Hybrid signature spectrums
draft-hale-pquip-hybrid-signature-spectrums-04
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Nina Bindel , Britta Hale , Deirdre Connolly , Florence D | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-21 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-hale-pquip-hybrid-signature-spectrums-04
Network Working Group N. Bindel
Internet-Draft SandboxAQ
Intended status: Informational B. Hale
Expires: 22 September 2024 Naval Postgraduate School
D. Connolly
SandboxAQ
F. Driscoll
UK National Cyber Security Centre
21 March 2024
Hybrid signature spectrums
draft-hale-pquip-hybrid-signature-spectrums-04
Abstract
This document describes classification of design goals and security
considerations for hybrid digital signature schemes, including proof
composability, non-separability of the component signatures given a
hybrid signature, backwards/forwards compatiblity, hybrid generality,
and simultaneous verification.
Discussion of this work is encouraged to happen on the IETF PQUIP
mailing list pqc@ietf.org or on the GitHub repository which contains
the draft: https://github.com/dconnolly/draft-hale-pquip-hybrid-
signature-spectrums
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Revision history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Motivation for use of hybrid signature schemes . . . . . 6
1.3.1. *Complexity* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2. *Time* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.1. *Hybrid Authentication* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.2. *Proof Composability* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.3. *Weak Non-Separability* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.4. *Strong Non-Separability* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.5. *Backwards/Forwards Compatibility* . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.6. *Simultaneous Verification* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.7. *Hybrid Generality* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.8. *High performance* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.9. *High space efficiency* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.10. *Minimal duplicate information* . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Non-separability spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. Artifact locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Artifact Location Comparison Example . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Need-For-Approval Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. EUF-CMA Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Discussion of Advantages/Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. Backwards compatibility vs. SNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. Backwards compatibility vs. hybrid unforgeability. . . . 22
7.3. Simultaneous verification vs. low need for approval. . . 22
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
1. Introduction
Initial focus on the transition to use of post-quantum algorithms in
protocols has largely been on confidentiality, given the potential
risk of store and decrypt attacks, where data encrypted today using
traditional algorithms could be decrypted in the future by an
attacker with a Cryptographically-Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC).
While traditional authentication is only at risk once a CRQC exists,
it is important to consider the transition to post-quantum
authentication before this point. This is particularly relevant for
systems where algorithm turn-over is complex or takes a long time
(e.g., long-lived systems with hardware roots of trust), or where
future checks on past authenticity play a role (e.g., digital
signatures on legal documents).
The relative newness of many (although not all) post-quantum
algorithms means that less cryptanalysis of such algorithms is
available than for long-established counterparts, such as RSA and
elliptic-curve based solutions for confidentiality and authenticity.
This has drawn attention to hybrid cryptographic schemes, which
combine both traditional and post-quantum (or more generally next-
generation) algorithms in one cryptographic scheme. These may offer
increased assurance for implementers, namely that as long as the
security of one of the two component algorithms of the hybrid scheme
holds, the confidentiality or authenticity offered by that scheme is
maintained.
Whether or not hybridization is desired depends on the use case and
security threat model. Conservative users may not have complete
trust in the post-quantum algorithms or implementations available,
while also recognizing a need to start post-quantum transition. For
such users, hybridization can support near-term transition while also
avoiding trusting solo post-quantum algorithms too early. On the
other hand, hybrid schemes, particularly for authentication, may
introduce significant complexity into a system or a migration
process, so might not be the right choice for all. For cases where
hybridization is determined to be advantageous, a decision on how to
hybridize needs to be made. With many options available, this
document is intended to provide context on some of the trade-offs and
nuances to consider.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
Hybridization has been looked at for key encapsulation [HYBRIDKEM],
and in an initial sense for digital signatures [HYBRIDSIG]. Compared
to key encapsulation, hybridization of digital signatures, where the
verification tag may be expected to attest to both standard and post-
quantum components, is subtler to design and implement due to the
potential separability of the hybrid/dual signatures and the risk of
downgrade/stripping attacks. There are also a range of requirements
and properties that may be required from hybrid signatures, not all
of which can be achieved at once.
This document focuses on explaining advantages and disadvantages of
different hybrid signature scheme designs and different security
goals for them. It is intended as a resource for designers and
implementers of hybrid signature schemes to help them decide what
properties they do and do not require from their scheme. It does not
attempt to answer the question of whether or not a hybrid scheme is
desirable for, or should be used in a given case. It also
intentionally does not propose concrete hybrid signature combiners or
instantiations thereof.
1.1. Revision history
*RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to
publication of a final version of this document.
* 01: Significant fleshing out after feedback from IETF 118.
* 00: Initial version.
1.2. Terminology
We follow existing Internet drafts on hybrid terminology
[I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology] and hybrid key encapsulation
mechanisms (KEM) [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design] to enable settling on a
consistent language. We will make clear when this is not possible.
In particular, we follow the definition of 'post-quantum algorithm',
'traditional algorithms', and 'combiner'. Moreover, we use the
definition of 'certificate' to mean 'public-key certificate' as
defined in [RFC4949].
