diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'bip-0340.mediawiki')
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0340.mediawiki | 68 |
1 files changed, 57 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/bip-0340.mediawiki b/bip-0340.mediawiki index 8128650..85b7bac 100644 --- a/bip-0340.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0340.mediawiki @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Tim Ruffing <crypto@timruffing.de> Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0340 - Status: Draft + Status: Final Type: Standards Track License: BSD-2-Clause Created: 2020-01-19 @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Since we would like to avoid the fragility that comes with short hashes, the ''e '''Key prefixing''' Using the verification rule above directly makes Schnorr signatures vulnerable to "related-key attacks" in which a third party can convert a signature ''(R, s)'' for public key ''P'' into a signature ''(R, s + a⋅hash(R || m))'' for public key ''P + a⋅G'' and the same message ''m'', for any given additive tweak ''a'' to the signing key. This would render signatures insecure when keys are generated using [[bip-0032.mediawiki#public-parent-key--public-child-key|BIP32's unhardened derivation]] and other methods that rely on additive tweaks to existing keys such as Taproot. -To protect against these attacks, we choose ''key prefixed''<ref>A limitation of committing to the public key (rather than to a short hash of it, or not at all) is that it removes the ability for public key recovery or verifying signatures against a short public key hash. These constructions are generally incompatible with batch verification.</ref> Schnorr signatures which means that the public key is prefixed to the message in the challenge hash input. This changes the equation to ''s⋅G = R + hash(R || P || m)⋅P''. [https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1135.pdf It can be shown] that key prefixing protects against related-key attacks with additive tweaks. In general, key prefixing increases robustness in multi-user settings, e.g., it seems to be a requirement for proving the MuSig multisignature scheme secure (see Applications below). +To protect against these attacks, we choose ''key prefixed''<ref>A limitation of committing to the public key (rather than to a short hash of it, or not at all) is that it removes the ability for public key recovery or verifying signatures against a short public key hash. These constructions are generally incompatible with batch verification.</ref> Schnorr signatures which means that the public key is prefixed to the message in the challenge hash input. This changes the equation to ''s⋅G = R + hash(R || P || m)⋅P''. [https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1135.pdf It can be shown] that key prefixing protects against related-key attacks with additive tweaks. In general, key prefixing increases robustness in multi-user settings, e.g., it seems to be a requirement for proving multiparty signing protocols (such as MuSig, MuSig2, and FROST) secure (see Applications below). We note that key prefixing is not strictly necessary for transaction signatures as used in Bitcoin currently, because signed transactions indirectly commit to the public keys already, i.e., ''m'' contains a commitment to ''pk''. However, this indirect commitment should not be relied upon because it may change with proposals such as SIGHASH_NOINPUT ([[bip-0118.mediawiki|BIP118]]), and would render the signature scheme unsuitable for other purposes than signing transactions, e.g., [https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#signmessage signing ordinary messages]. @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ Despite halving the size of the set of valid public keys, implicit Y coordinates For example, without tagged hashing a BIP340 signature could also be valid for a signature scheme where the only difference is that the arguments to the hash function are reordered. Worse, if the BIP340 nonce derivation function was copied or independently created, then the nonce could be accidentally reused in the other scheme leaking the secret key. -This proposal suggests to include the tag by prefixing the hashed data with ''SHA256(tag) || SHA256(tag)''. Because this is a 64-byte long context-specific constant and the ''SHA256'' block size is also 64 bytes, optimized implementations are possible (identical to SHA256 itself, but with a modified initial state). Using SHA256 of the tag name itself is reasonably simple and efficient for implementations that don't choose to use the optimization. +This proposal suggests to include the tag by prefixing the hashed data with ''SHA256(tag) || SHA256(tag)''. Because this is a 64-byte long context-specific constant and the ''SHA256'' block size is also 64 