Discussion:
Generalizing EdDSA
(too old to reply)
Trevor Perrin
2017-06-27 16:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

There are different generalizations of Ed25519, e.g. "EdDSA" from the
Ed25519 authors, "EdDSA" from RFC 8032, XEdDSA/VXEdDSA, and SchnorrQ.

Despite all this I think there's room for improvement. So I'm
thinking of factoring the XEdDSA spec into a more generalized EdDSA
framework, with a few ideas:

(A) "Synthetic nonces" based on hashing the message, private key, and
some randomness, to combine the security benefits of randomization
with "deterministic"-style nonces.

(B) A signing function that takes a user-specified private scalar
(instead of Ed25519-style key derivation) to support extensions like
XEdDSA where signing uses an existing X25519 private key; or Bitcoin's
Hierarchical Deterministic key derivation.

(C) Features to help extension to other Schnorr signature variants (like VRFs).

(D) A naming scheme and simple rules for combining curves and hashes, e.g
- EdDSA_25519_SHA512 = compatible with Ed25519
- VEdDSA_25519_SHA512 = VRF extension
- EdDSA_448_BLAKE2b
- VEdDSA_P384_SHA3/512, etc

(E) XEdDSA would be a thin wrapper around this generalized EdDSA,
e.g. "XEdDSA_25519_SHA512" would just be "EdDSA_25519_SHA512" verified
with an X25519 public key, and created with an X25519 private key.

I'm looking for feedback, and wondering if anyone else would use this.
Below I'll quickly sketch the algorithms, then give more rationale.


Algorithm sketch
=================

Recall Ed25519:

# (K,k) : Signer's (public key, private scalar)
# X : Signer's master secret key, byte sequence of length 32
# M : Message, byte sequence of arbitrary length
# N : Nonce derivation key, byte sequence of length 32
# (R,r) : Nonce (R = public value aka "commitment", r = private value)
# B : Elliptic curve base point of order q
# q : Subgroup order
# h : Schnorr challenge
# hash() : SHA-512

ed25519_sign(K, X, M):
k || N = hash(X)
r = hash(N || M) (mod q)
R = r*B
h = hash(R || K || M) (mod q)
s = r + (k*h) (mod q)
return R || s


As a first step we'll turn this into what I'll call a "synthetic
nonce" EdDSA signing algorithm, for goals (A) and (B):

# hash() : Any cryptographic hash with HASHLEN at least 64 bits larger
than bitlen(q).
# Z : Output from an RNG, byte sequence of length 32
# empty_labelset : byte sequence of length 3 = (0x02, 0x00, 0x00),
explained later
# pad1, pad2: padding filled with zero bytes to align the next hash
input with a hash block (128-byte alignment for SHA-512).

synthetic_eddsa_sign((K,k), Z, M):
r = hash(B || empty_labelset || Z || pad1 || k || pad2 ||
empty_labelset || K || M) (mod q)
R = r*B
h = hash(R || K || M) (mod q)
s = r + (k*h) (mod q)
return R || s


So this is the same as Ed25519 except it takes a private scalar k as
argument, and performs a different nonce derivation. To roughly
explain the nonce derivation (more later):

* The secret nonce r must be uniformly random to an attacker, and
must take a different value whenever h does. For security redundancy,
this is done in two ways: first, by hashing random data (Z); second,
by hashing the same inputs that are hashed into h (K and M) plus the
secret key k. We'll discuss the value of this redundancy later.

* B is hashed at the beginning to provide an indepent random oracle
from the challenge hash h=hash(R...). Also explained more later.

* The labelset is used to provide independent random oracles in more
complex protocols. It can contain identifiers for the protocol, a
user-specified customization label, and identifiers for the hash
instance. For collision-resilience we hash the labelset a second time
after the secret values (k and Z) have been mixed in.

* k is hashed in its own hash block (due to padding) to provide a
"cascade" PRF as in HMAC or AMAC: If Z is a random secret value, then
r is the output of a PRF keyed by Z. If Z is public (e.g. a bad RNG)
then r is the output of a PRF keyed by k.

To make this more extensible, we'll rewrite it and expand the "labelset" idea:


generalized_eddsa_sign((K,k), Z, M, customization_label):
labelset = new_labelset("", customization_label)
R, r = commit(labelset, "", (K,k), Z, M)
h = challenge(labelset, "", R, K, M)
s = prove(r, k, h)
return R || s

commit(labelset, extra, (K,k), Z, M):
r = hash(B || labelset || Z || pad1 || k || pad2 || labelset || K
|| extra || M) (mod q)
R = r*B
return (R, r)

challenge(labelset, extra, R, K, M):
if is_labelset_empty(labelset):
return hash(R || K || M) (mod q)
else:
return hash(B || labelset || R || labelset || K || extra || M) (mod q)

prove(r, k, h):
return r + (k*h) (mod q)

new_labelset(protocol_name, customization_label):
labelset[0] = 2
labelset = labelset || len(protocol_name) || protocol_name
labelset = labelset || len(customization_label) || customization_label

is_labelset_empty(labelset):
return len(labelset) == 3


A labelset contains a sequence of byte-strings, with the "empty"
labelset containing two zero-length byte strings for the protocol name
and a customization label.

Generalized EdDSA would use an empty protocol name and customization
label by default, thus would be compatible with Ed25519, since the
challenge would be h=hash(R || K || M).

