| Internet-Draft | OPRFs | November 2020 |
| Davidson, et al. | Expires 6 May 2021 | [Page] |
An Oblivious Pseudorandom Function (OPRF) is a two-party protocol for computing the output of a PRF. One party (the server) holds the PRF secret key, and the other (the client) holds the PRF input. The 'obliviousness' property ensures that the server does not learn anything about the client's input during the evaluation. The client should also not learn anything about the server's secret PRF key. Optionally, OPRFs can also satisfy a notion 'verifiability' (VOPRF). In this setting, the client can verify that the server's output is indeed the result of evaluating the underlying PRF with just a public key. This document specifies OPRF and VOPRF constructions instantiated within prime-order groups, including elliptic curves.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-voprf.¶
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 6 May 2021.¶
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶
A pseudorandom function (PRF) F(k, x) is an efficiently computable function taking a private key k and a value x as input. This function is pseudorandom if the keyed function K(_) = F(K, _) is indistinguishable from a randomly sampled function acting on the same domain and range as K(). An oblivious PRF (OPRF) is a two-party protocol between a server and a client, where the server holds a PRF key k and the client holds some input x. The protocol allows both parties to cooperate in computing F(k, x) such that: the client learns F(k, x) without learning anything about k; and the server does not learn anything about x or F(k, x). A Verifiable OPRF (VOPRF) is an OPRF wherein the server can prove to the client that F(k, x) was computed using the key k.¶
The usage of OPRFs has been demonstrated in constructing a number of applications: password-protected secret sharing schemes [JKKX16]; privacy-preserving password stores [SJKS17]; and password-authenticated key exchange or PAKE [I-D.irtf-cfrg-opaque]. A VOPRF is necessary in some applications, e.g., the Privacy Pass protocol [I-D.davidson-pp-protocol], wherein this VOPRF is used to generate one-time authentication tokens to bypass CAPTCHA challenges. VOPRFs have also been used for password-protected secret sharing schemes e.g. [JKK14].¶
This document introduces an OPRF protocol built in prime-order groups, applying to finite fields of prime-order and also elliptic curve (EC) groups. The protocol has the option of being extended to a VOPRF with the addition of a NIZK proof for proving discrete log equality relations. This proof demonstrates correctness of the computation, using a known public key that serves as a commitment to the server's secret key. The document describes the protocol, the public-facing API, and its security properties.¶
The following terms are used throughout this document.¶
The 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
In this document, we assume the construction of an additive, prime-order
group GG for performing all mathematical operations. Such groups are
uniquely determined by the choice of the prime p that defines the
order of the group. We use GF(p) to represent the finite field of
order p. For the purpose of understanding and implementing this
document, we take GF(p) to be equal to the set of integers defined by
{0, 1, ..., p-1}.¶
The fundamental group operation is addition + with identity element
I. For any elements A and B of the group GG, A + B = B + A is
also a member of GG. 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, the equality p*A=I holds. Scalar base multiplication
is equivalent to the repeated application of the group operation on the
base point with itself r-1 times, this is denoted as ScalarBaseMult(r).
The set of scalars corresponds to GF(p).¶
We now detail a number of member functions that can be invoked on a prime-order group.¶
p).¶
I).¶
GG that maps a group element A
to a unique byte array buf.¶
GG that maps a byte array
buf to a group element A, or fails if the input is not a valid
byte representation of an element.¶
GG that deterministically maps
an array of bytes x to an element of GG. The map must ensure that,
for any adversary receiving R = HashToGroup(x), it is
computationally difficult to reverse the mapping. Examples of hash to
group functions satisfying this property are described for prime-order
(sub)groups of elliptic curves, see [I-D.irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve].¶
GG that deterministically maps
an array of bytes x to an element in GF(p). A recommended method
for its implementation is instantiating the hash to field function,
defined in [I-D.irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve] setting the target field to GF(p).¶
GG that chooses at random a
non-zero element in GF(p).¶
It is convenient in cryptographic applications to instantiate such prime-order groups using elliptic curves, such as those detailed in [SEC2]. For some choices of elliptic curves (e.g. those detailed in [RFC7748], which require accounting for cofactors) there are some implementation issues that introduce inherent discrepancies between standard prime-order groups and the elliptic curve instantiation. In this document, all algorithms that we detail assume that the group is a prime-order group, and this MUST be upheld by any implementer. That is, any curve instantiation should be written such that any discrepancies with a prime-order group instantiation are removed. See Section 4 for advice corresponding to implementation of this interface for specific definitions of elliptic curves.¶
x <-$ Q to denote sampling x from the uniform
distribution over the set Q.¶
x, we write len(x) to denote its length in bytes.¶
x and y, write x || y to denote their
concatenation.¶
All algorithm descriptions are written in a Python-like pseudocode. We
use the ABORT() function for presentational clarity to denote the
process of terminating the algorithm or returning an error accordingly.
