In this paper, we propose an extremely simple identification protocol and prove its security using the Knowledge-of-Exponent Assumption (KEA). We also discuss the applicability of KEA in various protocol settings as well. Recently, doubts have been raised about applying KEA in some protocols where an adversary has auxiliary inputs. However, we suggest that KEA is applicable in these cases. We present two variants of KEA, Generalized KEA (GKEA) and Auxiliary-Input KEA (AI-KEA), to clarify the proper use of KEA. 1

Abstract. We revisit the enhanced target collision resistance (eTCR) property as a newly emerged notion of security for dedicated-key hash functions, which has been put forth by Halevi and Krawczyk at CRYPTO’06, in conjunction with the Randomized Hashing mode to achieve this property. Our contribution is twofold. Firstly, we provide a full picture of the relationships between eTCR and each of the seven security properties for a dedicatedkey hash function, considered by Rogaway and Shrimpton at FSE’04; namely, collision resistance (CR), the three variants of second-preimage resistance (Sec, aSec, eSec) and the three variants of preimage resistance (Pre, aPre, ePre). The results show that, for an arbitrary dedicated-key hash function, eTCR is not implied by any of these seven properties, and it can only imply three of the properties; namely, eSec (TCR), Sec, Pre. In the second part of the paper, we analyze the eTCR preservation capabilities of several domain extension transforms (a.k.a. modes of operation) for hash functions, including (Plain, Strengthened, and Prefix-free) Merkle-Damg˚ard, Randomized Hashing, Shoup, Enveloped Shoup, XOR Linear Hash (XLH), and Linear Hash (LH). From this analysis it turns out that, with the exception of a nested variant of LH, none of the investigated transforms can preserve the eTCR property.

Abstract. The collision-resistance of hash functions is an important foundation of many cryptographic protocols. Formally, collision-resistance can only be expected if the hash function in fact constitutes a parametrized family of functions, since for a single function, the adversary could simply know a single hard-coded collision. In practical applications, however, unkeyed hash functions are a common choice, creating a gap between the practical application and the formal proof, and, even more importantly, the concise mathematical definitions. A pragmatic way out of this dilemma was recently formalized by Rogaway: instead of requiring that no adversary exists that breaks the protocol (existential security), one requires that given an adversary that breaks the protocol, we can efficiently construct a collision of the hash function using an explicitly given reduction (constructive security). In this paper, we show the limits of this approach: We give a protocol that is existentially secure, but that provably cannot be proven secure using a constructive security proof. Consequently, constructive security—albeit constituting a useful improvement over the state of the art—is not comprehensive enough to encompass all protocols that can be dealt with using existential security proofs. 1

Abstract. This paper proves “tight security in the random-oracle model relative to factorization ” for the lowest-cost signature systems available today: every hash-generic signature-forging attack can be converted, with negligible loss of efficiency and effectiveness, into an algorithm to factor the public key. The most surprising system is the “fixed unstructured B = 0 Rabin–Williams ” system, which has a tight security proof despite hashing unrandomized messages. B, number of bits of randomization of hash input B large B = 1 B = 0 Variable unstructured tight security: ’96 no security: no security: Rabin–Williams Bellare–Rogaway easy attack easy attack Variable principal tight security: loose security: loose security: Rabin–Williams this paper this paper this paper

Abstract: A Web-based multi purpose contractual management system can provide support to contractual process workflows for different types of contractual process of unilateral, bilateral or multilateral contracts. These processes can be done on-line i.e. Web-based without the need for all actors to be synchronously present with respect to both time and space. Different contractual processes of initialization, negotiation, agreement, signing (witness), and archive are managed within the application securely by analyzing data-flow between actors, ushering actors to perform their duties in a timely manner and employing appropriate cryptographic techniques on every step of the way. The implementation must deliver a management system that provides operational properties of authenticity, privacy, trustworthy, reliability, verifiability, and linkability.

Abstract. We revisit the problem of constructing a protocol for performing authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD). A technique is described which combines a collision resistant hash function with a protocol for authenticated encryption (AE). The technique is both simple and generic and does not require any additional key material beyond that of the AE protocol. Concrete instantiations are shown where a 256-bit hash function is combined with some known single-pass AE protocols employing either 128-bit or 256-bit block ciphers. This results in possible efficiency improvement in the processing of the header.