A non-empty labelset modifies the challenge hash: The labelset is
hashed following B for domain separation, and is repeated following R
for collision resilience. Thus even if an attacker finds 2 colliding
labelsets where hash(B || labelset1) == hash(B || labelset2), a
signature under labelset1 won't verify under labelset2.

Non-empty labelsets also indicate a more complex protocol that might
bind "extra" data into the Schnorr challenge. For example, below is a
"VRF" extension ("VEdDSA") which provides a signature with the same
security properties as EdDSA, but where every signature is associated
with a VRF output which is an unpredictable but verifiably-unique
function of the message and keypair.

# c = cofactor (i.e. 8 for Ed25519)
# v = VRF output, byte sequence of length 32
# Elligator2() maps a 256-bit value to an Ed25519 point

generalized_veddsa_sign((K,k), Z, M, customization_label):
labelset = new_labelset("VEdDSA_25519_SHA512_Elligator2",
customization_label)
labelset1 = add_label(labelset, "1")
labelset2 = add_label(labelset, "2")
labelset3 = add_label(labelset, "3")
labelset4 = add_label(labelset, "4")
Bv = c*Elligator2(hash(B || labelset1 || K || M)[...32])
Kv = k * Bv
R, r = commit(labelset2, (Bv || Kv), (K,k), Z, M)
Rv = r * Bv
h = challenge(labelset3, (Bv || Kv || Rv), R, K, M)
s = prove(r, k, h)
v = hash(B || labelset4 || c*Kv)[...32]
return (Kv || h || s), v

add_label(labelset, new_label):
labelset[0]++
return labelset || len(new_label) || new_label


Note that the added hashes for Bv and v use the form hash(B ||
labelset || ...), which allows them to be analyzed as independent
random oracles.

Note also that we're careful to bind the new values Bv, Kv, and Rv as
"extra" data in the Schnorr challenge. We also include Bv and Kv as
"extra" data in nonce derivation, following the "deterministic"
strategy of making the nonce depend on the same inputs as the
challenge hash. We could use extra_data for additional extensions,
e.g. adding a trapdoor commitment to add a "designated verifier"
property.


To extend all this another way: XEdDSA and "XVEdDSA" signatures could
be seen as EdDSA and VEdDSA signatures that are created and verified
with Montgomery-form keys (X25519 or X448):

generalized_xeddsa_sign(k_mont, Z, M, customization_label):
K, k = calculate_key_pair(k_mont)
return generalized_eddsa_sign((K,k), Z, M, customization_label)

generalized_xveddsa_sign(k_mont, Z, M, customization_label):
K, k = calculate_key_pair(k_mont)
return generalized_veddsa_sign((K,k), Z, M, customization_label)


I've skipped over a lot of things, so more rationales below:


Rationales
===========

Nonce randomization
--------------------
Traditionally discrete-log signatures choose r from an RNG. (By
"discrete-log signatures" meaning both Schnorr signatures like EdDSA,
and DSA/ECDSA which calculate s differently).

"Deterministic" signatures have been popularized by Ed25519 for
Schnorr, and RFC 6979 for DSA/ECDSA. In a deterministic signature the
nonce is a hash or PRF of the message and some secret key which is
unique for each signer (e.g. "N" in Ed25519, or the signer's private
scalar (our "k") in RFC 6979).

Deterministic signatures are intended to be more robust, since they're
not vulnerable to RNG failures. Even a small RNG failure could be
catastrophic:
(a) If a nonce r becomes known to an attacker, the signer's private
scalar is solvable as k = (s-r)/h.
(b) If r repeats with different h, the private scalar is solvable as
k = (s1-s2)/(h1-h2).
(c) If the attacker has a few bits of information about many nonces,
the private scalar might be solved with more advanced techniques
[NONCE].

RNG failures happen, so making the nonce a function of the message and
a secret key is a good idea. However randomization *also* provides
benefits:

(1) Faulty computations could be caused by attackers glitching clock
or power lines, or other tampering. Without randomization, any fault
in the calculation R=r*B, or h=hash(...), while signing the same
message repeatedly, would give multiple signatures with the same r but
different h. This would leak the private scalar as in (b), provided
the attacker can calculate or guess the faulty h [FAULT]. With
randomization, I believe fault attacks are less effective, for
example:
- Flipping one bit in the private scalar to leak the private scalar
in hundreds of faulty signatures [FAULT1]
- Randomizing one byte of the private scalar to leak the private
scalar in thousands of faulty signatures [FAULT2]
- Skipping scalarmult instructions to leak the private scalar in
tens of faulty ECDSA signatures [FAULT3]

(2) Without randomization, the algorithm is fragile to modifications
and misuse. In particular, modifying it to add an extra input to
h=... without also adding the input to r=... would leak the private
scalar if the same message is signed with a different extra input. So
would signing a message twice, once passing in an incorrect public key
K (though the synthetic-nonce algorithm fixes this separately by
hashing K into r).

(3) Without randomization, an attacker can trigger repeated
calculations using the same inputs. Consider a sidechannel attacker
recording traces of the signer's power consumption or EM radiation.
This attacker might request repeated signing of the same message in an
attempt to average out noise and get information about secret inputs
in the calculations of r, R, or s.