We also use the CT_EQUAL(a, b) function to represent constant-time
byte-wise equality between byte arrays a and b. This function
returns true if a and b are equal, and false otherwise.¶
In this section, we define two OPRF variants: a base mode and verifiable mode. In the base mode, a client and server interact to compute y = F(skS, x), where x is the client's input, skS is the server's private key, and y is the OPRF output. The client learns y and the server learns nothing. In the verifiable mode, the client also gets proof that the server used skS in computing the function.¶
To achieve verifiability, as in the original work of [JKK14], we
provide a zero-knowledge proof that the key provided as input by the
server in the Evaluate function is the same key as it used to produce
their public key. As an example of the nature of attacks that this
prevents, this ensures that the server uses the same private key for
computing the VOPRF output and does not attempt to "tag" individual
servers with select keys. This proof must not reveal the server's
long-term private key to the client.¶
The following one-byte values distinguish between these two modes:¶
| Mode | Value |
|---|---|
| modeBase | 0x00 |
| modeVerifiable | 0x01 |
Both participants agree on the mode and a choice of ciphersuite that is
used before the protocol exchange. Once established, the core protocol
runs to compute output = F(skS, input) as follows:¶
Client(pkS, input, info) Server(skS, pkS)
----------------------------------------------------------
token, blindToken = Blind(input)
blindToken
---------->
evaluation = Evaluate(skS, pkS, blindToken)
evaluation
<----------
issuedToken = Unblind(pkS, token, blindToken, evaluation)
output = Finalize(input, issuedToken, info)
¶
In Blind the client generates a token and blinding data. The server
computes the (V)OPRF evaluation in Evaluation over the client's
blinded token. In Unblind the client unblinds the server response (and
verifies the server's proof if verifiability is required). In
Finalize, the client produces a byte array corresponding to the output
of the OPRF protocol.¶
Note that in the final output, the client computes Finalize over some
auxiliary input data info. This parameter SHOULD be used for domain
separation in the (V)OPRF protocol. Specifically, any system which has
multiple (V)OPRF applications should use separate auxiliary values to
ensure finalized outputs are separate. Guidance for constructing info
can be found in [I-D.irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve]; Section 3.1.¶
Both modes of the OPRF involve an offline setup phase. In this phase,
both the client and server create a context used for executing the
online phase of the protocol. Prior to this phase, keys (skS, pkS)
should be generated by calling a KeyGen function. KeyGen
generates a private and public key pair (skS, pkS), where skS is a
non-zero element chosen at random from the scalar field of the
corresponding group and pkS = ScalarBaseMult(skS).¶
The base mode setup functions for creating client and server contexts are below:¶
def SetupBaseServer(suite, skS): contextString = I2OSP(modeBase, 1) || I2OSP(suite.ID, 2) return ServerContext(contextString, skS) def SetupBaseClient(suite): contextString = I2OSP(modeBase, 1) || I2OSP(suite.ID, 2) return ClientContext(contextString)¶
The verifiable mode setup functions for creating client and server contexts are below:¶
def SetupVerifiableServer(suite, skS, pkS): contextString = I2OSP(modeVerifiable, 1) || I2OSP(suite.ID, 2) return VerifiableServerContext(contextString, skS), pkS def SetupVerifiableClient(suite, pkS): contextString = I2OSP(modeVerifiable, 1) || I2OSP(suite.ID, 2) return VerifiableClientContext(contextString, pkS)¶
Each setup function takes a ciphersuite from the list defined in Section 4. Each ciphersuite has a two-byte field ID used to identify the suite.¶
The following is a list of data structures that are defined for providing inputs and outputs for each of the context interfaces defined in Section 3.4. Each data structure description uses TLS notation (see [RFC8446], Section 3).¶
