Tight Security for BBS Signatures
Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Dennis Hofheinz, Stefano Tessaro
cs.CR
Submitted: 2026-08-07
Updated: 2026-08-10
Journal ref: In: Daemen, J., Thome, E. (eds) Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2026. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 16541. Springer, Cham
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-032-25291-3_9
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: 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
Terminology
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. Sch"age (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 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 no algebraic reduction to q-SDH (and its variants) can be tight.
Related papers
- SoK: AI-Augmented Binary Reversing
- Relaxed Sender Anonymity for CBDC Interbank Settlement: A Zero-Knowledge Approach on Permissioned EVM
- Calibration-Family Overfit: Why Trusted Sabotage Monitors Don't Transfer Across Lineages
- Estimating the Social Cost of Corporate Data Breaches
- Efficient Fuzzy PSI under One-Sided Assumptions
- Sealing the Audit-Runtime Gap for LLM Skills