Of course, there are other ways besides randomization to mitigate
fault and sidechannel risk. Verifying a new signature before
returning it, or performing the signature twice and comparing, would
help against faults, but makes the signing operation a few times
slower. The R = r*B calculation could be "blinded" in different ways
to reduce sidechannel risk, but this probably involves either a
larger, slower scalar, e.g. R = (r+qj)B for random j; or calculating
new blinding / unblinding factors frequently. So random nonces appear
to be a simple and efficient way to increase protection.

Given this, I'll argue that randomized vs. deterministic is a false
dichotomy here. For private-key protection it's not important that
nonces be deterministic based on the message; nonces just have to
differ for different "h" values. Mixing (key, message) into the nonce
can provide this when an RNG fails, and an RNG can provide this when
mixing (key, message) fails. Combining these approaches yields what
we could call a "synthetic nonce" (by analogy with "synthetic IV"
authenticated encryption).

Combining these approaches isn't novel. Adam Langley switched
OpenSSL's DSA/ECDSA to combined hashing of RNG output and private
scalar in 2013, and this remains in OpenSSL plus the BoringSSL and
LibreSSL forks [OPENSSL].

Let's consider two counter-arguments:

* DJB has pointed out that a malicious RNG might inspect memory and
choose RNG outputs to bias the nonce and leak the private key as in
(c) above [ENTROPY]. I'd argue that's a far-fetched threat which is
outweighed by the above risks.

* It could be argued that determinism is valuable apart from
private-key protection, e.g. to help testing. The above signing
functions specify exactly how the random input Z is used, so are
deterministic and testable.


Hashing private scalar into nonce
----------------------------------
Having decided to mix a function of (secret key, message) into the
nonce, what secret key to use?
* The signer's private scalar k as in OpenSSL, XEdDSA, RFC 6979, and
libsecp256k1?
* A separate key N, as in Ed25519?

Using N has a clearer security analysis: We can consider nonce
derivation as a PRF with key N, so there's not the "circularity" of
deriving r and h from k, then using r to mask s=r+kh.

However dealing with N complicates the API, since the signer has to
either store and pass N to the signing function, or pass in a single
"master key" which derives both k and N. Ed25519 uses such a master
key. However, that means Ed25519 can't be used with an external
private scalar, such as an X25519 scalar for XEdDSA, or a derived
scalar as in Bitcoin's BIP32 Hierarchical Deterministic key
derivation.

For a generalized EdDSA I think a simple and flexible API which
supports external scalars is best, thus the signing function mixes in
k. In practice, I think this has security equivalent to using N:

* The main Schnorr security proof is the Pointcheval-Stern proof in
the Random Oracle Model. In the ROM it doesn't matter whether we
query the Random Oracle with k or N.

* Hashing the scalar has seen wide deployment for DSA/ECDSA (e.g.
OpenSSL, and Bitcoin's libsecp256k1). While DSA/ECDSA isn't identical
to Schnorr, the main relevant difference seems to be lack of a ROM
proof for DSA/ECDSA. If people are comfortable with this construct in
DSA/ECDSA (without a proof), I think they should be comfortable in the
Schnorr case (with a proof).

* With synthetic nonces, nonce derivation is a PRF keyed by the
random input Z. Thus mixing k (or N) can be viewed as a backup
strategy, which is only relevant if the RNG fails.

* I'm finding it hard to come up with a plausible hash weakness that
is likely to be insecure with k but secure with N. (Anyone?)

If someone prefers using a nonce derivation key N, that's still easy
with a pre-processing step:

Z' = hash(N || pad || Z)[...32]
generalized_eddsa_sign(..., Z', ...)

For example, here's a synthetic-nonce Ed25519 which uses an Ed25519
"master key" X:

generalized_ed25519_sign(K, X, Z, M):
k || N = hash(X)
Z' = hash(N || pad || Z)[...32]
return generalized_eddsa_sign((K,k), Z', M, "")


Choice of hash
---------------
Ed25519 and the RFC 8032 variants tie each curve to a single hash
function (e.g. SHA-512 for Ed25519, and SHAKE256 for Ed448). They
also specify hash outputs of double the public key size, requiring an
unnecessary and unusual 912-bit hash for Ed448 signatures.

I think it would be better to allow flexible combination of hashes and
EC groups (and even non-EC groups, such as DSA domain parameters).
The hash would be required to have output length at least 64 bits
larger than the subgroup order q. The extra 64 bits would ensure that
any bias in r and h, after the hash output is reduced by q, is very
small. This would also match the nonce-derivation requirement in FIPS
186-4 section B.5.1. Finally, this would allow common 512-bit hash
functions with Curve448 and smaller curves.


Naming
-------
The "EdDSA" name should probably be kept as part of a generalized
naming scheme. This name has become associated with Schnorr plus
hashing the message into nonce.

Specifying the group and hash in the name makes the combinations
explicit. Consider the below group and hash names, and examples.

