]>
Two-Round Threshold Schnorr Signatures with FROSTZcash Foundationdurumcrustulum@gmail.comUniversity of Waterloo, Zcash Foundationckomlo@uwaterloo.caUniversity of Waterlooiang@uwaterloo.caCloudflarecaw@heapingbits.net
General
CFRGInternet-DraftIn this draft, we present the two-round signing variant of FROST, a Flexible Round-Optimized
Schnorr Threshold signature scheme. FROST signatures can be issued after a threshold number
of entities cooperate to issue a signature, allowing for improved distribution of trust and
redundancy with respect to a secret key. Further, this draft specifies signatures that are
compatible with . However, unlike , the protocol for producing
signatures in this draft is not deterministic, so as to ensure protection against a
key-recovery attack that is possible when even only one participant is malicious.Discussion VenuesDiscussion of this document takes place on the
Crypto Forum Research Group mailing list (cfrg@ietf.org),
which is archived at .Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
.IntroductionDISCLAIMER: This is a work-in-progress draft of FROST.RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH The source for this draft is
maintained in GitHub. Suggested changes should be submitted as pull requests
at https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-frost. Instructions are on that page as
well.Unlike signatures in a single-party setting, threshold signatures
require cooperation among a threshold number of signers each holding a share
of a common private key. The security of threshold schemes in general assume
that an adversary can corrupt strictly fewer than a threshold number of participants.This document presents a variant of a Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold (FROST)
signature scheme originally defined in . FROST reduces network overhead during
threshold signing operations while employing a novel technique to protect against forgery
attacks applicable to prior Schnorr-based threshold signature constructions. The variant of
FROST presented in this document requires two rounds to compute a signature, and implements
signing efficiency improvements described by . Single-round signing with FROST
is out of scope.For select ciphersuites, the signatures produced by this draft are compatible with
. However, unlike , signatures produced by FROST are not
deterministic, since deriving nonces deterministically allows for a complete key-recovery
attack in multi-party discrete logarithm-based signatures, such as FROST.Key generation for FROST signing is out of scope for this document. However, for completeness,
key generation with a trusted dealer is specified in .Change Logdraft-04
Added methods to verify VSS commitments and derive group info (#126, #132).
Changed check for participants to consider only nonnegative numbers (#133).
Changed sampling for secrets and coefficients to allow the zero element (#130).
Split test vectors into separate files (#129)
Update wire structs to remove commitment shares where not necessary (#128)
Add failure checks (#127)
Update group info to include each participant's key and clarify how public key material is obtained (#120, #121).
Define cofactor checks for verification (#118)
Various editorial improvements and add contributors (#124, #123, #119, #116, #113, #109)
draft-03
Refactor the second round to use state from the first round (#94).
Ensure that verification of signature shares from the second round uses commitments from the first round (#94).
Clarify RFC8032 interoperability based on PureEdDSA (#86).
Specify signature serialization based on element and scalar serialization (#85).
Fix hash function domain separation formatting (#83).
Make trusted dealer key generation deterministic (#104).
Add additional constraints on participant indexes and nonce usage (#105, #103, #98, #97).
Apply various editorial improvements.
draft-02
Fully specify both rounds of FROST, as well as trusted dealer key generation.
Add ciphersuites and corresponding test vectors, including suites for RFC8032 compatibility.
Refactor document for editorial clarity.
draft-01
Specify operations, notation and cryptographic dependencies.
draft-00
Outline CFRG draft based on draft-komlo-frost.
Conventions and DefinitionsThe key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.The following notation and terminology are used throughout this document.
A participant is an entity that is trusted to hold a secret share.
NUM_SIGNERS denotes the number of participants, and the number of shares that s is split into.
This value MUST NOT exceed 2^16-1.
