a private key corresponding to a public key, and the resulting undeniable signature being issued to at least on party other than the signing party;

means for forming at least one challenge by a checking party using a challenge key known to said checking party, the challenge key being unknown to said signing party at least until a response by said signing party is committed to by the signing party, and the challenge at least partially depending on at least one member of a pair having a purported undeniable signature and said unsigned message, and supplying the at least one challenge to said signing party;

means for transforming at least one said challenge received by said signing party using knowledge of said private key and returning to said checking party the result of the transformation as said response; and

means for checking at least one said response received by said checking party using values at least depending on said challenge key, to give at least a probability having a known lower bound that the signing party is unable to prevent the checking party from distinguishing between three cases;

(a) that said purported undeniable signature is a valid undeniable signature corresponding both to said public key and to said unsigned message, (b) that the purported undeniable signature is not a valid undeniable signature corresponding both to the public key and to the unsigned message, and (c) that the response by the signing party is an improper response.

15. Apparatus according to claim 14, wherein said lower bound on said probability is known to be at least one half.

16. Apparatus according to claim 14, wherein said lower bound on said probability is known to be at least one minus a value that is super linear in the size of the challenge message.

17. Apparatus according to claim 14, wherein said known lower bound on said probability is at least one minus the number of substantially distinct possible challenges.

18. Apparatus according to claim 14, wherein said means for forming include means for raising said unsigned message to a secret signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where it is defined.

19. Apparatus according to claim 18, wherein:

at least part of said challenge is formed responsive to at least two undeniable signatures by raising the signatures to powers derived from said challenge key;

at least part of said response is formed by raising at least part of said challenge to a power that acts substantially as the inverse of said secret signing power; and

said checking is performed at least in part by raising the at least two unsigned messages corresponding to said at least two undeniable signatures to powers derived from said challenge key.

20. Apparatus according to claim 19, wherein at least one of said two unsigned messages is a fixed constant and at least one of said two undeniable signatures is at least a part of said public key.

21. Apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the means for forming, means for transforming, and means for checking perform computations over a group of prime order.

22. Apparatus according to claim 14, wherein said means for forming includes means for raising said unsigned message to a signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where the inverse of such exponents is unknown.

23. Apparatus according to claims 14 or 22, wherein:

at least part of said challenge is formed responsive to at least two unsigned messages by raising the two unsigned messages to powers derived from said challenge key;

at least part of said response is formed by raising at least part of said challenge to a signing power; and

said checking is performed at least in part by raising at least part of said response to powers derived from said challenge key.

24. Apparatus according to claim 23, wherein at least one of said two unsigned messages is a public constant and at least one of said two undeniable signature is at least a part of said public key.

25. Apparatus according to claim 14, further including:

means for blinding said unsigned message responsive to a blinding key before providing the resulting blinded unsigned message to said signing party in place of said unsigned message; and

means for unblinding said undeniably signed message returned by said signing party responsive to said blinding key.

26. Apparatus according to claim 14, further including:

means for blinding, responsive to a blinding key, said undeniably signed message and also said corresponding unsigned message; and

means for using said blinded undeniably signed and said blinded unsigned messages in place of said undeniably signed and said unsigned message, respectively, by said checking party in forming said challenge and in checking said response.

27. Apparatus according to claim 14, further including:

means for blinding, responsive to a blinding key, at least part of one of said challenge and said response; and

means for unblinding, responsive to said blinding key, at least part of the other one of said challenge and said response.

28. Apparatus according to claim 25 wherein:

said means for forming includes means for raising said unsigned message to a secret signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where it is defined;

said blinding means includes means for raising the message to be blinded to a power derived from said blinding key; and

said unblinding means includes means for raising the message to be unblinded to a power that acts as an inverse operation to that of said blinding operation.

29. Apparatus according to claim 25 wherein:

said means for forming includes means for raising said unsigned message to a secret signing power derived from said private key, such exponentiation being performed in a finite structure where it is defined;

said blinding means includes means for forming a product of at least a first message which is raised to a blinding power derived from said blinding key times at least a second message to be blinded; and

said unblinding means includes means for forming a product of the multiplicative inverse of the undeniably signed form of said first message raised to the blinding power times said second message.

30. Apparatus according to claim 14 further including:

means for issuing a public key digital signature by said signing party responsive to at least one said challenge and one said response; and

means for checking said public key digital signature.

31. A cryptographic method for forming and checking undeniable signatures where the signatures are called "undeniable" because they can be verified in a protocol between a signing party and a checking party and the signing party is unable to conduct the protocol improperly so as to "deny" the validity of a valid undeniable signature previously issued by the signing party without such improper denial giving at least a probability with at least a known lower bound that the checking party will detect that the signing party has conducted the protocol improperly, the method comprising the steps of:

forming at least one challenge by a checking party using a challenge key known to said checking party, the challenge key at least partially unknown to said signing party at least until a response by said signing party is substantially committed to by the signing party, and the challenge at least partially depending on at least one member of the triple consisting of a public key, an undeniable signature and an unsigned message, and supplying the at least one challenge to said signing party;

transforming at least one said challenge received by said signing party using knowledge of a private key corresponding to said public key and returning to said checking party the result of the transformation as at least one said response; and

checking said at least one response received by said checking party using predetermined values used by the checking party in forming said challenge, whereby the checking party can distinguish with a probability having a lower bound known at least to the checking party between at least two cases;

(a) the signature is invalid, and (b) the response from the signer is improperly formed.

32. A method according to claim 31 further including the step of:

forming an undeniable signature from an unsigned message by said signing party using said private key corresponding to said public key, and the resulting undeniable signature being issued to at least one party other than the signing party.

33. The method according to claim 31, wherein said signing party is unable with said probability having a known lower bound to prevent the checking party from distinguishing between said two cases because of the inability of the signing party to perform certain computations in a predetermined available time period.

34. The method according to claim 31, wherein said signing party is unable with said probability having a known lower bound to prevent said checking party from distinguishing between said two cases regardless of the computational resources available to the signing party.

35. The method according to claim 32, wherein said signing party develops said public key and corresponding private key from a substantially randomly chosen seed and the signing party issues the public key making it receivable to at least said checking party.

36. The method according to claim 34, wherein said known lower bound on said probability is at least one minus the number of substantially distinct possible challenges.

44. The method according to claim 31, wherein said response is committed to by said signing party issuing to said checking party the image of said challenge under a substantially one-way function.

45. The method according to claim 44, wherein said substantially one-way function is substantially injective.