"25519" = Edwards encoding of Curve25519 from RFC 7448
"448" = Edwards encoding of Curve448 from RFC 7448
"Ed448" = Edwards encoding of Edwards448 from RFC 7448
"Ed448decaf" = Decaf encoding of Ed448
"FourQ" = Compressed encoding of MSR's FourQ
"secp256k1" = Compressed encoding of Bitcoin's secp256k1
"P256" = Compressed encoding of NIST P-256
"P384" = Compressed encoding of NIST P-384
"P521" = Compressed encoding of NIST P-521

"SHA512" = SHA-512
"BLAKE2b" = BLAKE2b with output 512 bits
"SHA3/512" = SHA3-512
"SHAKE256/N" = SHAKE256 with output N bits

Examples:

EdDSA_25519_SHA512 (compatible with Ed25519)
EdDSA_FourQ_BLAKE2b

XEdDSA_448_SHA512
VEdDSA_Ed448decaf_SHAKE256/512
XVEdDSA_25519_BLAKE2b

EdDSA_P384_SHA512
VEdDSA_P521_SHAKE256/640


Labelsets
----------
Labelsets have a few uses:

* A user might want to create EdDSA, VEdDSA, and other types of
signatures from the same key pair. These different variants should
use hashes that can be modelled as independent random oracles, so that
signatures of one type can't be interpreted as, or affect the security
of, other types.

* A protocol might involve several hash calls which should be
independent random oracles (as in the VRF case).

* A user might want to customize signatures so they are bound to a
specific application context.

The "customization labels" use (3rd bullet) has debatable value. RFC
8032 supports them ("contexts"), but I'm not aware of protocols
planning to use them. Because we'd have a label mechanism it would be
easy to experiment with customization labels, and leave them empty if
they don't prove useful.

Labelsets aren't compatible with RFC 8032, but I don't think the RFC
8032 "context" mechanism is that good:

* RFC 8032 contexts are inconsistent between Ed25519 and Ed448:
Ed25519 doesn't support contexts; Ed448 does, and is analogous to
Ed25519ctx (not Ed25519), except with Ed25519ctx one "SHOULD NOT" use
zero-length contexts. Also, while Ed25519ctx and Ed448 both use
special prefixes for domain separation in the hash function, the
details are different.

* The RFC 8032 mechanism doesn't provide a space for protocol names
or additional labels.

* RFC 8032 contexts have weaker security than message contents
because they are hashed before R, and thus a hash collision between a
pair of contexts (C1, C2) would allow a message signed under context
C1 to be verified under context C2. Schnorr is normally more
resilient to hash collisions due to R randomizing the hash
calculation.


Using hash(B || labelset || ...) with a unique labelset provides an
independent random oracle, because:

* Uniqueness of labelsets provides domain-separation between hashes
of the form hash(B || labelset || ...).

* Assuming hash(B || labelset || ...) is used for all new hashing in
these signatures, the only non-domain-separated case is the EdDSA
challenge hash(R || K || M), and hash(B || labelset || ...) if B=R.
These ROM hash queries can be answered by the latter (non-empty
labelset) oracles without affecting the EdDSA ROM security proof for
hash(R || K || M), because:
- A simulator for the EdDSA signing oracle won't need to program
the hash oracle for the case R=B, since the simulator can choose R at
random.
- An extractor for the EdDSA private key will also never need to
program this case, since a forgery with R=B allows the private key k
to be extracted directly via:
R = sB - hK (verification equation)
B = sB - hK (R = B)
1 = s - hk
k = (s-1)/h


Conclusion
===========
I'd love any feedback on why people would or wouldn't use this,
thoughts, ideas for improvement, etc.

Thanks to feedback from this list, in particular Brian Smith, for
ideas and motivation about refactoring.

Thanks also to David Wu, Henry Corrigan-Gibbs, and Samuel Neves, for
feedback and discussion.


References
===========
[NONCE]
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/434.pdf
https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/346.pdf

[FAULT]
Observation due to Benedikt Schmdit, 2016, private conversation.
Andrey Jivsov had earlier made a similar, though not identical,
observation:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg06759.html

Another paper in 2016 made a similar observation, but mistakenly
thought Ed25519 was resistant since the nonce key N wouldn't leak:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-44524-3_11

[FAULT1]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221291537_Breaking_Public_Key_Cryptosystems_on_Tamper_Resistant_Devices_in_the_Presence_of_Transient_Faults

[FAULT2]
"Fault attacks on Signature Schemes"
ftp://nozdr.ru/biblio/kolxo3/Cs/CsLn/Information%20Security%20and%20Privacy,%209%20conf.,%20ACISP%202004(LNCS3108,%20Springer,%202004)(ISBN%203540223797)(504s).pdf#page=489

[FAULT3]
"A Fault Attack on ECDSA"
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1731211


[OPENSSL]
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/8a99cb29d1f0013243a532bccc1dc70ed678eebe
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/190c615d4398cc6c8b61eb7881d7409314529a75

[ENTROPY] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20140205-entropy.html
Tony Arcieri
2017-06-29 18:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Perrin
(B) A signing function that takes a user-specified private scalar
(instead of Ed25519-style key derivation) to support extensions like
XEdDSA where signing uses an existing X25519 private key; or Bitcoin's
Hierarchical Deterministic key derivation.
This is a major shortcoming of the "bag of bytes" API provided by all
existing Ed25519 libraries to my knowledge, which always prehash the seed
value to generate the private scalar and nonce prefix, making it impossible
to provide your own scalar.

Would be wonderful to see it addressed by a more flexible/lower-level API
targeting more sophisticated protocols.
--
Tony Arcieri
Oleg Andreev
2017-09-07 20:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

This is tangentially related to the topic. I was thinking about
adopting Ristretto lately, and these two ways of doing
Schnorr signature came to my mind:

Form (a):

P is a pubkey,
(R,s) is a signature (point R, scalar s),
verifier checks that point (s*B) equals (R + Hash(msg || P || R)*P).