bytes, optimized implementations are possible (identical to SHA256 itself, but with a modified initial state). Using SHA256 of the tag name itself is reasonably simple and efficient for implementations that don't choose to use the optimization. In general, tags can be arbitrary byte arrays, but are suggested to be textual descriptions in UTF-8 encoding. '''Final scheme''' As a result, our final scheme ends up using public key ''pk'' which is the X coordinate of a point ''P'' on the curve whose Y coordinate is even and signatures ''(r,s)'' where ''r'' is the X coordinate of a point ''R'' whose Y coordinate is even. The signature satisfies ''s⋅G = R + tagged_hash(r || pk || m)⋅P''. @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The following conventions are used, with constants as defined for [https://www.s *** Let ''y = c<sup>(p+1)/4</sup> mod p''. *** Fail if ''c ≠ y<sup>2</sup> mod p''. *** Return the unique point ''P'' such that ''x(P) = x'' and ''y(P) = y'' if ''y mod 2 = 0'' or ''y(P) = p-y'' otherwise. -** The function ''hash<sub>tag</sub>(x)'' where ''tag'' is a UTF-8 encoded tag name and ''x'' is a byte array returns the 32-byte hash ''SHA256(SHA256(tag) || SHA256(tag) || x)''. +** The function ''hash<sub>name</sub>(x)'' where ''x'' is a byte array returns the 32-byte hash ''SHA256(SHA256(tag) || SHA256(tag) || x)'', where ''tag'' is the UTF-8 encoding of ''name''. ==== Public Key Generation ==== @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ As an alternative to generating keys randomly, it is also possible and safe to r Input: * The secret key ''sk'': a 32-byte array -* The message ''m'': a 32-byte array +* The message ''m'': a byte array * Auxiliary random data ''a'': a 32-byte array The algorithm ''Sign(sk, m)'' is defined as: @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ It should be noted that various alternative signing algorithms can be used to pr '''Nonce exfiltration protection''' It is possible to strengthen the nonce generation algorithm using a second device. In this case, the second device contributes randomness which the actual signer provably incorporates into its nonce. This prevents certain attacks where the signer device is compromised and intentionally tries to leak the secret key through its nonce selection. -'''Multisignatures''' This signature scheme is compatible with various types of multisignature and threshold schemes such as [https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/068 MuSig], where a single public key requires holders of multiple secret keys to participate in signing (see Applications below). +'''Multisignatures''' This signature scheme is compatible with various types of multisignature and threshold schemes such as [https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1261.pdf MuSig2], where a single public key requires holders of multiple secret keys to participate in signing (see Applications below). '''It is important to note that multisignature signing schemes in general are insecure with the ''rand'' generation from the default signing algorithm above (or any other deterministic method).''' '''Precomputed public key data''' For many uses the compressed 33-byte encoding of the public key corresponding to the secret key may already be known, making it easy to evaluate ''has_even_y(P)'' and ''bytes(P)''. As such, having signers supply this directly may be more efficient than recalculating the public key from the secret key. However, if this optimization is used and additionally the signature verification at the end of the signing algorithm is dropped for increased efficiency, signers must ensure the public key is correctly calculated and not taken from untrusted sources. @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ It should be noted that various alternative signing algorithms can be used to pr Input: * The public key ''pk'': a 32-byte array -* The message ''m'': a 32-byte array +* The message ''m'': a byte array * A signature ''sig'': a 64-byte array The algorithm ''Verify(pk, m, sig)'' is defined as: @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ Note that the correctness of verification relies on the fact that ''lift_x'' alw Input: * The number ''u'' of signatures * The public keys ''pk<sub>1..u</sub>'': ''u'' 32-byte arrays -* The messages ''m<sub>1..u</sub>'': ''u'' 32-byte arrays +* The messages ''m<sub>1..u</sub>'': ''u'' byte arrays * The signatures ''sig<sub>1..u</sub>'': ''u'' 64-byte arrays The algorithm ''BatchVerify(pk<sub>1..u</sub>, m<sub>1..u</sub>, sig<sub>1..u</sub>)'' is defined as: @@ -213,6 +213,50 @@ The algorithm ''BatchVerify(pk<sub>1..u</sub>, m<sub>1..u</sub>, sig<sub>1..u</s If all individual signatures are valid (i.e., ''Verify'' would return success for them), ''BatchVerify'' will always return success. If at least one signature is invalid, ''BatchVerify'' will return success with at most a negligible probability. +=== Usage Considerations === + +==== Messages of Arbitrary Size ==== + +The signature scheme specified in this BIP accepts byte strings of arbitrary size as input messages.