The following types are a list of aliases that are used throughout the protocol.¶
A ClientInput is a byte array.¶
opaque ClientInput<1..2^16-1>;¶
A SerializedElement is also a byte array, representing the unique
serialization of an Element.¶
opaque SerializedElement<1..2^16-1>;¶
A Token is an object created by a client when constructing a (V)OPRF
protocol input. It is stored so that it can be used after receiving the
server response.¶
struct {
opaque data<1..2^16-1>;
Scalar blind<1..2^16-1>;
} Token;
¶
An Evaluation is the type output by the Evaluate algorithm. The
member proof is added only in verifiable contexts.¶
struct {
SerializedElement element;
Scalar proof<0...2^16-1>; /* only for modeVerifiable */
} Evaluation;
¶
Evaluations may also be combined in batches with a constant-size proof,
producing a BatchedEvaluation. These carry a list of
SerializedElement values and proof. These evaluation types are only
useful in verifiable contexts which carry proofs.¶
struct {
SerializedElement elements<1..2^16-1>;
Scalar proof<0...2^16-1>; /* only for modeVerifiable */
} BatchedEvaluation;
¶
In this section, we detail the APIs available on the client and server
(V)OPRF contexts. This document uses the types Element and Scalar to
denote elements of the group GG and its underlying scalar field GF(p),
respectively. For notational clarity, PublicKey is an item of type
Element and PrivateKey is an item of type Scalar.¶
The ServerContext encapsulates the context string constructed during
setup and the (V)OPRF key pair. It has three functions, Evaluate,
FullEvaluate and VerifyFinalize described below. Evaluate takes
serialized representations of blinded group elements from the client as inputs.¶
FullEvaluate takes ClientInput values, and it is useful for applications
that need to compute the whole OPRF protocol on the server side only.¶
VerifyFinalize takes ClientInput values and their corresponding output
digests from Finalize as input, and returns true if the inputs match the outputs.¶
Note that VerifyFinalize and FullEvaluate are not used in the main OPRF
protocol. They are exposed as an API for building higher-level protocols.¶
Input:
PrivateKey skS
SerializedElement blindToken
Output:
Evaluation Ev
def Evaluate(skS, blindToken):
BT = GG.Deserialize(blindToken)
Z = skS * BT
serializedElement = GG.Serialize(Z)
Ev = Evaluation{ element: serializedElement }
return Ev
¶
Input:
PrivateKey skS
ClientInput input
opaque info<1..2^16-1>
Output:
opaque output<1..2^16-1>
def FullEvaluate(skS, input, info):
P = GG.HashToGroup(input)
T = skS * P
issuedToken = GG.serialize(T)
finalizeDST = "VOPRF05-Finalize-" || self.contextString
hashInput = I2OSP(len(input), 2) || input ||
I2OSP(len(issuedToken), 2) || issuedToken ||
I2OSP(len(info), 2) || info ||
I2OSP(len(finalizeDST), 2) || finalizeDST
return Hash(hashInput)
¶
Input:
PrivateKey skS
ClientInput input
opaque info<1..2^16-1>
opaque output<1..2^16-1>
Output:
boolean valid
def VerifyFinalize(skS, input, info, output):
T = GG.HashToGroup(input)
element = GG.Serialize(T)
issuedElement = Evaluate(skS, [element])
E = GG.Serialize(issuedElement)
finalizeDST = "VOPRF05-Finalize-" || self.contextString
hashInput = I2OSP(len(input), 2) || input ||
I2OSP(len(E), 2) || E ||
I2OSP(len(info), 2) || info ||
I2OSP(len(finalizeDST), 2) || finalizeDST
digest = Hash(hashInput)
return CT_EQUAL(digest, output)
¶
[[RFC editor: please change "VOPRF05" to "RFCXXXX", where XXXX is the final number, here and elsewhere before publication.]]¶
The VerifiableServerContext extends the base ServerContext with an
augmented Evaluate() function. This function produces a proof that
skS was used in computing the result. It makes use of the helper
functions GenerateProof and ComputeComposites, described below.¶
Input:
PrivateKey skS
PublicKey pkS
SerializedElement blindToken
Output:
Evaluation Ev
def Evaluate(skS, pkS, blindToken):
BT = GG.Deserialize(blindToken)