Form (b):

P is a pubkey,
(k,s) is a signature (scalars k, s),
verifier checks that Hash(msg || P || s*B - k*P) is equal to k.

From the performance perspective, both seem to be equivalent,
because point comparison in (a) is typically done by encoding
both points to compressed form and compare the resulting bytes.
In fact, maybe (b) is slightly faster because you have encode
just one point instead of two.

However, (a) might be actually faster in case Ristretto points are
used. This is because point equality is defined by Ristretto without
the need to fully encode two points, saving a ton of computational
overhead. In fact, no points need to be encoded at all, only decoded
(for R and P).

The only conceptual drawback of method (a) is that it seems to be
incompatible with ring schnorr signatures. If form (b) is used instead,
it is naturally extended to ring version of the signature by computing
k1, k2 etc from the signature consisting of (k0, s0, s1, s2...) and
in the end checking that k_n equals k0.

Are there some performance considerations that I missed that make (a)
more performant (maybe allowing batch verification?) in existing EdDSA?
Post by Trevor Perrin
Hi all,
There are different generalizations of Ed25519, e.g. "EdDSA" from the
Ed25519 authors, "EdDSA" from RFC 8032, XEdDSA/VXEdDSA, and SchnorrQ.
Despite all this I think there's room for improvement. So I'm
thinking of factoring the XEdDSA spec into a more generalized EdDSA
(A) "Synthetic nonces" based on hashing the message, private key, and
some randomness, to combine the security benefits of randomization
with "deterministic"-style nonces.
(B) A signing function that takes a user-specified private scalar
(instead of Ed25519-style key derivation) to support extensions like
XEdDSA where signing uses an existing X25519 private key; or Bitcoin's
Hierarchical Deterministic key derivation.
(C) Features to help extension to other Schnorr signature variants (like VRFs).
(D) A naming scheme and simple rules for combining curves and hashes, e.g
- EdDSA_25519_SHA512 = compatible with Ed25519
- VEdDSA_25519_SHA512 = VRF extension
- EdDSA_448_BLAKE2b
- VEdDSA_P384_SHA3/512, etc
(E) XEdDSA would be a thin wrapper around this generalized EdDSA,
e.g. "XEdDSA_25519_SHA512" would just be "EdDSA_25519_SHA512" verified
with an X25519 public key, and created with an X25519 private key.
I'm looking for feedback, and wondering if anyone else would use this.
Below I'll quickly sketch the algorithms, then give more rationale.
Algorithm sketch
=================
# (K,k) : Signer's (public key, private scalar)
# X : Signer's master secret key, byte sequence of length 32
# M : Message, byte sequence of arbitrary length
# N : Nonce derivation key, byte sequence of length 32
# (R,r) : Nonce (R = public value aka "commitment", r = private value)
# B : Elliptic curve base point of order q
# q : Subgroup order
# h : Schnorr challenge
# hash() : SHA-512
k || N = hash(X)
r = hash(N || M) (mod q)
R = r*B
h = hash(R || K || M) (mod q)
s = r + (k*h) (mod q)
return R || s
As a first step we'll turn this into what I'll call a "synthetic
# hash() : Any cryptographic hash with HASHLEN at least 64 bits larger
than bitlen(q).
# Z : Output from an RNG, byte sequence of length 32
# empty_labelset : byte sequence of length 3 = (0x02, 0x00, 0x00),
explained later
# pad1, pad2: padding filled with zero bytes to align the next hash
input with a hash block (128-byte alignment for SHA-512).
r = hash(B || empty_labelset || Z || pad1 || k || pad2 ||
empty_labelset || K || M) (mod q)
R = r*B
h = hash(R || K || M) (mod q)
s = r + (k*h) (mod q)
return R || s
So this is the same as Ed25519 except it takes a private scalar k as
argument, and performs a different nonce derivation. To roughly
* The secret nonce r must be uniformly random to an attacker, and
must take a different value whenever h does. For security redundancy,
this is done in two ways: first, by hashing random data (Z); second,
by hashing the same inputs that are hashed into h (K and M) plus the
secret key k. We'll discuss the value of this redundancy later.
* B is hashed at the beginning to provide an indepent random oracle
from the challenge hash h=hash(R...). Also explained more later.
* The labelset is used to provide independent random oracles in more
complex protocols. It can contain identifiers for the protocol, a
user-specified customization label, and identifiers for the hash
instance. For collision-resilience we hash the labelset a second time
after the secret values (k and Z) have been mixed in.
* k is hashed in its own hash block (due to padding) to provide a
"cascade" PRF as in HMAC or AMAC: If Z is a random secret value, then
r is the output of a PRF keyed by Z. If Z is public (e.g. a bad RNG)
then r is the output of a PRF keyed by k.
labelset = new_labelset("", customization_label)
R, r = commit(labelset, "", (K,k), Z, M)
h = challenge(labelset, "", R, K, M)
s = prove(r, k, h)
return R || s
r = hash(B || labelset || Z || pad1 || k || pad2 || labelset || K
|| extra || M) (mod q)
R = r*B
return (R, r)
return hash(R || K || M) (mod q)
return hash(B || labelset || R || labelset || K || extra || M) (mod q)
return r + (k*h) (mod q)
labelset[0] = 2
labelset = labelset || len(protocol_name) || protocol_name
labelset = labelset || len(customization_label) || customization_label
return len(labelset) == 3
A labelset contains a sequence of byte-strings, with the "empty"
labelset containing two zero-length byte strings for the protocol name
and a customization label.