* Signature scheme: A signature scheme is defined via the following
three algorithms:
- KeyGen() -> (pk, sk): A probabilistic key generation algorithm,
which generates a public verifying key pk and a secret signing
key sk.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
- Sign(sk, m) -> (sig): A probabilistic signature generation,
which takes as input a secret signing key sk and a message m,
and outputs a signature sig.
- Verify(pk, sig, m) -> b: A verification algorithm, which takes
as input a public verifying key pk, a signature sig and a
message m, and outputs a bit b indicating accept (b=1) or
reject (b=0) of the signature for message m.
* Hybrid signature scheme: Following
[I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology], we define a hybrid
signature scheme to be "a multi-algorithm digital signature scheme
made up of two or more component digital signature algorithms
...". While it often makes sense for security purposes to require
that the security of the component schemes is based on the
hardness of different cryptographic assumptions, in other cases
hybrid schemes might be motivated, e.g., by interoperatbility of
variants on the same scheme and as such both component schemes are
based on the same hardness assumption (e.g., both post-quantum
assumptions or even both the same concrete assumption such as Ring
LWE). We allow this explicitly. This means in particular that in
contrast to [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology], we will use
the more general term 'hybrid signature scheme' instead of
requiring one post-quantum and one traditional algorithm (i.e.,
PQ/T hybrid signature schemes) to allow also the combination of
several post-quantum algorithms. The term 'composite scheme' is
sometimes used as a synonym for 'hybrid scheme'. This is
different from [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology] where the
term is used as a specific instantiation of hybrid schemes such
that "where multiple cryptographic algorithms are combined to form
a single key or signature such that they can be treated as a
single atomic object at the protocol level." To avoid confusing
we will avoid the term 'composite scheme'.
* Hybrid signature: A hybrid signature is the output of the hybrid
signature scheme's signature generation. As synonyms we might use
'dual signature'. For example, NIST define a dual signature as
"two or more signatures on a common message" [NIST_PQC_FAQ]. For
the same reason as above we will avoid using the term 'composite
signature' although it sometimes appears as synonym for 'hybrid/
dual signature'.
* Component (signature) scheme: Component signature schemes are the
cryptographic algorithms contributing to the hybrid signature
scheme. This has a similar purpose as in
[I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology]. 'Ingredient (signature)
scheme' may be used as a synonym.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
* Next-generation algorithms: Following
[I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design], we define next-generation algorithms
to be "algorithms which are not yet widely deployed but which may
eventually be widely deployed". Hybrid signatures are mostly
motivated by preparation for post-quantum migration, hence the
reference to post-quantum algorithms through this draft. However,
the majority of the discussion in this document applies equally
well to future migration to other next-generation algorithms.
* Artifact: An artifact is evidence of the sender's intent to
hybridize a signature that remains even if a component algorithm
tag is removed. Artifacts can be e.g., at the algorithmic level
(e.g., within the digital signature), or at the protocol level
(e.g., within the certificate), or on the system policy level
(e.g., within the message). Artifacts should be easily
identifiable by the receiver in the case of signature stripping.
1.3. Motivation for use of hybrid signature schemes
Before diving into the design goals for hybrid digital signatures, it
is worth taking a look at why hybrid digital signatures are desirable
for some applications. As many of the arguments hold in general for
hybrid algorithms, we again refer to [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]
that summarizes these well. In addition, we explicate the motivation
for hybrid signatures here.
1.3.1. *Complexity*
Next-generation algorithms and their underlying hardness assumptions
are often more complex than traditional algorithms. For example, the
signature scheme ML-DSA (a.k.a. CRYSTALS-Dilithium) that has been
selected for standardization by NIST. While the scheme follows the
well-known Fiat-Shamir transform to construct the signature scheme,
it also relies on rejection sampling that is known to give cache side
channel information (although this does not lead to a known attack).
Likewise, the signature scheme Falcon uses complex sampling during
signature generation. Furthermore, recent attacks again the next-
generation multivariate schemes Rainbow and GeMSS might call into
question the asymptotic and concrete security for conservative
adopters and therefore might hinder adoption.
As such, some next-generation algorithms carry a higher risk of
implementation mistakes and revision of parameters compared to
traditional algorithms, such as RSA. RSA is a relatively simple
algorithm to understand and explain, yet during its existence and use
there have been multiple attacks and refinements, such as adding
requirements to how padding and keys are chosen, and implementation
issues such as cross-protocol attacks. Thus, even in a relatively
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
simple algorithm subtleties and caveats on implementation and use can
arise over time. Given the complexity of next generation algorithms,
the chance of such discoveries and caveats needs to be taken into
account.
Of note, some next generation algorithms have received substantial
analysis attention, for example through the NIST Post-Quantum Process
[NIST_PQC_FAQ]. Thus, if and when further information on caveats and
implementation issues come to light, it is less likely that a "break"
will be catastrophic. Instead, such vulnerabilities and issues may
represent a weakening of security - which may in turn be offset if a
hybrid approach has been used. The complexity of post-quantum
algorithms needs to be balanced against the fact that hybridization
itself adds more complexity to a protocol and introduces the risk of
implementation mistakes in the hybridization process.