Z = skS * BT
serializedElement = GG.Serialize(Z)
proof = GenerateProof(skS, pkS, blindToken, serializedElement)
Ev = Evaluation{ element: serializedElement, proof: proof }
return Ev
¶
The helper functions GenerateProof and ComputeComposites are defined
below.¶
Input:
PrivateKey skS
PublicKey pkS
SerializedElement blindToken
SerializedElement element
Output:
Scalar proof[2]
def GenerateProof(skS, pkS, blindToken, element)
blindTokenList = [blindToken]
elementList = [element]
a = ComputeComposites(pkS, blindTokenList, elementList)
M = GG.Deserialize(a[0])
r = GG.RandomScalar()
a2 = GG.Serialize(ScalarBaseMult(r))
a3 = GG.Serialize(r * M)
challengeDST = "VOPRF05-challenge-" || self.contextString
h2Input = I2OSP(len(pkS), 2) || pkS ||
I2OSP(len(a[0]), 2) || a[0] ||
I2OSP(len(a[1]), 2) || a[1] ||
I2OSP(len(a2), 2) || a2 ||
I2OSP(len(a3), 2) || a3 ||
I2OSP(len(challengeDST), 2) || challengeDST
c = GG.HashToScalar(h2Input)
s = (r - c * skS) mod p
return [c, s]
¶
Unlike other functions, ComputeComposites takes lists of inputs,
rather than a single input. It is optimized to produce a constant-size
output. This functionality lets applications batch inputs together to
produce a constant-size proofs from GenerateProof. Applications can
take advantage of this functionality by invoking GenerateProof on
batches of inputs. (Notice that in the pseudocode above, the single
inputs blindToken and element are translated into lists before
invoking ComputeComposites. A batched GenerateProof variant would
permit lists of inputs, and no list translation would be needed.)¶
Note that using batched inputs creates a BatchedEvaluation object as
the output of Evaluate.¶
We note here that it is essential that a different r value is used for
every invocation. If this is not done, then this may leak skS as is
possible in Schnorr or (EC)DSA scenarios where fresh randomness is not
used.¶
Input:
PublicKey pkS
SerializedElement blindTokens[m]
SerializedElement elements[m]
Output:
SerializedElement composites[2]
def ComputeComposites(pkS, blindTokens, elements):
seedDST = "VOPRF05-seed-" || self.contextString
compositeDST = "VOPRF05-composite-" || self.contextString
h1Input = I2OSP(len(pkS), 2) || pkS ||
I2OSP(len(blindTokens), 2) || blindTokens ||
I2OSP(len(elements), 2) || elements ||
I2OSP(len(seedDST), 2) || seedDST
seed = Hash(h1Input)
M = GG.Identity()
Z = GG.Identity()
for i = 0 to m-1:
h2Input = I2OSP(len(seed), 2) || seed || I2OSP(i, 2) ||
I2OSP(len(compositeDST), 2) || compositeDST
di = GG.HashToScalar(h2Input)
Mi = GG.Deserialize(blindTokens[i])
Zi = GG.Deserialize(elements[i])
M = di * Mi + M
Z = di * Zi + Z
return [GG.Serialize(M), GG.Serialize(Z)]
¶
The ClientContext encapsulates the context string constructed during
setup. It has three functions, Blind(), Unblind(), and Finalize(),
as described below.¶
We note here that the blinding mechanism that we use can be modified slightly with the opportunity for making performance gains in some scenarios. We detail these modifications in Section 6.¶
Input:
ClientInput input
Output:
Token token
SerializedElement blindToken
def Blind(input):
r = GG.RandomScalar()
P = GG.HashToGroup(input)
blindToken = GG.Serialize(r * P)
token = Token{ data: input, blind: r }
return (token, blindToken)
¶
Input: Token token Evaluation Ev Output: SerializedElement issuedToken def Unblind(token, Ev): r = token.blind Z = GG.Deserialize(Ev.element) N = (r^(-1)) * Z issuedToken = GG.Serialize(N) return issuedToken¶
Input:
Token token
SerializedElement issuedToken
opaque info<1..2^16-1>
Output:
opaque output<1..2^16-1>
def Finalize(token, issuedToken, info):
finalizeDST = "VOPRF05-Finalize-" || self.contextString
hashInput = I2OSP(len(token.data), 2) || token.data ||
I2OSP(len(issuedToken), 2) || issuedToken ||
I2OSP(len(info), 2) || info ||
I2OSP(len(finalizeDST), 2) || finalizeDST
return Hash(hashInput)
¶
The VerifiableClientContext extends the base ClientContext with the
desired server public key pkS with an augmented Unblind() function.