THRESHOLD_LIMIT denotes the threshold number of participants required to issue a signature. More specifically,
at least THRESHOLD_LIMIT shares must be combined to issue a valid signature.
len(x) is the length of integer input x as an 8-byte, big-endian integer.
encode_uint16(x): Convert two byte unsigned integer (uint16) x to a 2-byte,
big-endian byte string. For example, encode_uint16(310) = [0x01, 0x36].
|| denotes concatenation, i.e., x || y = xy.
Unless otherwise stated, we assume that secrets are sampled uniformly at random
using a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator (CSPRNG); see
for additional guidance on the generation of random numbers.Cryptographic DependenciesFROST signing depends on the following cryptographic constructs:
Prime-order Group, ;
Cryptographic hash function, ;
These are described in the following sections.Prime-Order GroupFROST depends on an abelian group G of prime order p. The fundamental group operation
is addition + with identity element I. For any elements A and B of the group G,
A + B = B + A is also a member of G. Also, for any A in GG, there exists an element
-A such that A + (-A) = (-A) + A = I. Scalar multiplication is equivalent to the repeated
application of the group operation on an element A with itself r-1 times, this is denoted
as r*A = A + ... + A. For any element A, p * A = I. We denote B as the fixed generator
of the group. Scalar base multiplication is equivalent to the repeated application of the group
operation B with itself r-1 times, this is denoted as ScalarBaseMult(r). The set of
scalars corresponds to GF(p), which refer to as the scalar field. This document uses types
Element and Scalar to denote elements of the group G and its set of scalars, respectively.
We denote equality comparison as == and assignment of values by =.We now detail a number of member functions that can be invoked on a prime-order group G.
Order(): Outputs the order of G (i.e. p).
Identity(): Outputs the identity element of the group (i.e. I).
RandomScalar(): A member function of G that chooses at random a
Scalar element in GF(p).
RandomNonzeroScalar(): A member function of G that chooses at random a
non-zero Scalar element in GF(p).
SerializeElement(A): A member function of G that maps an Element A
to a unique byte array buf of fixed length Ne.
DeserializeElement(buf): A member function of G that attempts to map a
byte array buf to an Element A, and fails if the input is not a
valid byte representation of an element of the group. This function can
raise a DeserializeError if deserialization fails or A is the identity
element of the group; see for group-specific input validation
steps.
SerializeScalar(s): A member function of G that maps a Scalar s
to a unique byte array buf of fixed length Ns.
DeserializeScalar(buf): A member function of G that attempts to map a
byte array buf to a Scalar s. This function can raise a
DeserializeError if deserialization fails; see for
group-specific input validation steps.
Cryptographic Hash FunctionFROST requires the use of a cryptographically secure hash function, generically
written as H, which functions effectively as a random oracle. For concrete
recommendations on hash functions which SHOULD BE used in practice, see
. Using H, we introduce three separate domain-separated hashes,
H1, H2, and H3, where H1 and H2 map arbitrary inputs to non-zero Scalar elements of
the prime-order group scalar field, and H3 is an alias for H with domain separation
applied. The details of H1, H2, and H3 vary based on ciphersuite. See
for more details about each.Helper functionsBeyond the core dependencies, the protocol in this document depends on the
following helper operations:
Schnorr signatures, ;
Polynomial operations, ;
Encoding operations, ;
Signature binding , group commitment , and challenge computation
This sections describes these operations in more detail.Schnorr Signature OperationsIn the single-party setting, a Schnorr signature is generated with the
following operation.The corresponding verification operation is as follows. Here, h is
the cofactor for the group being operated over, e.g. h=8 for the
case of Curve25519, h=4 for Ed448, and h=1 for groups such as
ristretto255 and secp256k1, etc. This final scalar multiplication
MUST be performed when h>1.Polynomial OperationsThis section describes operations on and associated with polynomials
that are used in the main signing protocol. A polynomial of degree t
is represented as a sorted list of t coefficients. A point on the
polynomial is a tuple (x, y), where y = f(x). For notational
convenience, we refer to the x-coordinate and y-coordinate of a
point p as p.x and p.y, respectively.Evaluation of a polynomialThis section describes a method for evaluating a polynomial f at a
particular input x, i.e., y = f(x) using Horner's method.Lagrange coefficientsLagrange coefficients are used in FROST to evaluate a polynomial
f at f(0), given a set of t other points, where f is
represented as a set of coefficients.Deriving the constant term of a polynomialSecret sharing requires "splitting" a secret, which is represented as
a constant term of some polynomial f of degree t. Recovering the
constant term occurs with a set of t points using polynomial
interpolation, defined as follows.Commitment List EncodingThis section describes the subroutine used for encoding a list of signer
commitments into a bytestring that is used in the FROST protocol.Binding Factor ComputationThis section describes the subroutine for computing the binding factor based
on the signer commitment list and message to be signed.Group Commitment ComputationThis section describes the subroutine for creating the group commitment
from a commitment list.Signature Challenge ComputationThis section describes the subroutine for creating the per-message challenge.Two-Round FROST Signing ProtocolWe now present the two-round variant of the FROST threshold signature protocol for producing Schnorr signatures.