One example of a next generation algorithm is the signature scheme
ML-DSA (a.k.a. CRYSTALS-Dilithium) that has been selected for
standardization by NIST. While the scheme follows the well-known
Fiat-Shamir transform to construct the signature scheme, it also
relies on rejection sampling that is known to give cache side channel
information (although this does not lead to a known attack).
Furthermore, recent attacks again the post-quantum multivariate
schemes Rainbow and GeMSS might call into question the asymptotic and
concrete security for conservative adopters and therefore might
hinder adoption.
1.3.2. *Time*
The need to transition to post-quantum algorithms now while
simultaneously being aware of potential, hidden subtleties in their
resistance to standard attacks drives transition designs towards
hybridization. Mosca’s equation [MOSCA] very simply illustrates the
risk of post-quantum transition delay: l + d > q, where l is the
information life-span, d is the time for system transition to post-
quantum algorithms, and q is the time before a quantum computer is
ready to execute cryptanalysis. As opposed to key exchange and KEMs,
it may not be obvious why there is urgency for an adoption of post-
quantum signatures; namely, while encryption is subject to store-now-
decrypt-later attacks, there may not seem to be a parallel notion for
authenticity, i.e., 'store-now-modify-later attacks'.
However, in larger systems, including national systems, space
systems, large healthcare support systems, and critical
infrastructure, where acquisition and procurement time can be
measured in years and algorithm replacement may be difficult or even
practically impossible, this equation can have drastic implications.
In such systems, algorithm turn-over can be complex and difficult and
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
can take considerable time (such as in long-lived systems with
hardware deployment), meaning that an algorithm may be committed to
long-term, with no option for replacement. Long-term committment
creates further urgency for immediate post-quantum algorithm
selection. Additionally, for some sectors future checks on past
authenticity plays a role (e.g., many legal, financial, auditing, and
governmental systems). The 'store-now-modify-later' analogy would
present challenges in such sectors, where future analysis of past
authentication may be more critical than in e.g., internet connection
use cases. As such there is an eagerness to use post-quantum
signature algorithms for some applications.
1.4. Goals
There are various security goals that can be achieved through
hybridization. The following provides a summary of these goals,
while also noting where security goals are in conflict, i.e., that
achievement of one goal precludes another, such as backwards
compatibility.
1.4.1. *Hybrid Authentication*
One goal of hybrid signature schemes is security. As defined in
[I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology], ideally a hybrid signature
scheme can achieve 'hybrid authentication' which is the property that
(cryptograpthic) authentication is achieved by the hybrid signature
scheme provided that a least one component signature algorithm
remains 'secure'. There might be, however, other goals in
competition with this one, such as backward-compatibility. Hybrid
authentication is an umbrella term that encompassess more specific
concepts of hybrid signature security, such as 'hybrid unforgability'
described next.
1.4.1.1. *Hybrid Unforgeability*
Hybrid unforgeability is a specific type of hybrid authentication,
where the security assumption for the scheme, e.g. EUF-CMA or SUF-
CMA, is maintained as long as at least one of the component schemes
is EUF-CMA (resp., SUF-CMA) secure without a prioritisation. We call
this notion 'hybrid unforgeability'; it is a specific type of hybrid
authentication. For example, the concatenation combiner in
[HYBRIDSIG] is 'hybrid unforgeable'. As mentioned above, this might
be incompatible with backward-compatibility, where the EUF-CMA
(resp., SUF-CMA) security of the hybrid signature relies solely on
the security of one of the component schemes instead of relying on
both, e.g., the dual message combiner using nesting in [HYBRIDSIG].
For more details, we refer to our discussion below.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
Use cases where a hybrid scheme is used with, e.g., EUF-CMA security
assumed for only one component scheme generally use hybrid techniques
for their functional transition pathway support, while fully trusting
either the traditional or post-quantum algorithm. In contrast, use
cases where a hybrid scheme is used with e.g., EUF-CMA security
assumed for both component schemes without prioritisation can use
hybrid techniques for both functional transition and security
transition, where it may not be known which algorithm should be
relied upon.
1.4.2. *Proof Composability*
Under proof composability, the component algorithms are combined in
such a way that it is possible to prove a security reduction from the
security properties of a hybrid signature scheme to the properties of
the respective component signature schemes and, potentially, other
building blocks such as hash functions, KDF, etc. Otherwise an
entirely new proof of security is required, and there is a lack of
assurance that the combination builds on the standardization
processes and analysis performed to date on component algorithms.
The resulting hybrid signature would be, in effect, an entirely new
algorithm of its own. The more the component signature schemes are
entangled, the more likely it is that an entirely new proof is
required, thus not meeting proof composability.
1.4.3. *Weak Non-Separability*
Non-Separability was one of the earliest properties of hybrid digital
signatures to be discussed [HYBRIDSIG]. It was defined as the
guarantee that an adversary cannot simply “remove” one of the
component signatures without evidence left behind. For example there
are artifacts that a carefully designed verifier may be able to
identify, or that are identifiable in later audits. This was later
termed Weak Non-Separability (WNS) [HYBRIDSIGDESIGN]. Note that WNS
does not restrict an adversary from potentially creating a valid
component digital signature from a hybrid one (a signature stripping
attack), but rather implies that such a digital signature will
contain artifacts of the separation. Thus authentication is not
simply provided by the sender to the receiver through correct
verification of the digital signature(s), but potentially through
further investigation on the receiver side that may extend well
beyond traditional signature verification behavior. For instance,
this can intuitively be seen in cases of a message containing a
context note on hybrid authentication, that is then signed by all
component algorithms/the hybrid signature scheme. If an adversary
removes one component signature but not the other, then artifacts in
the message itself point to the possible existence of hybrid
signature such as a label stating “this message must be hybrid
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
signed”. This might be a counter measure against stripping attacks if
the verifier expects a hybrid signature scheme to have this property.