This function verifies an evaluation proof using pkS. It makes use of
the helper function ComputeComposites described above. It has one
helper function, VerifyProof(), defined below.¶
This algorithm outputs a boolean verified which indicates whether the
proof inside of the evaluation verifies correctly, or not.¶
Input:
PublicKey pkS
SerializedElement blindToken
Evaluation Ev
Output:
boolean verified
def VerifyProof(pkS, blindToken, Ev):
blindTokenList = [blindToken]
elementList = [Ev.element]
a = ComputeComposites(pkS, blindTokenList, elementList)
A' = (ScalarBaseMult(Ev.proof[1]) + Ev.proof[0] * pkS)
B' = (Ev.proof[1] * M + Ev.proof[0] * Z)
a2 = GG.Serialize(A')
a3 = GG.Serialize(B')
challengeDST = "VOPRF05-challenge-" || self.contextString
h2Input = I2OSP(len(pkS), 2) || pkS ||
I2OSP(len(a[0]), 2) || a[0] ||
I2OSP(len(a[1]), 2) || a[1] ||
I2OSP(len(a2), 2) || a2 ||
I2OSP(len(a3), 2) || a3 ||
I2OSP(len(challengeDST), 2) || challengeDST
c = GG.HashToScalar(h2Input)
return CT_EQUAL(c, Ev.proof[0])
¶
Input:
PublicKey pkS
Token token
SerializedElement blindToken
Evaluation Ev
Output:
SerializedElement issuedToken
def Unblind(pkS, token, blindToken, Ev):
if VerifyProof(pkS, blindToken, Ev) == false:
ABORT()
r = token.blind
Z = GG.Deserialize(Ev.element)
N = (r^(-1)) * Z
issuedToken = GG.Serialize(N)
return issuedToken
¶
A ciphersuite (also referred to as 'suite' in this document) for the protocol wraps the functionality required for the protocol to take place. This ciphersuite should be available to both the client and server, and agreement on the specific instantiation is assumed throughout. A ciphersuite contains instantiations of the following functionalities:¶
GG: A prime-order group exposing the API detailed in Section 2.1, with base
point defined in the corresponding reference for each group.¶
Hash: A cryptographic hash function that is indifferentiable from a
Random Oracle.¶
This section specifies supported VOPRF group and hash function instantiations. For each group, we specify the HashToGroup, HashToScalar, and serialization functionalities.¶
Applications should take caution in using ciphersuites targeting P-256 and ristretto255. See Section 5.2 for related discussion.¶
Group: ristretto255 [RISTRETTO]¶
expand_message = expand_message_xmd
using SHA-256.¶
expand_message = expand_message_xmd
using SHA-512.¶
expand_message_xmd with
SHA-512.¶
Group: P-256 (secp256r1) [x9.62]¶
expand_message_xmd with
SHA-256.¶
Group: P-384 (secp384r1) [x9.62]¶
expand_message_xmd with
SHA-512.¶
Group: P-521 (secp521r1) [x9.62]¶
expand_message_xmd with
SHA-512.¶
This section discusses the cryptographic security of our protocol, along with some suggestions and trade-offs that arise from the implementation of an OPRF.¶
The security properties of an OPRF protocol with functionality y = F(k, x) include those of a standard PRF. Specifically:¶
In other words, consider an adversary that picks inputs x from the domain of F and evaluates F on (k,x) (without knowledge of randomly sampled k). Then the output distribution F(k,x) is indistinguishable from the output distribution of a randomly chosen function with the same domain and range.¶
A consequence of showing that a function is pseudorandom, is that it is necessarily non-malleable (i.e. we cannot compute a new evaluation of F from an existing evaluation). A genuinely random function will be non-malleable with high probability, and so a pseudorandom function must be non-malleable to maintain indistinguishability.¶
An OPRF protocol must also satisfy the following property:¶
Essentially, obliviousness tells us that, even if the server learns the client's input x at some point in the future, then the server will not be able to link any particular OPRF evaluation to x. This property is also known as unlinkability [DGSTV18].¶
Optionally, for any protocol that satisfies the above properties, there is an additional security property:¶
Any OPRF that satisfies the 'verifiable' security property is known as a verifiable OPRF, or VOPRF for short. In practice, the notion of verifiability requires that the server commits to the key before the actual protocol execution takes place. Then the client verifies that the server has used the key in the protocol using this commitment. In the following, we may also refer to this commitment as a public key.¶
Below, we discuss the cryptographic security of the (V)OPRF protocol from Section 3, relative to the necessary cryptographic assumptions that need to be made.¶
Each assumption states that the problems specified below are
computationally difficult to solve in relation to a particular choice of
security parameter sp.¶
Let GG = GG(sp) be a group with prime-order p, and let FFp be the finite field of order p.¶
Given G, a generator of GG, and H = hG for some h in FFp; output h.¶
Our OPRF construction is based on the VOPRF construction known as 2HashDH-NIZK given by [JKK14]; essentially without providing zero-knowledge proofs that verify that the output is correct. Our VOPRF construction is identical to the [JKK14] construction, except that we can optionally perform multiple VOPRF evaluations in one go, whilst only constructing one NIZK proof object. This is enabled using an established batching technique.¶
Consequently the cryptographic security of our construction is based on the assumption that the One-More Gap DH is computationally difficult to solve.¶
The (N,Q)-One-More Gap DH (OMDH) problem asks the following.¶
Given:
- G, k * G, G_1, ... , G_N where G, G_1, ... G_N are elements of GG;
- oracle access to an OPRF functionality using the key k;
- oracle access to DDH solvers.