It involves signer participants and a coordinator. Signing participants are
entities with signing key shares that participate in the threshold signing
protocol. The coordinator is a distinguished signer with the following responsibilities:
Determining which signers will participate (at least THRESHOLD_LIMIT in number);
Coordinating rounds (receiving and forwarding inputs among participants); and
Aggregating signature shares output by each participant, and publishing the resulting signature.
FROST assumes the selection of all participants, including the dealer, signer, and
Coordinator are all chosen external to the protocol. Note that it is possible to
deploy the protocol without a distinguished Coordinator; see for
more information.Because key generation is not specified, all signers are assumed to have the (public) group state that we refer to as "group info"
below, and their corresponding signing key shares.In particular, it is assumed that the coordinator and each signing participant P_i knows the following
group info:
Group public key, denoted PK = G.ScalarMultBase(s), corresponding to the group secret key s.
PK is an output from the group's key generation protocol, such as trusted_dealer_keygenor a DKG.
Public keys for each signer, denoted PK_i = G.ScalarMultBase(sk_i), which are similarly
outputs from the group's key generation protocol.
And that each participant with identifier i additionally knows the following:
Participant is signing key share sk_i, which is the i-th secret share of s.
The exact key generation mechanism is out of scope for this specification. In general,
key generation is a protocol that outputs (1) a shared, group public key PK owned
by each Signer, and (2) individual shares of the signing key owned by each Signer.
In general, two possible key generation mechanisms are possible, one that requires
a single, trusted dealer, and the other which requires performing a distributed
key generation protocol. We highlight key generation mechanism by a trusted dealer
in , for reference.This signing variant of FROST requires signers to perform two network rounds: 1) generating and publishing commitments,
and 2) signature share generation and publication. The first round serves
for each participant to issue a commitment to a nonce. The second round receives commitments for all signers as well
as the message, and issues a signature share with respect to that message. The Coordinator performs the coordination of each
of these rounds. At the end of the second round, the Coordinator then performs an aggregation
step and outputs the final signature. This complete interaction is shown in .Details for round one are described in , and details for round two
are described in . The final Aggregation step is described in
.FROST assumes reliable message delivery between Coordinator and signing participants in
order for the protocol to complete. Messages exchanged during signing operations are all within
the public domain. An attacker masquerading as another participant will result only in an invalid
signature; see .Round One - CommitmentRound one involves each signer generating a pair of nonces and their corresponding public
commitments. A nonce is a pair of Scalar values, and a commitment is a pair of Element values.Each signer in round one generates a nonce nonce = (hiding_nonce, binding_nonce) and commitment
comm = (hiding_nonce_commitment, binding_nonce_commitment).The private output nonce from Participant P_i is stored locally and kept private
for use in the second round. This nonce MUST NOT be reused in more than one invocation
of FROST, and it MUST be generated from a source of secure randomness. The public output
comm from Participant P_i is sent to the Coordinator; see
for encoding recommendations.Round Two - Signature Share GenerationIn round two, the Coordinator is responsible for sending the message to be signed, and
for choosing which signers will participate (of number at least THRESHOLD_LIMIT). Signers