Generalized EdDSA would use an empty protocol name and customization
label by default, thus would be compatible with Ed25519, since the
challenge would be h=hash(R || K || M).
A non-empty labelset modifies the challenge hash: The labelset is
hashed following B for domain separation, and is repeated following R
for collision resilience. Thus even if an attacker finds 2 colliding
labelsets where hash(B || labelset1) == hash(B || labelset2), a
signature under labelset1 won't verify under labelset2.
Non-empty labelsets also indicate a more complex protocol that might
bind "extra" data into the Schnorr challenge. For example, below is a
"VRF" extension ("VEdDSA") which provides a signature with the same
security properties as EdDSA, but where every signature is associated
with a VRF output which is an unpredictable but verifiably-unique
function of the message and keypair.
# c = cofactor (i.e. 8 for Ed25519)
# v = VRF output, byte sequence of length 32
# Elligator2() maps a 256-bit value to an Ed25519 point
labelset = new_labelset("VEdDSA_25519_SHA512_Elligator2",
customization_label)
labelset1 = add_label(labelset, "1")
labelset2 = add_label(labelset, "2")
labelset3 = add_label(labelset, "3")
labelset4 = add_label(labelset, "4")
Bv = c*Elligator2(hash(B || labelset1 || K || M)[...32])
Kv = k * Bv
R, r = commit(labelset2, (Bv || Kv), (K,k), Z, M)
Rv = r * Bv
h = challenge(labelset3, (Bv || Kv || Rv), R, K, M)
s = prove(r, k, h)
v = hash(B || labelset4 || c*Kv)[...32]
return (Kv || h || s), v
labelset[0]++
return labelset || len(new_label) || new_label
Note that the added hashes for Bv and v use the form hash(B ||
labelset || ...), which allows them to be analyzed as independent
random oracles.
Note also that we're careful to bind the new values Bv, Kv, and Rv as
"extra" data in the Schnorr challenge. We also include Bv and Kv as
"extra" data in nonce derivation, following the "deterministic"
strategy of making the nonce depend on the same inputs as the
challenge hash. We could use extra_data for additional extensions,
e.g. adding a trapdoor commitment to add a "designated verifier"
property.
To extend all this another way: XEdDSA and "XVEdDSA" signatures could
be seen as EdDSA and VEdDSA signatures that are created and verified
K, k = calculate_key_pair(k_mont)
return generalized_eddsa_sign((K,k), Z, M, customization_label)
K, k = calculate_key_pair(k_mont)
return generalized_veddsa_sign((K,k), Z, M, customization_label)
Rationales
===========
Nonce randomization
--------------------
Traditionally discrete-log signatures choose r from an RNG. (By
"discrete-log signatures" meaning both Schnorr signatures like EdDSA,
and DSA/ECDSA which calculate s differently).
"Deterministic" signatures have been popularized by Ed25519 for
Schnorr, and RFC 6979 for DSA/ECDSA. In a deterministic signature the
nonce is a hash or PRF of the message and some secret key which is
unique for each signer (e.g. "N" in Ed25519, or the signer's private
scalar (our "k") in RFC 6979).
Deterministic signatures are intended to be more robust, since they're
not vulnerable to RNG failures. Even a small RNG failure could be
(a) If a nonce r becomes known to an attacker, the signer's private
scalar is solvable as k = (s-r)/h.
(b) If r repeats with different h, the private scalar is solvable as
k = (s1-s2)/(h1-h2).
(c) If the attacker has a few bits of information about many nonces,
the private scalar might be solved with more advanced techniques
[NONCE].
RNG failures happen, so making the nonce a function of the message and
a secret key is a good idea. However randomization *also* provides
(1) Faulty computations could be caused by attackers glitching clock
or power lines, or other tampering. Without randomization, any fault
in the calculation R=r*B, or h=hash(...), while signing the same
message repeatedly, would give multiple signatures with the same r but
different h. This would leak the private scalar as in (b), provided
the attacker can calculate or guess the faulty h [FAULT]. With
randomization, I believe fault attacks are less effective, for
- Flipping one bit in the private scalar to leak the private scalar
in hundreds of faulty signatures [FAULT1]
- Randomizing one byte of the private scalar to leak the private
scalar in thousands of faulty signatures [FAULT2]
- Skipping scalarmult instructions to leak the private scalar in
tens of faulty ECDSA signatures [FAULT3]
(2) Without randomization, the algorithm is fragile to modifications
and misuse. In particular, modifying it to add an extra input to
h=... without also adding the input to r=... would leak the private
scalar if the same message is signed with a different extra input. So
would signing a message twice, once passing in an incorrect public key
K (though the synthetic-nonce algorithm fixes this separately by
hashing K into r).
(3) Without randomization, an attacker can trigger repeated
calculations using the same inputs. Consider a sidechannel attacker
recording traces of the signer's power consumption or EM radiation.
This attacker might request repeated signing of the same message in an
attempt to average out noise and get information about secret inputs
in the calculations of r, R, or s.
Of course, there are other ways besides randomization to mitigate
fault and sidechannel risk. Verifying a new signature before
returning it, or performing the signature twice and comparing, would
help against faults, but makes the signing operation a few times
slower. The R = r*B calculation could be "blinded" in different ways