Find Q+1 pairs of the form below:
(G_{j_s}, k * G_{j_s})
where the following conditions hold:
- s is a number between 1 and Q+1;
- j_s is a number between 1 and N for each s;
- Q is the number of allowed queries.
¶
The original paper [JKK14] gives a security proof that the 2HashDH-NIZK construction satisfies the security guarantees of a VOPRF protocol Section 5.1 under the OMDH assumption in the universal composability (UC) security model.¶
A side-effect of our OPRF design is that it allows instantiation of a oracle for constructing Q-strong-DH (Q-sDH) samples. The Q-Strong-DH problem asks the following.¶
Given G1, G2, h*G2, (h^2)*G2, ..., (h^Q)*G2; for G1 and G2
generators of GG.
Output ( (1/(k+c))*G1, c ) where c is an element of FFp
¶
The assumption that this problem is hard was first introduced in [BB04]. Since then, there have been a number of cryptanalytic studies that have reduced the security of the assumption below that implied by the group instantiation (for example, [BG04] and [Cheon06]). In summary, the attacks reduce the security of the group instantiation by log_2(Q) bits.¶
As an example, suppose that a group instantiation is used that provides 128 bits of security against discrete log cryptanalysis. Then an adversary with access to a Q-sDH oracle and makes Q=2^20 queries can reduce the security of the instantiation by log_2(2^20) = 20 bits.¶
Notice that it is easy to instantiate a Q-sDH oracle using the OPRF functionality that we provide. A client can just submit sequential queries of the form (G, k * G, (k^2)G, ..., (k^(Q-1))G), where each query is the output of the previous interaction. This means that any client that submit Q queries to the OPRF can use the aforementioned attacks to reduce security of the group instantiation by log_2(Q) bits.¶
Recall that from a malicious client's perspective, the adversary wins if they can distinguish the OPRF interaction from a protocol that computes the ideal functionality provided by the PRF.¶
The OPRF instantiations that we recommend in this document are informed by the cryptanalytic discussion above. In particular, choosing elliptic curves configurations that describe 128-bit group instantiations would appear to in fact instantiate an OPRF with 128-log_2(Q) bits of security.¶
In most cases, it would require an informed and persistent attacker to launch a highly expensive attack to reduce security to anything much below 100 bits of security. We see this possibility as something that may result in problems in the future. For applications that cannot tolerate discrete logarithm security of lower than 128 bits, we recommend only implementing ciphersuites with IDs: 0x0002, 0x0004, and 0x0005.¶
A critical requirement of implementing the prime-order group using
elliptic curves is a method to instantiate the function
GG.HashToGroup, that maps inputs to group elements. In the elliptic
curve setting, this deterministically maps inputs x (as byte arrays) to
uniformly chosen points on the curve.¶
In the security proof of the construction Hash is modeled as a random
oracle. This implies that any instantiation of GG.HashToGroup must be
pre-image and collision resistant. In Section 4 we give
instantiations of this functionality based on the functions described in
[I-D.irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve]. Consequently, any OPRF implementation
must adhere to the implementation and security considerations discussed
in [I-D.irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve] when instantiating the function.¶
To ensure no information is leaked during protocol execution, all
operations that use secret data MUST run in constant time. Operations that
SHOULD run in constant time include all prime-order group operations and
proof-specific operations (GenerateProof() and VerifyProof()).¶
Since the server's key is critical to security, the longer it is exposed by performing (V)OPRF operations on client inputs, the longer it is possible that the key can be compromised. For example,if the key is kept in circulation for a long period of time, then it also allows the clients to make enough queries to launch more powerful variants of the Q-sDH attacks from Section 5.2.3.¶