additionally require locally held data; specifically, their private key and the
nonces corresponding to their commitment issued in round one.The Coordinator begins by sending each signer the message to be signed along with the
set of signing commitments for other signers in the participant list. Each signer
MUST validate the inputs before processing the Coordinator's request. In particular,
the Signer MUST validate commitment_list, deserializing each group Element in the
list using DeserializeElement from . If deserialization fails, the Signer
MUST abort the protocol. Applications which require that signers not process arbitrary
input messages are also required to also perform relevant application-layer input
validation checks; see for more details.Upon receipt and successful input validation, each Signer then runs the following
procedure to produce its own signature share.The output of this procedure is a signature share. Each signer then sends
these shares back to the collector; see for encoding
recommendations. Each signer MUST delete the nonce and corresponding commitment
after this round completes.Upon receipt from each Signer, the Coordinator MUST validate the input
signature using DeserializeElement. If validation fails, the Coordinator MUST abort
the protocol. If validation succeeds, the Coordinator then verifies the set of
signature shares using the following procedure.Signature Share Verification and AggregationAfter signers perform round two and send their signature shares to the Coordinator,
the Coordinator verifies each signature share for correctness. In particular,
for each signer, the Coordinator uses commitment pairs generated during round
one and the signature share generated during round two, along with other group
parameters, to check that the signature share is valid using the following procedure.If any signature share fails to verify, i.e., if verify_signature_share returns False for
any signer share, the Coordinator MUST abort the protocol. Otherwise, if all signer shares
are valid, the Coordinator performs the aggregate operation and publishes the resulting
signature.The output signature (R, z) from the aggregation step MUST be encoded as follows:Where Signature.R_encoded is G.SerializeElement(R) and Signature.z_encoded is
G.SerializeScalar(z).CiphersuitesA FROST ciphersuite must specify the underlying prime-order group details
and cryptographic hash function. Each ciphersuite is denoted as (Group, Hash),
e.g., (ristretto255, SHA-512). This section contains some ciphersuites.The RECOMMENDED ciphersuite is (ristretto255, SHA-512) .
The (Ed25519, SHA-512) ciphersuite is included for backwards compatibility
with .The DeserializeElement and DeserializeScalar functions instantiated for a
particular prime-order group corresponding to a ciphersuite MUST adhere
to the description in . Validation steps for these functions
are described for each the ciphersuites below. Future ciphersuites MUST
describe how input validation is done for DeserializeElement and DeserializeScalar.FROST(Ed25519, SHA-512)This ciphersuite uses edwards25519 for the Group and SHA-512 for the Hash function H
meant to produce signatures indistinguishable from Ed25519 as specified in .
The value of the contextString parameter is empty.
Group: edwards25519
Cofactor (h): 8
SerializeElement: Implemented as specified in .
DeserializeElement: Implemented as specified in .
Additionally, this function validates that the resulting element is not the group
identity element.
SerializeScalar: Implemented by outputting the little-endian 32-byte encoding of
the Scalar value.
DeserializeScalar: Implemented by attempting to deserialize a Scalar from a 32-byte
string. This function can fail if the input does not represent a Scalar between
the value 0 and G.Order() - 1.
Hash (H): SHA-512, and Nh = 64.
H1(m): Implemented by computing H("rho" || m), interpreting the lower
32 bytes as a little-endian integer, and reducing the resulting integer modulo
L = 2^252+27742317777372353535851937790883648493.