However, it places the responsibility of signature validity not only
on the correct format of the message, as in a traditional signature
security guarantee, but the precise content thereof.
1.4.4. *Strong Non-Separability*
Strong Non-Separability (SNS) is a stronger notion of WNS, introduced
in [HYBRIDSIGDESIGN]. SNS guarantees that an adversary cannot take
as input a hybrid signature (and message) and output a valid
component signature (and potentially different message) that will
verify correctly. In other words, separation of the hybrid signature
into component signatures implies that the component signature will
fail verification (of the component signature scheme) entirely.
Therefore, authentication is provided by the sender to the receiver
through correct verification of the digital signature(s), as in
traditional signature security experiments. It is not dependent on
other components, such as message content checking, or protocol level
aspects, such as public key provenance. As an illustrative example
distinguishing WNS from SNS, consider the case of component
algorithms Sigma_1.Sign and Sigma_2.Sign where the hybrid signature
is computed as a concatenation (sig_1, sig_2), where sig_1 =
Sigma_1.Sign(hybridAlgID, m) and sig_2 = Sigma_2.Sign(hybridAlgID,
m). In this case, a new message m' = (hybridAlgID, m) along with
signature sig_1 and Sigma_1.pk, with the hybrid artifact embedded in
the message instead of the signature, could be correctly verified.
The separation would be identifiable through further investigation
but the signature verification itself would not fail. Thus, this
case shows WNS (assuming the verification algorithm is defined
accordingly) but not SNS.
Some work [I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs] has looked at reliance on
the public key certificate chains to explicitly define hybrid use of
the public key. Namely, that Sigma_1.pk cannot be used without
Sigma_2.pk. This implies pushing the hybrid artifacts into the
protocol and system level and a dependency on the security of other
verification algorithms (namely those in the certificate chain).
This further requires that security analysis of a hybrid digital
signature requires analysis of the key provenance, i.e., not simply
that a valid public key is used but how its hybridization and hybrid
artifacts have been managed throughout the entire chain. External
dependencies such as this may imply hybrid artifacts lie outside the
scope of the signature algorithm itself. SNS may potentially be
achieveable based on dependencies at the system level.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
1.4.5. *Backwards/Forwards Compatibility*
Backwards compatibility refers to the property where a hybrid
signature may be verified by only verifying one component signature,
allowing the scheme to be used by legacy receivers. In general this
means verifying the traditional component signature scheme,
potentially ignoring the post-quantum signature entirely. This
provides an option to transition sender systems to post-quantum
algorithms while still supporting select legacy receivers. Notably,
this is a verification property; the sender has provided a hybrid
digital signature, but the verifier is allowed, due to internal
policy and/or implementation, to only verify one component signature.
Backwards compatibility may be further decomposed to subcategories
where component key provenance is either separate or hybrid so as to
support implementations that cannot recognize (and/or process) hybrid
signatures or keys.
Forwards compatibility has also been a consideration in hybrid
proposals [I-D.becker-guthrie-noncomposite-hybrid-auth]. Forward
compatibility assumes that hybrid signature schemes will be used for
some time, but that eventually all systems will transition to use
only one (particularly, only one post-quantum) algorithm. As this is
very similar to backwards compatibility, it also may imply
separability of a hybrid algorithm; however, it could also simply
imply capability to support separate component signatures. Thus the
key distinction between backwards and forwards compatibility is that
backwards compatibility may be needed for legacy systems that cannot
use and/or process hybrid or post-quantum signatures, whereas in
forwards compatibility the system has those capabilities and can
choose what to support (e.g., for efficiency reasons).
As noted in [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design], ideally, forward/backward
compatibility is achieved using redundant information as little as
possible.
1.4.6. *Simultaneous Verification*
Simultaneous Verification (SV) builds on SNS and was first introduced
in [HYBRIDSIGDESIGN]. SV requires that not only are all component
signatures needed to achieve a successful verification present in the
hybrid signature, but also that verification of both component
algorithms occurs simultaneously. Namely, "missing" information
needs to be computed by the verifier so they cannot “quit” the
verification process before both component signatures are verified.
SV mimics traditional digital signatures guarantees, essentially
ensuring that the hybrid digital signature behaves as a single
algorithm vs. two separate component stages. Alternatively phrased,
under an SV guarantee it is not possible for an unerring verifier to
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
initiate termination of the hybrid verification upon successful
verification of one component algorithm without also knowing if the
other component succeeded or failed.
1.4.7. *Hybrid Generality*
Hybrid generality means that a general signature combiner is defined,
based on inherent and common structures of component digital
signatures "categories." For instance, since multiple signature
schemes use a Fiat-Shamir Transform, a hybrid scheme based on the
transform can be made that is generalizable to all such signatures.