To combat attacks of this nature, regular key rotation should be employed on the server-side. A suitable key-cycle for a key used to compute (V)OPRF evaluations would be between one week and six months.¶
Let H refer to the function GG.HashToGroup, in Section 2.1 we assume
that the client-side blinding is carried out directly on the output of
H(x), i.e. computing r * H(x) for some r <-$ GF(p). In the
[I-D.irtf-cfrg-opaque] document, it is noted that it may be more efficient to use
additive blinding (rather than multiplicative) if the client can
preprocess some values. For example, a valid way of computing additive
blinding would be to instead compute H(x) + (r * G), where G is the
fixed generator for the group GG.¶
The advantage of additive blinding is that it allows the client to
pre-process tables of blinded scalar multiplications for G. This may
give it a computational efficiency advantage (due to the fact that a
fixed-base multiplication can be calculated faster than a variable-base
multiplication). Pre-processing also reduces the amount of computation
that needs to be done in the online exchange. Choosing one of these
values r * G (where r is the scalar value that is used), then
computing H(x) + (r * G) is more efficient than computing r * H(x).
Therefore, it may be advantageous to define the OPRF and VOPRF protocols
using additive blinding (rather than multiplicative) blinding. In fact,
the only algorithms that need to change are Blind and Unblind (and
similarly for the VOPRF variants).¶
We define the variants of the algorithms in Section 3.4 for performing
additive blinding below, along with a new algorithm Preprocess. The
Preprocess algorithm can take place offline and before the rest of the
OPRF protocol. The Blind algorithm takes the preprocessed values as
inputs, but the signature of Unblind remains the same.¶
struct {
Scalar blind;
SerializedElement blindedGenerator;
SerializedElement blindedPublicKey;
} PreprocessedBlind;
¶
Input:
PublicKey pkS
Output:
PrepocessedBlind preproc
def Preprocess(pkS):
PK = GG.Deserialize(pkS)
r = GG.RandomScalar()
blindedGenerator = GG.Serialize(ScalarBaseMult(r))
blindedPublicKey = GG.Serialize(r * PK)
preproc = PrepocessedBlind{
blind: r,
blindedGenerator: blindedGenerator,
blindedPublicKey: blindedPublicKey,
}
return preproc
¶
Input:
ClientInput input
PreprocessedBlind preproc
Output:
Token token
SerializedElement blindToken
def Blind(input, preproc):
Q = GG.Deserialize(preproc.blindedGenerator) /* Q = ScalarBaseMult(r) */
P = GG.HashToGroup(input)
token = Token{
data: input,
blind: preproc.blindedPublicKey
}
blindToken = GG.Serialize(P + Q) /* P + ScalarBaseMult(r) */
return (token, blindToken)
¶
Input: Token token Evaluation ev SerializedElement blindToken Output: SerializedElement unblinded def Unblind(token, ev, blindToken): PKR = GG.Deserialize(token.blind) Z = GG.Deserialize(ev.element) N := Z - PKR issuedToken = GG.Serialize(N) return issuedToken¶
Let P = GG.HashToGroup(x). Notice that Unblind computes:¶
Z - PKR = k * (P + r * G) - r * pkS
= k * P + k * (r * G) - r * (k * G)
= k * P
¶
by the commutativity of scalar multiplication in GG. This is the same
output as in the Unblind algorithm for multiplicative blinding.¶
Note that the verifiable variant of Unblind works as above but
includes the step to VerifyProof, as specified in
Section 3.4.4.¶
For some applications, it may be desirable for server to bind tokens to certain parameters, e.g., protocol versions, ciphersuites, etc. To accomplish this, server should use a distinct scalar for each parameter combination. Upon redemption of a token T from the client, server can later verify that T was generated using the scalar associated with the corresponding parameters.¶
This document resulted from the work of the Privacy Pass team [PrivacyPass]. The authors would also like to acknowledge the helpful conversations with Hugo Krawczyk. Eli-Shaoul Khedouri provided additional review and comments on key consistency.¶