H2(m): Implemented by computing H(m), interpreting the lower 32 bytes
as a little-endian integer, and reducing the resulting integer modulo
L = 2^252+27742317777372353535851937790883648493.
H3(m): Implemented as an alias for H, i.e., H(m).
Normally H2 would also include a domain separator, but for backwards compatibility
with , it is omitted.FROST(ristretto255, SHA-512)This ciphersuite uses ristretto255 for the Group and SHA-512 for the Hash function H.
The value of the contextString parameter is "FROST-RISTRETTO255-SHA512".
Group: ristretto255
Cofactor (h): 1
SerializeElement: Implemented using the 'Encode' function from .
DeserializeElement: Implemented using the 'Decode' function from .
SerializeScalar: Implemented by outputting the little-endian 32-byte encoding of
the Scalar value.
DeserializeScalar: Implemented by attempting to deserialize a Scalar from a 32-byte
string. This function can fail if the input does not represent a Scalar between
the value 0 and G.Order() - 1.
Hash (H): SHA-512, and Nh = 64.
H1(m): Implemented by computing H(contextString || "rho" || m) and mapping the
output to a Scalar as described in .
H2(m): Implemented by computing H(contextString || "chal" || m) and mapping the
output to a Scalar as described in .
H3(m): Implemented by computing H(contextString || "digest" || m).
FROST(Ed448, SHAKE256)This ciphersuite uses edwards448 for the Group and SHA256 for the Hash function H
meant to produce signatures indistinguishable from Ed448 as specified in .
The value of the contextString parameter is empty.
Group: edwards448
Cofactor (h): 4
SerializeElement: Implemented as specified in .
DeserializeElement: Implemented as specified in .
Additionally, this function validates that the resulting element is not the group
identity element.
SerializeScalar: Implemented by outputting the little-endian 48-byte encoding of
the Scalar value.
DeserializeScalar: Implemented by attempting to deserialize a Scalar from a 48-byte
string. This function can fail if the input does not represent a Scalar between
the value 0 and G.Order() - 1.
Hash (H): SHAKE256, and Nh = 117.
H1(m): Implemented by computing H("rho" || m), interpreting the lower
57 bytes as a little-endian integer, and reducing the resulting integer modulo
L = 2^446 - 13818066809895115352007386748515426880336692474882178609894547503885.
H2(m): Implemented by computing H(m), interpreting the lower 57 bytes
as a little-endian integer, and reducing the resulting integer modulo
L = 2^446 - 13818066809895115352007386748515426880336692474882178609894547503885.
H3(m): Implemented as an alias for H, i.e., H(m).
Normally H2 would also include a domain separator, but for backwards compatibility
with , it is omitted.FROST(P-256, SHA-256)This ciphersuite uses P-256 for the Group and SHA-256 for the Hash function H.
The value of the contextString parameter is "FROST-P256-SHA256".
Group: P-256 (secp256r1)
Cofactor (h): 1
SerializeElement: Implemented using the compressed Elliptic-Curve-Point-to-Octet-String
method according to .
DeserializeElement: Implemented by attempting to deserialize a public key using
the compressed Octet-String-to-Elliptic-Curve-Point method according to ,
and then performs partial public-key validation as defined in section 5.6.2.3.4 of
. This includes checking that the
coordinates of the resulting point are in the correct range, that the point is on
the curve, and that the point is not the point at infinity. Additionally, this function
validates that the resulting element is not the group identity element.
If these checks fail, deserialization returns an error.
SerializeScalar: Implemented using the Field-Element-to-Octet-String conversion
according to .
DeserializeScalar: Implemented by attempting to deserialize a Scalar from a 32-byte
string using Octet-String-to-Field-Element from . This function can fail if the
input does not represent a Scalar between the value 0 and G.Order() - 1.
Hash (H): SHA-256, and Nh = 32.
H1(m): Implemented using hash_to_field from
using L = 48, expand_message_xmd with SHA-256, DST = contextString || "rho", and
prime modulus equal to Order().