Such generality can also result in simplified constructions whereas
more tailored hybrid variants might be more efficient in terms of
sizes and performance.
1.4.8. *High performance*
Similarly to performance goals noted for hybridization of other
cryptographic components [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design] hybrid
signature constructions are expected to be as performant as possible.
For most hybrid signatures this means that the computation time
should only minimally exceed the sum of the component signature
computation time. It is noted that performance of any variety may
come at the cost of other properties, such as hybrid generality.
1.4.9. *High space efficiency*
Similarly to space considerations in [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design],
hybrid signature constructions are expected to be as space performant
as possible. This includes messages (as they might increase if
artifacts are used), public keys, and the hybrid signature. For the
hybrid signature, size should no more than minimally exceed the
signature size of the two component signatures. In some cases, it
may be possible for a hybrid signature to be smaller than the
concatenationation of the two component signatures.
1.4.10. *Minimal duplicate information*
Similarly to [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design], duplicated information
should be avoided when possible. This might concern repeated
information in hybrid certificates or in the communication of
component certificates in additional to hybrid certificates (for
example to achieve backwards/forwards-compatibility), or sending
multiple public keys or signatures of the same component algorithm.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
2. Non-separability spectrum
Non-separability is not a singular definition but rather is a scale,
representing degrees of separability hardness, visualized in
Figure 1.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|**No Non-Separability**
| no artifacts exist
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|**Weak Non-Separability**
| artifacts exist in the message, signature, system, application, or protocol
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|**Strong Non-Separability**
| artifacts exist in hybrid signature
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|**Strong Non-Separability w/ Simultaneous Verification**
| artifacts exist in hybrid signature and verification or failure of both
| components occurs simultaneously
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
▼
Figure 1: Spectrum of non-separability from weakest to strongest.
At one end of the spectrum are schemes in which one of the component
signatures can be stripped away with the verifier not being able to
detect the change during verification. An example of this includes
simple concatenation of signatures without any artifacts used.
Nested signatures (where a message is signed by one component
algorithm and then the message-signature combination is signed by the
second component algorithm) may also fall into this category,
dependent on whether the inner or outer signature is stripped off
without any artifacts remaining.
Next on the spectrum are weakly non-separable signatures. Under Weak
Non-Separability, if one of the component signatures of a hybrid is
removed artifacts of the hybrid will remain (in the message,
signature, or at the protocol level, etc.). This may enable the
verifier to detect if a component signature is stripped away from a
hybrid signature, but that detectability depends highly on the type
of artifact and permissions. For instance, if a message contains a
label artifact "This message must be signed with a hybrid signature"
then the system must be allowed to analyze the message contents for
possible artifacts. Whether a hybrid signature offers (Weak/Strong)
Non-Separability might also depend on the implementation and policy
of the protocol or application the hybrid signature is used in on the
verifier side. Such policies may be further ambiguous to the sender,
meaning that the type of authenticity offered to the receiver is
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
unclear. In another example, under nested signatures the verifier
could be tricked into interpreting a new message as the message/inner
signature combination and verify only the outer signature. In this
case, the inner signature-tag is an artifact.
Third on the scale is the Strong Non-Separability notion, in which
separability detection is dependent on artifacts in the signature
itself. Unlike in Weak Non-Separability, where artifacts may be in
the actual message, the certificate, or in other non-signature
components, this notion more closely ties to traditional algorithm
security notions (such as EUF-CMA) where security is dependent on the
internal construct of the signature algorithm and its verification.
In this type, the verifier can detect artifacts on an algorithmic
level during verification. For example, the signature itself may
encode the information that a hybrid signature scheme is used.
Examples of this type may be found in [HYBRIDSIGDESIGN].
For schemes achieving the most demanding security notion, Strong Non-
Separability with Simultaneous Verification, verification succeeds
not only when both of the component signatures are present but also
only when the verifier has verified both signatures. Moreover, no
information is leaked to the receiver during the verification process
on the possibile validity/invalidity of the component signatures
until both verify (or fail to verify). This construct most closely
mirrors traditional digital signatures where, assuming that the
verifier does verify a signature at all, the result is either a
positive verification of a the full signature or a failure if the
signature is not valid. For hybrid signatures, a full signature
implies the hybridization of both component algorithms, and therefore
the strongest non-separability notion enforces an all-or-nothing
approach to verification. Examples of algorithms providing this type
of security can be found in [HYBRIDSIGDESIGN].
3. Artifacts
Hybridization benefits from the presence of artifacts as evidence of
the sender's intent to decrease the risk of successful stripping
attacks. This, however, depends strongly on where such evidence
resides (e.g., in the message, the signature, or somewhere on the
protocol level instead of at the algorithmic level). Even commonly
discussed hybrid approaches, such as concatenation, are not
inherently tied to one type of security (e.g., WNS or SNS). This can
lead to ambiguities when comparing different approaches and
assumptions about security or lack thereof. Thus in this section we
cover artifact locations and also walk through a high-level
comparison of a few hybrid categories to show how artifact location
can differ within a given approach. Artifact location is tied to
non-separability notions above; thus the selection of a given
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
security guarantee and general hybrid approach must also include
finer grained selection of artifact placement.
