Trevor Perrin <tr...@trevp.net> wrote: Dear Trevor,
> One last tweak to consider is clearing the cofactor in verification.
> Currently XEdDSA does "cofactorless verification", i.e. it takes a
> signature (R, s) and checks R == sB - hA. We could change it to cR ==
> c(sB - hA). VXEdDSA would be unchanged.
>
> This has no effect on valid signatures, but adding the cofactor
> multiplication means signers could create signatures with a few
> different values of R for the same s (which has no security relevance,
> I think, and does not cause "malleability" because the signer's choice
> of R is included in the hash).
>
> Advantages to current "cofactorless" approach:
> - matches existing code like (ref10, libsodium)
> - less code, doesn't need a "point comparison" function (can encode,
> then compare)
> - less computation (by tiny amount, 1% or something)
>
> Advantages to changing to "cofactor" approach:
> - Allows batch verification of signatures (I'm told), that can give ~2x
> speedup
> - Preferred approach in Ed25519 paper, "EdDSA for more curves" paper,
> and CFRG draft
The Ed25519 paper says
"The verifier is /permitted/ to check this stronger equation and
to reject alleged signatures where the stronger equation does not
hold. However, this is not /required/; checking that
8SB=8R+8H(\encode{R},\encode{A},M)A is enough for security."
You could decide to do the same; allowing both for verification in the
specification and leaving the choice to the implementation. If I
understand correctly, this gives you the advantages of both approaches,
right?
Best regards,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Curves mailing list Curves@moderncrypto.org https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/curves