to reduce sidechannel risk, but this probably involves either a
larger, slower scalar, e.g. R = (r+qj)B for random j; or calculating
new blinding / unblinding factors frequently. So random nonces appear
to be a simple and efficient way to increase protection.
Given this, I'll argue that randomized vs. deterministic is a false
dichotomy here. For private-key protection it's not important that
nonces be deterministic based on the message; nonces just have to
differ for different "h" values. Mixing (key, message) into the nonce
can provide this when an RNG fails, and an RNG can provide this when
mixing (key, message) fails. Combining these approaches yields what
we could call a "synthetic nonce" (by analogy with "synthetic IV"
authenticated encryption).
Combining these approaches isn't novel. Adam Langley switched
OpenSSL's DSA/ECDSA to combined hashing of RNG output and private
scalar in 2013, and this remains in OpenSSL plus the BoringSSL and
LibreSSL forks [OPENSSL].
* DJB has pointed out that a malicious RNG might inspect memory and
choose RNG outputs to bias the nonce and leak the private key as in
(c) above [ENTROPY]. I'd argue that's a far-fetched threat which is
outweighed by the above risks.
* It could be argued that determinism is valuable apart from
private-key protection, e.g. to help testing. The above signing
functions specify exactly how the random input Z is used, so are
deterministic and testable.
Hashing private scalar into nonce
----------------------------------
Having decided to mix a function of (secret key, message) into the
nonce, what secret key to use?
* The signer's private scalar k as in OpenSSL, XEdDSA, RFC 6979, and
libsecp256k1?
* A separate key N, as in Ed25519?
Using N has a clearer security analysis: We can consider nonce
derivation as a PRF with key N, so there's not the "circularity" of
deriving r and h from k, then using r to mask s=r+kh.
However dealing with N complicates the API, since the signer has to
either store and pass N to the signing function, or pass in a single
"master key" which derives both k and N. Ed25519 uses such a master
key. However, that means Ed25519 can't be used with an external
private scalar, such as an X25519 scalar for XEdDSA, or a derived
scalar as in Bitcoin's BIP32 Hierarchical Deterministic key
derivation.
For a generalized EdDSA I think a simple and flexible API which
supports external scalars is best, thus the signing function mixes in
* The main Schnorr security proof is the Pointcheval-Stern proof in
the Random Oracle Model. In the ROM it doesn't matter whether we
query the Random Oracle with k or N.
* Hashing the scalar has seen wide deployment for DSA/ECDSA (e.g.
OpenSSL, and Bitcoin's libsecp256k1). While DSA/ECDSA isn't identical
to Schnorr, the main relevant difference seems to be lack of a ROM
proof for DSA/ECDSA. If people are comfortable with this construct in
DSA/ECDSA (without a proof), I think they should be comfortable in the
Schnorr case (with a proof).
* With synthetic nonces, nonce derivation is a PRF keyed by the
random input Z. Thus mixing k (or N) can be viewed as a backup
strategy, which is only relevant if the RNG fails.
* I'm finding it hard to come up with a plausible hash weakness that
is likely to be insecure with k but secure with N. (Anyone?)
If someone prefers using a nonce derivation key N, that's still easy
Z' = hash(N || pad || Z)[...32]
generalized_eddsa_sign(..., Z', ...)
For example, here's a synthetic-nonce Ed25519 which uses an Ed25519
k || N = hash(X)
Z' = hash(N || pad || Z)[...32]
return generalized_eddsa_sign((K,k), Z', M, "")
Choice of hash
---------------
Ed25519 and the RFC 8032 variants tie each curve to a single hash
function (e.g. SHA-512 for Ed25519, and SHAKE256 for Ed448). They
also specify hash outputs of double the public key size, requiring an
unnecessary and unusual 912-bit hash for Ed448 signatures.
I think it would be better to allow flexible combination of hashes and
EC groups (and even non-EC groups, such as DSA domain parameters).
The hash would be required to have output length at least 64 bits
larger than the subgroup order q. The extra 64 bits would ensure that
any bias in r and h, after the hash output is reduced by q, is very
small. This would also match the nonce-derivation requirement in FIPS
186-4 section B.5.1. Finally, this would allow common 512-bit hash
functions with Curve448 and smaller curves.
Naming
-------
The "EdDSA" name should probably be kept as part of a generalized
naming scheme. This name has become associated with Schnorr plus
hashing the message into nonce.
Specifying the group and hash in the name makes the combinations
explicit. Consider the below group and hash names, and examples.
"25519" = Edwards encoding of Curve25519 from RFC 7448
"448" = Edwards encoding of Curve448 from RFC 7448
"Ed448" = Edwards encoding of Edwards448 from RFC 7448
"Ed448decaf" = Decaf encoding of Ed448
"FourQ" = Compressed encoding of MSR's FourQ
"secp256k1" = Compressed encoding of Bitcoin's secp256k1
"P256" = Compressed encoding of NIST P-256
"P384" = Compressed encoding of NIST P-384
"P521" = Compressed encoding of NIST P-521
"SHA512" = SHA-512
"BLAKE2b" = BLAKE2b with output 512 bits
"SHA3/512" = SHA3-512
"SHAKE256/N" = SHAKE256 with output N bits
EdDSA_25519_SHA512 (compatible with Ed25519)
EdDSA_FourQ_BLAKE2b
XEdDSA_448_SHA512
VEdDSA_Ed448decaf_SHAKE256/512
XVEdDSA_25519_BLAKE2b
EdDSA_P384_SHA512
VEdDSA_P521_SHAKE256/640
Labelsets
----------
* A user might want to create EdDSA, VEdDSA, and other types of