H2(m): Implemented using hash_to_field from
using L = 48, expand_message_xmd with SHA-256, DST = contextString || "chal", and
prime modulus equal to Order().
H3(m): Implemented by computing H(contextString || "digest" || m).
Security ConsiderationsA security analysis of FROST exists in and . The protocol as specified
in this document assumes the following threat model.
Trusted dealer. The dealer that performs key generation is trusted to follow
the protocol, although participants still are able to verify the consistency of their
shares via a VSS (verifiable secret sharing) step; see .
Unforgeability assuming less than (t-1) corrupted signers. So long as an adverary
corrupts fewer than (t-1) participants, the scheme remains secure against EUF-CMA attacks.
Coordinator. We assume the Coordinator at the time of signing does not perform a
denial of service attack. A denial of service would include any action which either
prevents the protocol from completing or causing the resulting signature to be invalid.
Such actions for the latter include sending inconsistent values to signing participants,
such as messages or the set of individual commitments. Note that the Coordinator
is not trusted with any private information and communication at the time of signing
can be performed over a public but reliable channel.
The protocol as specified in this document does not target the following goals:
Post quantum security. FROST, like plain Schnorr signatures, requires the hardness of the Discrete Logarithm Problem.
Robustness. In the case of failure, FROST requires aborting the protocol.
Downgrade prevention. The sender and receiver are assumed to agree on what algorithms to use.
Metadata protection. If protection for metadata is desired, a higher-level communication
channel can be used to facilitate key generation and signing.
The rest of this section documents issues particular to implementations or deployments.Nonce Reuse AttacksNonces generated by each participant in the first round of signing must be sampled
uniformly at random and cannot be derived from some deterministic function. This
is to avoid replay attacks initiated by other signers, which allows for a complete
key-recovery attack. Coordinates MAY further hedge against nonce reuse attacks by
tracking signer nonce commitments used for a given group key, at the cost of additional
state.Protocol FailuresWe do not specify what implementations should do when the protocol fails, other than requiring that
the protocol abort. Examples of viable failure include when a verification check returns invalid or
if the underlying transport failed to deliver the required messages.Removing the Coordinator RoleIn some settings, it may be desirable to omit the role of the coordinator entirely.
Doing so does not change the security implications of FROST, but instead simply
requires each participant to communicate with all other participants. We loosely
describe how to perform FROST signing among signers without this coordinator role.
We assume that every participant receives as input from an external source the
message to be signed prior to performing the protocol.Every participant begins by performing frost_commit() as is done in the setting
where a coordinator is used. However, instead of sending the commitment
SigningCommitment to the coordinator, every participant instead will publish
this commitment to every other participant. Then, in the second round, instead of
receiving a SigningPackage from the coordinator, signers will already have
sufficient information to perform signing. They will directly perform frost_sign.
All participants will then publish a SignatureShare to one another. After having
received all signature shares from all other signers, each signer will then perform
frost_verify and then frost_aggregate directly.The requirements for the underlying network channel remain the same in the setting
where all participants play the role of the coordinator, in that all messages that
are exchanged are public and so the channel simply must be reliable. However, in
the setting that a player attempts to split the view of all other players by
sending disjoint values to a subset of players, the signing operation will output
an invalid signature. To avoid this denial of service, implementations may wish
to define a mechanism where messages are authenticated, so that cheating players
can be identified and excluded.Input Message ValidationSome applications may require that signers only process messages of a certain
structure. For example, in digital currency applications wherein multiple
signers may collectively sign a transaction, it is reasonable to require that
each signer check the input message to be a syntactically valid transaction.