3.1. Artifact locations
There are a variety of artifact locations possible, ranging from
within the message to the signature algorithm to the protocol level
and even into policy, as shown in Table 1. For example, one artifact
location could be in the message to be signed, e.g., containing a
label artifact. Depending on the hybrid type, it might be possible
to strip this away. For example, a quantum attacker could strip away
the quantum-secure signature of a concatenated dual signature, and
(being able to forge, e.g., ECDSA signatures) remove the label
artifact from the message as well. So, for many applications and
threat models, adding an artificat in the message might not prevent
stripping attacks. Another artifact location could be in the public
key certificates as described in [I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs].
In yet another case, artifacts may be present through the fused
hybrid method, thus making them part of the signature at the
algorithmic level.
Eventual security analysis may be a consideration in choosing between
levels. For example, if the security of the hybrid scheme is
dependent on system policy, then cryptographic analysis must
necessarily be reliant on specific policies and it may not be
possible to describe a scheme's security in a standalone sense.
+=============================================+===========+
| Location of artifacts of hybrid intent | Level |
+=============================================+===========+
| Signature | Algorithm |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Certificate | Protocol |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Algorithm agreement / negotiation | Protocol |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Message | Policy |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Artifact placement levels
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
3.2. Artifact Location Comparison Example
Here we provide a high-level example of how artifacts can appear in
different locations even within a single, common approach. We look
at the following categories of approaches: concatenation, nesting,
and fusion. This is to illustrate that a given approach does not
inherently imply a specific non-separability notion and that there
are subtleties to the selection decision, since hybrid artifacts are
related to non-separability guarantees. Additionally, this
comparison highlights how artifacts placement can be identical in two
different hybrid approaches.
We briefly summarize the hybrid approach categories (concatenation,
nesting, and fusion) for clarity in description, before showing how
each one may have artifacts in different locations in Table 2.
* Concatenation: variants of hybridization where, for component
algorithms Sigma_1.Sign and Sigma_2.Sign, the hybrid signature is
calculated as a concatenation (sig_1, sig_2) such that sig_1 =
Sigma_1.Sign(hybridAlgID, m) and sig_2 = Sigma_2.Sign(hybridAlgID,
m).
* Nesting: variants of hybridization where for component algorithms
Sigma_1.Sign and Sigma_2.Sign, the hybrid signature is calculated
in a layered approach as (sig_1, sig_2) such that, e.g., sig_1 =
Sigma_1.Sign(hybridAlgID, m) and sig_2 = Sigma_2.Sign(hybridAlgID,
(m, sig_1)).
* Fused hybrid: variants of hybridization where for component
algorithms Sigma_1.Sign and Sigma_2.Sign, the hybrid signature is
calculated to generate a single hybrid signature sig_h that cannot
be cleanly separated to form one or more valid component
constructs. For example, if both signature schemes are signatures
schemes constructed through the Fiat-Shamir transform, the
component signatures would include responses r_1 and r_2 and
challenges c_1 and c_2, where c_1 and c_2 are hashes computed over
the respective commitments comm_1 and comm_2 (and the message). A
fused hybrid signature could consist of the component responses,
r_1 and r_2 and and a challenge c that is computed as a hash over
both commitments, i.e., c = Hash(comm_1,comm_2,message). As such,
c does not belong to either of the component signatures but rather
both, meaning that the signatures are 'entangled'.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
+====+=======================+=============================+
| # | Location of artifacts | Category |
| | of hybrid intent | |
+====+=======================+=============================+
| | | *Concatenated* |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 1 | None | No label in message, public |
| | | keys are in separate certs |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 2 | In message | Label in message, public |
| | | keys are in separate certs |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 3 | In cert | No label in message, public |
| | | keys are in combined cert |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 4 | In message and cert | Label in message, public |
| | | keys are in combined cert |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| | | *Nested* |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 5 | In message | Label in message, public |
| | | keys are in separate certs |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 6 | In cert | No label in message, public |
| | | keys are in combined cert |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 7 | In message and cert | Label in message, public |
| | | keys are in combined cert |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| | | *Fused* |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 8 | In signature | Public keys are in separate |
| | | certs |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 9 | In signature and | Label in message, public |
| | message | keys are in separate certs |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 10 | In signature and cert | Public keys are in combined |
| | | cert |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| 11 | In signature and | Label in message, public |
| | message and cert | keys are in combined cert |
+----+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
Table 2: Artifact locations depending on the hybrid
signature type
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
As can be seen, while concatenation may appear to refer to a single
type of combiner, there are in fact several possible artifact
locations depending on implementation choices. Artifacts help to
support detection in the case of stripping attacks, which means that
different artifact locations imply different overall system
implementation considerations to be able to achieve such detection.
Case 1 provides the weakest guarantees of hybrid identification, as
there are no prescribed artifacts and therefore non-separability is
not achieved. However, as can be seen, this does not imply that
every implementation using concatenation fails to achieve non-
separability. Thus, it is advisable for implementors to be
transparent about artifact locations.