signatures from the same key pair. These different variants should
use hashes that can be modelled as independent random oracles, so that
signatures of one type can't be interpreted as, or affect the security
of, other types.
* A protocol might involve several hash calls which should be
independent random oracles (as in the VRF case).
* A user might want to customize signatures so they are bound to a
specific application context.
The "customization labels" use (3rd bullet) has debatable value. RFC
8032 supports them ("contexts"), but I'm not aware of protocols
planning to use them. Because we'd have a label mechanism it would be
easy to experiment with customization labels, and leave them empty if
they don't prove useful.
Labelsets aren't compatible with RFC 8032, but I don't think the RFC
Ed25519 doesn't support contexts; Ed448 does, and is analogous to
Ed25519ctx (not Ed25519), except with Ed25519ctx one "SHOULD NOT" use
zero-length contexts. Also, while Ed25519ctx and Ed448 both use
special prefixes for domain separation in the hash function, the
details are different.
* The RFC 8032 mechanism doesn't provide a space for protocol names
or additional labels.
* RFC 8032 contexts have weaker security than message contents
because they are hashed before R, and thus a hash collision between a
pair of contexts (C1, C2) would allow a message signed under context
C1 to be verified under context C2. Schnorr is normally more
resilient to hash collisions due to R randomizing the hash
calculation.
Using hash(B || labelset || ...) with a unique labelset provides an
* Uniqueness of labelsets provides domain-separation between hashes
of the form hash(B || labelset || ...).
* Assuming hash(B || labelset || ...) is used for all new hashing in
these signatures, the only non-domain-separated case is the EdDSA
challenge hash(R || K || M), and hash(B || labelset || ...) if B=R.
These ROM hash queries can be answered by the latter (non-empty
labelset) oracles without affecting the EdDSA ROM security proof for
- A simulator for the EdDSA signing oracle won't need to program
the hash oracle for the case R=B, since the simulator can choose R at
random.
- An extractor for the EdDSA private key will also never need to
program this case, since a forgery with R=B allows the private key k
R = sB - hK (verification equation)
B = sB - hK (R = B)
1 = s - hk
k = (s-1)/h
Conclusion
===========
I'd love any feedback on why people would or wouldn't use this,
thoughts, ideas for improvement, etc.
Thanks to feedback from this list, in particular Brian Smith, for
ideas and motivation about refactoring.
Thanks also to David Wu, Henry Corrigan-Gibbs, and Samuel Neves, for
feedback and discussion.
References
===========
[NONCE]
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/434.pdf
https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/346.pdf
[FAULT]
Observation due to Benedikt Schmdit, 2016, private conversation.
Andrey Jivsov had earlier made a similar, though not identical,
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg06759.html
Another paper in 2016 made a similar observation, but mistakenly
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-44524-3_11
[FAULT1]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221291537_Breaking_Public_Key_Cryptosystems_on_Tamper_Resistant_Devices_in_the_Presence_of_Transient_Faults
[FAULT2]
"Fault attacks on Signature Schemes"
ftp://nozdr.ru/biblio/kolxo3/Cs/CsLn/Information%20Security%20and%20Privacy,%209%20conf.,%20ACISP%202004(LNCS3108,%20Springer,%202004)(ISBN%203540223797)(504s).pdf#page=489
[FAULT3]
"A Fault Attack on ECDSA"
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1731211
[OPENSSL]
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/8a99cb29d1f0013243a532bccc1dc70ed678eebe
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/190c615d4398cc6c8b61eb7881d7409314529a75
[ENTROPY] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20140205-entropy.html
_______________________________________________
Curves mailing list
https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/curves
Trevor Perrin
2017-09-10 07:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oleg Andreev
P is a pubkey,
(R,s) is a signature (point R, scalar s),
verifier checks that point (s*B) equals (R + Hash(msg || P || R)*P).
P is a pubkey,
(k,s) is a signature (scalars k, s),
verifier checks that Hash(msg || P || s*B - k*P) is equal to k.
[...]
Post by Oleg Andreev
Are there some performance considerations that I missed that make (a)
more performant (maybe allowing batch verification?) in existing EdDSA?
Hi Oleg,

Yes, I believe batch verification was one rationale for this decision in
Ed25519 [1]:

"Sending R instead of H(R,M) also has the advantage of allowing batch
signature verification, which is typically twice as fast as verifying one
signature at a time. That's why Ed25519 doesn't use this compression."

I think the utility of batch verification is debatable, since significant
speedup is only achieved with larger batches, which don't often occur in
protocols [2]. But one plausible use case I've heard proposed is
cryptocurrencies.

A Schnorr-based VRF (e.g. "VEdDSA" nee "VXEdDSA") is another case, similar
to your ring signature example, where it probably makes sense to send a
single hash value in place of multiple points [3].

Trevor

[1] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20140323-ecdsa.html
[2] https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2016/000836.html
[3] https://signal.org/docs/specifications/xeddsa/

Loading...