As another example, use of threshold signatures in TLS to produce
signatures of transcript hashes might require that signers check that the input
message is a valid TLS transcript from which the corresponding transcript hash
can be derived.In general, input message validation is an application-specific consideration
that varies based on the use case and threat model. However, it is RECOMMENDED
that applications take additional precautions and validate inputs so that signers
do not operate as signing oracles for arbitrary messages.Contributors
Isis Lovecruft
T. Wilson-Brown
Alden Torres
ReferencesNormative ReferencesPublic Key Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry: the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)ANSIElliptic Curve Cryptography, Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group, ver. 2Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)This document describes elliptic curve signature scheme Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA). The algorithm is instantiated with recommended parameters for the edwards25519 and edwards448 curves. An example implementation and test vectors are provided.Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsIn many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key WordsRFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.The ristretto255 and decaf448 Groups This memo specifies two prime-order groups, ristretto255 and
decaf448, suitable for safely implementing higher-level and complex
cryptographic protocols. The ristretto255 group can be implemented
using Curve25519, allowing existing Curve25519 implementations to be
reused and extended to provide a prime-order group. Likewise, the
decaf448 group can be implemented using edwards448.
Recommendation for pair-wise key-establishment schemes using discrete logarithm cryptographyHashing to Elliptic CurvesCloudflare, Inc.Cornell TechCloudflare, Inc.Stanford UniversityCloudflare, Inc. This document specifies a number of algorithms for encoding or
hashing an arbitrary string to a point on an elliptic curve. This
document is a product of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) in
the IRTF.
Informative ReferencesTwo-Round Threshold Signatures with FROSTHow to Prove Schnorr Assuming SchnorrRandomness Requirements for SecuritySecurity systems are built on strong cryptographic algorithms that foil pattern analysis attempts. However, the security of these systems is dependent on generating secret quantities for passwords, cryptographic keys, and similar quantities. The use of pseudo-random processes to generate secret quantities can result in pseudo-security. A sophisticated attacker may find it easier to reproduce the environment that produced the secret quantities and to search the resulting small set of possibilities than to locate the quantities in the whole of the potential number space.Choosing random quantities to foil a resourceful and motivated adversary is surprisingly difficult. This document points out many pitfalls in using poor entropy sources or traditional pseudo-random number generation techniques for generating such quantities. It recommends the use of truly random hardware techniques and shows that the existing hardware on many systems can be used for this purpose. It provides suggestions to ameliorate the problem when a hardware solution is not available, and it gives examples of how large such quantities need to be for some applications. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.AcknowledgmentsThe Zcash Foundation engineering team designed a serialization format for FROST messages which
we employ a slightly adapted version here.Trusted Dealer Key GenerationOne possible key generation mechanism is to depend on a trusted dealer, wherein the
dealer generates a group secret s uniformly at random and uses Shamir and Verifiable
Secret Sharing as described in Sections and to create secret
shares of s to be sent to all other participants. We highlight at a high level how this
operation can be performed.It is assumed the dealer then sends one secret key share to each of the NUM_SIGNERS participants, along with C.
After receiving their secret key share and C each participant MUST perform vss_verify(secret_key_share_i, C).
It is assumed that all participant have the same view of C.
The trusted dealer MUST delete the secret_key and secret_key_shares upon completion.Use of this method for key generation requires a mutually authenticated secure channel
between the dealer and participants to send secret key shares, wherein the channel provides confidentiality
and integrity. Mutually authenticated TLS is one possible deployment option.Shamir Secret SharingIn Shamir secret sharing, a dealer distributes a secret s to n participants
in such a way that any cooperating subset of t participants can recover the
secret. There are two basic steps in this scheme: (1) splitting a secret into
multiple shares, and (2) combining shares to reveal the resulting secret.This secret sharing scheme works over any field F. In this specification, F is
the scalar field of the prime-order group G.The procedure for splitting a secret into shares is as follows. n or if t is less than 2
def secret_share_shard(s, n, t):
if t > n:
raise "invalid parameters"
if t < 2:
raise "invalid parameters"
# Generate random coefficients for the polynomial, yielding
# a polynomial of degree (t - 1)
coefficients = [s]
for i in range(t - 1):
coefficients.append(G.RandomScalar())
# Evaluate the polynomial for each point x=1,...,n
secret_key_shares = []
for x_i in range(1, n + 1):
y_i = polynomial_evaluate(x_i, coefficients)
secret_key_share_i = (x_i, y_i)
secret_key_share.append(secret_key_share_i)
return secret_key_shares, coefficients
]]>Let points be the output of this function. The i-th element in points is
the share for the i-th participant, which is the randomly generated polynomial
evaluated at coordinate i. We denote a secret share as the tuple (i, points[i]),
and the list of these shares as shares.
