In cryptography, the Fiat–Shamir heuristic is a technique for taking an interactive proof of knowledge and creating a digital signature based on it. This way, some fact (for example, knowledge of a certain secret number) can be publicly proven without revealing underlying information. The technique is due to Amos Fiat and Adi Shamir (1986).[1] For the method to work, the original interactive proof must have the property of being public-coin, i.e. verifier's random coins are made public throughout the proof protocol.
Overview
The heuristic was originally presented without a proof of security; later, Pointcheval and Stern[2] proved its security against chosen message attacks in the random oracle model, that is, assuming random oracles exist. This result was generalized to the quantum-accessible random oracle (QROM) by Don, Fehr, Majenz and Schaffner,[3] and concurrently by Liu and Zhandry.[4] In the case that random oracles do not exist, the Fiat–Shamir heuristic has been proven insecure by Shafi Goldwasser and Yael Tauman Kalai.[5] The Fiat–Shamir heuristic thus demonstrates a major application of random oracles. More generally, the Fiat–Shamir heuristic may also be viewed as converting a public-coin interactive proof of knowledge into a non-interactive proof of knowledge. If the interactive proof is used as an identification tool, then the non-interactive version can be used directly as a digital signature by using the message as part of the input to the random oracle.[6]
Here is an interactive proof of knowledge of a discrete logarithm in , based on Schnorr signature.[7] The public values are and a generator g of , while the secret value is the discrete logarithm of y to the base g.
Lena wants to prove to Ole, the verifier, that she knows satisfying without revealing .
Lena picks a random , computes and sends to Ole.
Ole picks a random and sends it to Lena.
Lena computes and returns to Ole.
Ole checks whether . This holds because and .
Fiat–Shamir heuristic allows to replace the interactive step 3 with a non-interactiverandom oracle access. In practice, we can use a cryptographic hash function instead.[8]
Lena wants to prove that she knows such that without revealing .
Lena picks a random and computes .
Lena computes , where is a cryptographic hash function.
Lena computes . The resulting proof is the pair .
Anyone can use this proof to calculate and check whether .
If the hash value used below does not depend on the (public) value of y, the security of the scheme is weakened, as a malicious prover can then select a certain value t so that the product cx is known.[9]
Extension of this method
As long as a fixed random generator can be constructed with the data known to both parties, then any interactive protocol can be transformed into a non-interactive one.[citation needed]
^Fiat, Amos; Shamir, Adi (1987). "How to Prove Yourself: Practical Solutions to Identification and Signature Problems". Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO' 86. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 263. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 186–194. doi:10.1007/3-540-47721-7_12. ISBN978-3-540-18047-0.
^Pointcheval, David; Stern, Jacques (1996). "Security Proofs for Signature Schemes". Advances in Cryptology — EUROCRYPT '96. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 1070. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 387–398. doi:10.1007/3-540-68339-9_33. ISBN978-3-540-61186-8.
^Goldwasser, S.; Kalai, Y. T. (October 2003). "On the (In)security of the Fiat-Shamir paradigm". 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings. pp. 102–113. doi:10.1109/SFCS.2003.1238185. ISBN0-7695-2040-5. S2CID295289.
^Bellare, Mihir; Rogaway, Phillip (1995), Random Oracles are Practical: A Paradigm for Designing Efficient Protocols, ACM Press, pp. 62–73, CiteSeerX10.1.1.50.3345