diff options
author | Jeffrey Burdges <burdges@gnunet.org> | 2017-05-15 16:28:24 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Jeffrey Burdges <burdges@gnunet.org> | 2017-05-15 16:28:24 +0200 |
commit | 0359e829f3bdbc371c7e6a5b20265b79f8afe44b (patch) | |
tree | 37f86ed1f19163de535acfb47d94ffdc4a3d7e39 | |
parent | b418b3080e30f48c9ae0723faf32508fca5103d6 (diff) | |
download | exchange-0359e829f3bdbc371c7e6a5b20265b79f8afe44b.tar.xz |
Approach to the privacy argument
-rw-r--r-- | doc/paper/taler.tex | 68 |
1 files changed, 54 insertions, 14 deletions
diff --git a/doc/paper/taler.tex b/doc/paper/taler.tex index 4ef76ca63..c2458fb79 100644 --- a/doc/paper/taler.tex +++ b/doc/paper/taler.tex @@ -1444,27 +1444,67 @@ At a result, there is no way for a user to loose control over a coin, \section{Privacy arguments} -We consider two coins $C_1$ and $C_2$ created by the same withdrawal -or refresh operation. We say they are {\em linkable} if -some probabilistic polynomial time adversary has a non-negligible -advantage in guessing which two of $\{ C_0, C_1, C_2 \}$ were -created together, where $C_0$ is an unrelated third coin. +The {\em linking problem} for blind signature is, +if given coin creation transcrips and possibly fewer +coin deposit transcripts for coins from the creation transcripts, +then produce a corresponding creation and deposit transcript. -% TODO: Compare this definition with some from the literature +We say a probabilistic polynomial time (PPT) adversary $A$ +{\em links} coins if it has a non-negligable advantage in +solving the linking problem, when given the private keys +of the exchange. -.. reference literate about withdrawal .. +In Taler, there are two forms of coin creation transcrips, +withdrawal and refresh. -\begin{proposition} -If two coins created by refresh are linkable, then some -probabilistic polynomial time adversary has a non-negligible -advantage in determining that their seeds ... -... -\end{proposition} +\begin{lemma} +If there are no refresh operations, any adversary with an +advantage in linking coins is polynomially equivelent to an +advantage with the same advantage in recognizing blinding factors. +\end{lemma} \begin{proof} -... random oracle .. +Let $n$ denote the RSA modulous of the denomination key. +Also let $d$ and $e$ denote the private and public exponents, respectively. +In effect, coin withdrawal transcripts consist of numbers +$b m^d \mod n$ where $m$ is the FDH of the coin's public key +and $b$ is the blinding factor, while coin deposits transcripts +consist of only $m^d \mon n$. + +Of course, if the adversary can link coins then they can compute +the blinding factors as $b m^d / m^d \mod n$. Conversely, if the +adversary can recognize blinding factors then they link coins after +first computing $b_{i,j} = b_i m_i^d / m_j^d \mod n$ for all $i,j$. \end{proof} +We now know the following because Taler used SHA512 adopted to be + a FDH to breat the blinding factor. + +\begin{corollary} +Assuming no refresh opeeration, +any PPT adversary with an advantage for linking Taler coins gives +rise to an adversary with an advantage for recognizing SHA512 output. +\end{corollary} + +There was an earlier encryption-based version of the Taler protocol +in which refresh operated consisted of $\kappa$ normal coin withdrawals +encrypted using the secret $t^{(i)} C$ where $C = c G$ is the coin being +refreshed and $T^{(i)} = t^{(i)} G$ is the transfer key. + +\begin{proposition} +Assuming the encryption used is ??? secure, and that + the independence of $c$, $t$, and the new coins key materials, then +any PPT adversary with an advantage for linking Taler coins gives +rise to an adversary with an advantage for recognizing SHA512 output. +\end{proposition} + +We now apply \cite[??]{??} to deduce : + +\begin{theorem} +In the random oracle model, any PPT adversary with an advantage +in linking Taler coins has an advantage in breaking elliptic curve +Diffie-Hellman key exchange on curve25519. +\end{theorem} \end{document} |