i MUST never equal 0; recall that f(0) = s, where f is the polynomial defined in a Shamir secret sharing operation.The procedure for combining a shares list of length t to recover the
secret s is as follows.Verifiable Secret SharingFeldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing (VSS) builds upon Shamir secret sharing,
adding a verification step to demonstrate the consistency of a participant's
share with a public commitment to the polynomial f for which the secret s
is the constant term. This check ensure that all participants have a point
(their share) on the same polynomial, ensuring that they can later reconstruct
the correct secret.The procedure for committing to a polynomial f of degree t-1 is as follows.The procedure for verification of a participant's share is as follows.
If vss_verify fails, the participant MUST abort the protocol, and failure should be investigated out of band.We now define how the coordinator and signing participants can derive group info, which is an input into the FROST signing protocol.Wire FormatApplications are responsible for encoding protocol messages between peers. This section
contains RECOMMENDED encodings for different protocol messages as described in .Signing CommitmentA commitment from a signer is a pair of Element values. It can be encoded in the following manner.
id
The SignerID.
D
The commitment hiding factor encoded as a serialized group element.
E
The commitment binding factor encoded as a serialized group element.
Signing PackagesThe Coordinator sends "signing packages" to each Signer in Round two. Each package
contains the list of signing commitments generated during round one along with the
message to sign. This package can be encoded in the following manner.;
opaque msg<0..2^16-1>;
} SigningPackage;
]]>
signing_commitments
An list of SIGNING_COUNT SigningCommitment values, where THRESHOLD_LIMIT <= SIGNING_COUNT <= NUM_SIGNERS,
ordered in ascending order by SigningCommitment.id. This list MUST NOT contain more than one
SigningCommitment value corresponding to each signer. Signers MUST ignore SigningPackage values with
duplicate SignerIDs.
msg
The message to be signed.
Signature ShareThe output of each signer is a signature share which is sent to the Coordinator. This
can be constructed as follows.
id
The SignerID.
signature_share
The signature share from this signer encoded as a serialized scalar.
Test VectorsThis section contains test vectors for all ciphersuites listed in .
All Element and Scalar values are represented in serialized form and encoded in
hexadecimal strings. Signatures are represented as the concatenation of their
constituent parts. The input message to be signed is also encoded as a hexadecimal
string.Each test vector consists of the following information.
Configuration: This lists the fixed parameters for the particular instantiation
of FROST, including MAX_SIGNERS, THRESHOLD_LIMIT, and NUM_SIGNERS.
Group input parameters: This lists the group secret key and shared public key,
generated by a trusted dealer as described in , as well as the
input message to be signed. All values are encoded as hexadecimal strings.
Signer input parameters: This lists the signing key share for each of the
NUM_SIGNERS signers.
Round one parameters and outputs: This lists the NUM_SIGNERS participants engaged
in the protocol, identified by their integer index, the hiding and binding commitment
values produced in , as well as the resulting group binding factor input,
computed in part from the group commitment list encoded as described in ,
and group binding factor as computed in ).
Round two parameters and outputs: This lists the NUM_SIGNERS participants engaged
in the protocol, identified by their integer index, along with their corresponding
output signature share as produced in .
Final output: This lists the aggregate signature as produced in .