In cases 2 and 5 the artifacts lie within the message. This is
notable as the authenticity of the message relies on the validity of
the signature, and the artifact location means that the signature in
turn relies on the authentic content of the message (the artifact
label). This creates a risk of circular dependency. Alternative
approaches such as cases 3 and 4 solve this circular dependency by
provisioning keys in a combined certificate.
Another observation from this comparison is that artifact locations
may be similar among some approaches. For instance, case 3 and case
6 both contain artifacts in the certificate. Naturally these
examples are high-level and further specification on concrete schemes
in the categories are needed before prescribing non-separability
guarantees to each, but this does indicate how there could be a
strong similarity between such guarantees. Such comparisons allow
for a systematic decision process, where security is compared and
identified and, if schemes are similar in the desired security goal,
then decisions between schemes can be based on performance and
implementation ease.
A final observation that this type of comparison provides is how
various combiners may change the security analysis assumptions in a
system. For instance, cases 3, 4, 5, and 6 all push artifacts - and
therefore the signature validity - into the certificate chain.
Naturally the entire chain must then also use a similar combiner if a
straightforward security argument is to be made. Other cases, such
as 8, 9, 10, and 11 put artifacts within the signature itself,
meaning that these bear the closest resemblance to traditional
schemes where message authenticity is dependent on signature
validity.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
4. Need-For-Approval Spectrum
In practice, use of hybrid digital signatures relies on standards
specifications where applicable. This is particularly relevant in
the case of FIPS approval considerations as well as NIST, which has
provided basic guidance on hybrid signature use. NIST provides the
following guidance (emphasis added),
Assume that in a [hybrid] signature, _one signature is generated
with a NIST-approved signature scheme as specified in FIPS 186,
while another signature(s) can be generated using different
schemes_, e.g., ones that are not currently specified in NIST
standards..._hybrid signatures can be accommodated by current
standards in FIPS mode, as defined in FIPS 140, provided at least
one of the component methods is a properly implemented, NIST-
approved signature algorithm_. For the purposes of FIPS 140
validation, any signature that is generated by a non-approved
component scheme would not be considered a security function,
since the NIST-approved component is regarded as assuring the
validity of the hybrid signature. [NIST_PQC_FAQ]
The emphasized texts point to two things: 1) the signature scheme for
one of the component algorithms must be approved and 2) that said
algorithm must be properly implemented. This leaves some ambiguity
as to whether only the algorithm must be approved and well
implemented, or if that implementation must go through an approval
process as well. As such, there is a scale of approval that
developers may consider as to whether they are using at least one
approved component algorithm (1-out-of-n approved software module),
or whether the implementation of that component algorithm has gone
through an approvals review (thus making a all approved software
module). The former 1-out-of-n approved software module would
suggest a straightforward path for FIPS-140 approvals based on the
NIST guidelines; however, it is not inconceivable that using a all
approved software module could automate much of the certification
review and therefore be attractive to developers.
We provide a scale for the different nuances of approval of the
hybrid combiners. This is related to whether the combiner needs a
new approval process or falls under already approved specifications.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **New Algorithm**
| New signature scheme based on a selection of hardness assumptions
| Separate approval needed
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **No Approved Software Module**
| Hybrid combiner supports security analysis that can be reduced to
| approved component algorithms, potentially changing the component implementations
| Uncertainty about whether separate approval is needed
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **1-out-of-n Approved Software Module**
| Combiner supports one component algorithm and implementation in a black-box way
| but potentially changes the other component algorithm implementation(s)
| No new approval needed if the black-box component (implementation) is approved
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **All Approved Software Modules**
| Hybrid combiner acts as a wrapper, fully independent of the component
| signature scheme implementations
| No new approval needed if at least one component implementation is approved
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
▼
Figure 2: Generality / Need-for-approval spectrum
The first listed "combiner" would be a new construction with a
security reduction to different hardness assumptions but not
necessarily to approved (or even existing) signature schemes. Such a
new, singular algorithm relies on both traditional and nextgen
principles.
Next, is a combiner that might take inspiration from existing/
approved signature schemes such that its security can be reduced to
the security of the approved algorithms. The combiner may, however,
alter the implementations. As such it is uncertain whether new
approval would be needed as it might depend on the combiner and
changes. Such a case may potentially imply a distinction between a
need for fresh approval of the algorithm(s) and approval of the
implementation(s).
The 1-out-of-n combiner uses at least one approved algorithm
implementation in a black-box way. It may potentially change the
specifics of the other component algorithm implementations. As long
as at least one component is approved, no new approval is needed (per
[NIST_PQC_FAQ]).
In an All-Approved combiner, all algorithm implementations are used
in a blackbox way. A concatenation combiner is a simple example
(where a signature is valid if all component signatures are valid).
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
As long as at least one component is approved, no new approval is
needed (per [NIST_PQC_FAQ]); thus as all algorithm implementations
are approved the requirement is satisfied.
5. EUF-CMA Challenges
Under traditional signature scheme security assumptions such as EUF-
CMA, the adversary 'wins' the security experiment if it can produce a
new message such that a message-signature pair (m, sig) with it
correctly verifies. This traditional security notion is challenged
under a hybrid construct.
