Tight Security for BBS Signatures

August 07, 2026 Β· Grace Period Β· πŸ› In: Daemen, J., Thome, E. (eds) Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2026. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 16541. Springer, Cham

⏳ Grace Period
This paper is less than 90 days old. We give authors time to release their code before passing judgment.
Authors Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Dennis Hofheinz, Stefano Tessaro arXiv ID 2608.06724 Category cs.CR: Cryptography & Security Citations 0 Venue In: Daemen, J., Thome, E. (eds) Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2026. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 16541. Springer, Cham
Abstract
This paper studies the concrete security of BBS signatures (Boneh, Boyen, Shacham, CRYPTO '04; Camenisch and Lysyanskaya, CRYPTO '04), a popular algebraic construction of digital signatures which underlies practical privacy-preserving authentication systems and is undergoing standardization by the W3C and IRTF. SchΓ€ge (Journal of Cryptology '15) gave a tight standard-model security proof under the q-SDH assumption for a less efficient variant of the scheme, called BBS+--here, q is the number of issued signatures. In contrast, the security proof for BBS (Tessaro and Zhu, EUROCRYPT '23), also under the q-SDH assumption, is \emph{not} tight. Nonetheless, this recent proof shifted both standardization and industry adoption towards the more efficient BBS, instead of BBS+, and for this reason, it is important to understand whether this tightness gap is inherent. Recent cryptanalysis by Chairattana-Apirom and Tessaro (ASIACRYPT '25) also shows that a tight reduction to q-SDH is the best we can hope for. This paper closes this gap in two different ways. On the positive end, we show a novel tight reduction for BBS in the case where each message is signed at most once--this case covers in particular the common practical use case which derandomizes signing. On the negative end, we use a meta-reduction argument to prove that if we allow generating multiple signatures for the same message, then {\em no} algebraic reduction to q-SDH (and its variants) can be tight.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Cryptography & Security