<ref>In theory, the message size is restricted due to the fact that SHA256 accepts byte strings only up to size of 2^61-1 bytes.</ref> +It is understood that implementations may reject messages which are too large in their environment or application context, +e.g., messages which exceed predefined buffers or would otherwise cause resource exhaustion. + +Earlier revisions of this BIP required messages to be exactly 32 bytes. +This restriction puts a burden on callers +who typically need to perform pre-hashing of the actual input message by feeding it through SHA256 (or another collision-resistant cryptographic hash function) +to create a 32-byte digest which can be passed to signing or verification +(as for example done in [[bip-0341.mediawiki|BIP341]].) + +Since pre-hashing may not always be desirable, +e.g., when actual messages are shorter than 32 bytes,<ref>Another reason to omit pre-hashing is to protect against certain types of cryptanalytic advances against the hash function used for pre-hashing: If pre-hashing is used, an attacker that can find collisions in the pre-hashing function can necessarily forge signatures under chosen-message attacks. If pre-hashing is not used, an attacker that can find collisions in SHA256 (as used inside the signature scheme) may not be able to forge signatures. However, this seeming advantage is mostly irrelevant in the context of Bitcoin, which already relies on collision resistance of SHA256 in other places, e.g., for transaction hashes.</ref> +the restriction to 32-byte messages has been lifted. +We note that pre-hashing is recommended for performance reasons in applications that deal with large messages. +If large messages are not pre-hashed, +the algorithms of the signature scheme will perform more hashing internally. +In particular, the signing algorithm needs two sequential hashing passes over the message, +which means that the full message must necessarily be kept in memory during signing, +and large messages entail a runtime penalty.<ref>Typically, messages of 56 bytes or longer enjoy a performance benefit from pre-hashing, assuming the speed of SHA256 inside the signing algorithm matches that of the pre-hashing done by the calling application.</ref> + +==== Domain Separation ==== + +It is good cryptographic practice to use a key pair only for a single purpose. +Nevertheless, there may be situations in which it may be desirable to use the same key pair in multiple contexts, +i.e., to sign different types of messages within the same application +or even messages in entirely different applications +(e.g., a secret key may be used to sign Bitcoin transactions as well plain text messages). + +As a consequence, applications should ensure that a signed application message intended for one context is never deemed valid in a different context +(e.g., a signed plain text message should never be misinterpreted as a signed Bitcoin transaction, because this could cause unintended loss of funds). +This is called "domain separation" and it is typically realized by partitioning the message space. +Even if key pairs are intended to be used only within a single context, +domain separation is a good idea because it makes it easy to add more contexts later. + +As a best practice, we recommend applications to use exactly one of the following methods to pre-process application messages before passing it to the signature scheme: +* Either, pre-hash the application message using ''hash<sub>name</sub>'', where ''name'' identifies the context uniquely (e.g., "foo-app/signed-bar"), +* or prefix the actual message with a 33-byte string that identifies the context uniquely (e.g., the UTF-8 encoding of "foo-app/signed-bar", padded with null bytes to 33 bytes). + +As the two pre-processing methods yield different message sizes (32 bytes vs. at least 33 bytes), there is no risk of collision between them. + == Applications == There are several interesting applications beyond simple signatures. @@ -220,9 +264,9 @@ While recent academic papers claim that they are also possible with ECDSA, conse === Multisignatures and Threshold Signatures === -By means of an interactive scheme such as [https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/068 MuSig], participants can aggregate their public keys into a single public key which they can jointly sign for. This allows ''n''-of-''n'' multisignatures which, from a verifier's perspective, are no different from ordinary signatures, giving improved privacy and efficiency versus ''CHECKMULTISIG'' or other means. +By means of an interactive scheme such as [https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1261.pdf MuSig2] ([[bip-0327.mediawiki|BIP327]]), participants can aggregate their public keys into a single public key which they can jointly sign for. This allows ''n''-of-''n'' multisignatures which, from a verifier's perspective, are no different from ordinary signatures, giving improved privacy and efficiency versus ''CHECKMULTISIG'' or other means. -Moreover, Schnorr signatures are compatible with [https://web.archive.org/web/20031003232851/http://www.research.ibm.com/security/dkg.ps distributed key generation], which enables interactive threshold signatures schemes, e.g., the schemes described by [http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2001/corr2001-13.ps Stinson and Strobl (2001)] or [https://web.archive.org/web/20060911151529/http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~stasio/Papers/gjkr03.pdf Gennaro, Jarecki and Krawczyk (2003)]. These protocols make it possible to realize ''k''-of-''n'' threshold signatures, which ensure that any subset of size ''k'' of the set of ''n'' signers can sign but no subset of size less than ''k'' can produce a valid Schnorr signature. However, the practicality of the existing schemes is limited: most schemes in the literature have been proven secure only for the case ''k-1 < n/2'', are not secure when used concurrently in multiple sessions, or require a reliable broadcast mechanism to be secure. Further research is necessary to improve this situation. +Moreover, Schnorr signatures are compatible with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_key_generation distributed key generation], which enables interactive threshold signatures schemes, e.g., the schemes by [http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2001/corr2001-13.ps Stinson and Strobl (2001)], by [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00145-006-0347-3.pdf Gennaro, Jarecki, Krawczyk, and Rabin (2007)], or the [https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/852.pdf FROST] scheme including its variants such as [https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/899.pdf FROST3]. These protocols make it possible to realize ''k''-of-''n'' threshold signatures, which ensure that any subset of size ''k'' of the set of ''n'' signers can sign but no subset of size less than ''k'' can produce a valid Schnorr signature. === Adaptor Signatures === @@ -234,7 +278,7 @@ Adaptor signatures, beyond the efficiency and privacy benefits of encoding scrip === Blind Signatures === -A blind signature protocol is an interactive protocol that enables a signer to sign a message at the behest of another party without learning any information about the signed message or the signature. Schnorr signatures admit a very [http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/files/4292/schnorr.blind_sigs_attack.2001.pdf simple blind signature scheme] which is however insecure because it's vulnerable to [https://www.iacr.org/archive/crypto2002/24420288/24420288.pdf Wagner's attack]. A known mitigation is to let the signer abort a signing session with a certain probability, and the resulting scheme can be [https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/877 proven secure under non-standard cryptographic assumptions]. +A blind signature protocol is an interactive protocol that enables a signer to sign a message at the behest of another party without learning any information about the signed message or the signature. Schnorr signatures admit a very [http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/files/4292/schnorr.blind_sigs_attack.2001.pdf simple blind signature scheme] which is however insecure because it's vulnerable to [https://www.iacr.org/archive/crypto2002/24420288/24420288.pdf Wagner's attack]. Known mitigations are to let the signer abort a signing session with a certain probability, which can be [https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/877 proven secure under non-standard cryptographic assumptions], or [https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/1676.pdf to use zero-knowledge proofs]. Blind Schnorr signatures could for example be used in [https://github.com/ElementsProject/scriptless-scripts/blob/master/md/partially-blind-swap.md Partially Blind Atomic Swaps], a construction to enable transferring of coins, mediated by an untrusted escrow agent, without connecting the transactors in the public blockchain transaction graph. @@ -248,6 +292,8 @@ The reference implementation is for demonstration purposes only and not to be us To help implementors understand updates to this BIP, we keep a list of substantial changes. * 2022-08: Fix function signature of lift_x in reference code +* 2023-04: Allow messages of arbitrary size +* 2024-05: Update "Applications" section with more recent references == Footnotes == |