The most straightforward comparison would be for the adversary to
attempt to produce a new message m' that a message-hybrid signature
pair (m', sig_h) correctly verifies. However, such a guarantee
depends on the signature being strongly non-separable. Otherwise, in
practical terms a security experiment must capture the case that an
existing or new message m could be verified with a component
signature, e.g., to produce (m', sig_1) that correctly verifies under
Sigma_1.Sign. Such considerations are beyond the scope of
traditional security analysis and represent considerations that would
need to be accounted for depending on the signature combiner method
chosen.
6. Security Considerations
This document discusses digital signature constructions that may be
used in security protocols. It is an informational document and does
not directly affect any other Internet draft. The security
considerations for any specific implementation or incorporation of a
hybrid scheme should be discussed in the relevant specification
documents.
7. Discussion of Advantages/Disadvantages
The design (and hence, security guarantees) of hybrid signature
schemes depend heavily on the properties needed for the application
or protocol using hybrid signatures. It seems that not all goals can
be achieved simultaneously as exemplified below.
7.1. Backwards compatibility vs. SNS.
There is an inherent mutual exclusion between backwards compatibility
and SNS. While WNS allows for a valid separation under leftover
artifacts, SNS will ensure verification failure if a receiver
attempts separation.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
7.2. Backwards compatibility vs. hybrid unforgeability.
Similarly, there is an inherent mutual exclusion between backwards
compatibility, when acted upon, and hybrid unforgeability as briefly
mentioned above. Since the goal of backwards compatibility is
usually to allow legacy systems without any software change to be
able to process hybrid signatures, all differences between the legacy
signature format and the hybrid signature format must be allowed to
be ignored, including skipping verification of signatures additional
to the classical signature. As such, if a system does skip an
component signature, security does not rely on the security of all
component signatures. Note that this mutual exclusion occurs at the
verification stage, as a hybrid signature that is verified by a
system that can process both component schemes can provide hybrid
unforgeability even if another (legacy) system, processing the same
hybrid signature, loses that property.
7.3. Simultaneous verification vs. low need for approval.
It seems that the more simultaneous verification is enforced by the
hybrid design, the higher is the need-for-approval as simultaneous
verification algorithms fuse (or 'entangle') the verification of the
component algorithms such that verification operations from the
different component schemes depend on each other in some way. For
example, concatenation of signatures in a black-box way without any
artefacts is, e.g., FIPS-approved, but the component signatures are
usually verified separately and no 'simultaneous verification' is
enforced.
8. Acknowledgements
This draft is based on the template of [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design].
We would like to acknowledge the following people in alphabetical
order who have contributed to pushing this draft forward, offered
insights and perspectives, and/or stimulated work in the area:
Scott Fluhrer, Felix Günther, John Gray, Serge Mister, Max Pala, Mike
Ounsworth, Douglas Stebila, Brendan Zember
9. Informative References
[HYBRIDKEM]
Bindel, N., Brendel, J., Fischlin, M., Goncalves, B., and
D. Stebila, "Hybrid Key Encapsulation Mechanisms and
Authenticated Key Exchange", Post-Quantum Cryptography
pp.206-226, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-25510-7_12, July 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25510-7_12>.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
[HYBRIDSIG]
Bindel, N., Herath, U., McKague, M., and D. Stebila,
"Transitioning to a Quantum-Resistant Public Key
Infrastructure", May 2017,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/460>.
[HYBRIDSIGDESIGN]
Bindel, N. and B. Hale, "A Note on Hybrid Signature
Schemes", March 2023, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/423>.
[I-D.becker-guthrie-noncomposite-hybrid-auth]
Becker, A., Guthrie, R., and M. J. Jenkins, "Non-Composite
Hybrid Authentication in PKIX and Applications to Internet
Protocols", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
becker-guthrie-noncomposite-hybrid-auth-00, 22 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-becker-
guthrie-noncomposite-hybrid-auth-00>.
[I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology]
D, F., "Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid
Schemes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-02, 2 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pquip-
pqt-hybrid-terminology-02>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]
Stebila, D., Fluhrer, S., and S. Gueron, "Hybrid key
exchange in TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-09, 7 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
hybrid-design-09>.
[I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs]
Ounsworth, M., Gray, J., Pala, M., and J. Klaußner,
"Composite ML-DSA for use in Internet PKI", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-
sigs-13, 4 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ounsworth-pq-
composite-sigs-13>.
[MOSCA] Kaye, P., Laflamme, R., and M. Mosca, "An Introduction to
Quantum Computing, Oxford University Press", November
2007.
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft hale-pquip-hybrid-spectrums March 2024
[NIST_PQC_FAQ]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Post-Quantum Cryptography FAQs", 5 July 2022,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/
faqs>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4949>.
Authors' Addresses
Nina Bindel
SandboxAQ
Email: nina.bindel@sandboxaq.com
Britta Hale
Naval Postgraduate School
Email: britta.hale@nps.edu
Deirdre Connolly
SandboxAQ
Email: deirdre.connolly@sandboxaq.com
Florence Driscoll
UK National Cyber Security Centre
Email: flo.d@ncsc.gov.uk
Bindel, et al. Expires 22 September 2024 [Page 24]
