Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Advanced materials research

Analysis on Security Proof of Two Key Agreement Protocols

Hui Hua Zhou, Ming Hui Zheng

Published Jan 1, 2011• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Recently, Tseng proposed two group key agreement protocols which are claimed to be provably secure against passive attackers and impersonation attacks over authenticated channel. In each of these works, a security proof of the proposed protocol was presented. In this paper, we revisit Tseng’s security proof and show that the reduction in the proof is invalid. As the replacement, we give a new security proof.

DOI
10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.186.531

Related papers

On Security Proof of McCullagh-Barreto's Key Agreement Protocol and its Variants.

Zhaohui Cheng, Liqun Chen

McCullagh and Barreto presented an identity-based authenticated key agreement protocol in CT-RSA 2005. Their protocol was found to be vulnerable to a key-compromise impersonation attack. In order to recover the weakness, McCullagh and Barreto, and Xie proposed two variants of the protocol respectively. In each of these works, a security proof of the proposed protocol was presented. In this paper, we revisit these three security proofs and show that all the reductions in these proofs are invalid, because the property of indistinguishability between their simulation and the real world was not held. As a replacement, we slightly modify the McCullagh and Barreto’s second protocol and then formally analyse the security of the modified scheme in the Bellare-Rogaway key agreement model.

•Jan 1, 2005•12 citations

On security proof of McCullagh Barreto's key agreement protocol and its variants

Zhaohui Cheng, Liqun Chen

McCullagh and Barreto presented an identity-based authenticated key agreement protocol in CT-RSA 2005. Their protocol was found to be vulnerable to a key-compromise impersonation attack. In order to recover the weakness, McCullagh and Barreto and Xie proposed two variants of the protocol respectively. In each of these works, a security proof of the proposed protocol was presented. In this paper, we revisit these three security proofs and show that all the reductions in these proofs are invalid, because the property of indistinguishability between their simulation and the real world was not held. As a replacement, we slightly modify the McCullagh and Barreto's second protocol and then formally analyse the security of the modified scheme in the BellareRogaway key agreement model.

International Journal of Security and Networks•Jan 1, 2007•34 citations

Cryptanalysis and improvement of two certificateless three-party authenticated key agreement protocols

Haiyan Sun, Qiaoyan Wen, Hua Zhang +2 more

Recently, two certificateless three-party authenticated key agreement protocols were proposed, and both protocols were claimed they can meet the desirable security properties including forward security, key compromise impersonation resistance and so on. Through cryptanalysis, we show that one neither meets forward security and key compromise impersonation resistance nor resists an attack by an adversary who knows all users' secret values, and the other cannot resist key compromise impersonation attack. Finally, we propose improved protocols to make up two original protocols' security weaknesses, respectively. Further security analysis shows that our improved protocols can remove such security weaknesses.

arXiv:1301.5091•Jan 22, 2013•2 citations

Security analysis of authenticated key agreement protocols and digital signature schemes

Peter Nose

Key agreement and digital signature are two significant and most useful contributions of modern cryptography. Such protocols and schemes allow two or more parties to establish a common session key securely in the presence of a malicious adversary and provide means of ensuring data origin authentication, data integrity and non-repudiation. Thus, secure key agreement protocols and signature schemes are fundamental building blocks for constructing complex higher-level protocols. In this thesis, we deal with security analysis of existing key agreement protocols and digital signature schemes. We examine ten authenticated key agreement protocols without key confirmation, out of which half are two-party and the other half are three-party, and one deterministic identity-based aggregate signature scheme. By giving concrete attacks, we show that these protocols and the scheme do not possess the desirable security attributes or security attributes claimed by their authors. We also present a secure deterministic identity-based signature scheme that supports partial aggregation. First, we show that Okamoto's and Chen et al.’s protocol cannot withstand the key-compromise impersonation attack and that Tan et al.’s, Lim et al.’s and two protocols of Holbl et al. are insecure against the impersonation attack and the man-in-the-middle attack. Next, we prove that one protocol of Holbl et al. is vulnerable to the insider attack, one to the unknown key-share attack, one protocol allows an adversary to compute the private key of any user and one protocol allows her to compute the shared session key. We also show that Selvi et. al.'s deterministic identity-based aggregate signature scheme is universally forgeable, i.e., anyone is able to easily generate valid signatures on any messages of his choice having on average twelve genuine digital signatures. In the end, we introduce a new deterministic identity-based signature scheme and formally prove its security in the random oracle model. The scheme is a major improvement of the signature scheme proposed by Selvi et. al. and offers the same tight security reduction to the underlying gap Diffie-Hellman problem. Because the newly proposed scheme is deterministic it allows partial aggregation, i.e., all the signatures from the same signer can be aggregated into one single short signature.

•Mar 17, 2014•0 citations

Analysis and improvement certificateless authenticated key agreement protocol

Jian Shu

This paper studied two-party authenticated agreement protocol in the certificateless public setting.Analyzed the security of Liu-xu's certificateless authenticated two-party key agreement protocol,and it was shown that the scheme did not achieve strong security.The scheme was vulnerable to key compromise impersonation attack and leakage of ephemeral secrets attack.The reason why the attack can work was analyzed and proposed an improved scheme to remove the attack.It is not hard to devise certificateless authenticated two-party key agreement protocols that look secure,but making the proofs word is not always so simple.

Jisuanji yingyong yanjiu•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations

Enhancement of an Authenticated 3-round Identity-Based Group Key Agreement Protocol

Wei Yuan, Liang Qing Hu, Hongtu Li +2 more

In 2008, Gang Yao et al. proposed an authenticated 3-round identity-based group key agreement protocol, which is based on Burmester and Desmedt’s protocol proposed at Eurocrypt 94. However, their protocol can only prevent passive attack. If the active attack is allowed, the protocol is vulnerable and an internal attacker can forge her neighbor’s keying material. It is obvious that the protocol do not achieve the aim of authentication. In this paper, we discuss the flaws to attack this protocol and propose an enhanced provably-secure protocol based on their protocol. At last, we make a detailed security analysis of our enhanced authenticated identity-based group key agreement protocol.

Journal of Networks•Oct 19, 2011•0 citations
Recently, Tseng proposed two group key agreement protocols which are claimed to be provably secure against passive attackers and impersonation attacks over authenticated channel. In each of these works, a security proof of the proposed protocol was presented. In this paper, we revisit Tseng’s security proof and show that the reduction in the proof is invalid. As the replacement, we give a new security proof.
McCullagh and Barreto presented an identity-based authenticated key agreement protocol in CT-RSA 2005. Their protocol was found to be vulnerable to a key-compromise impersonation attack. In order to recover the weakness, McCullagh and Barreto, and Xie proposed two variants of the protocol respectively. In each of these works, a security proof of the proposed protocol was presented. In this paper, we revisit these three security proofs and show that all the reductions in these proofs are invalid, because the property of indistinguishability between their simulation and the real world was not held. As a replacement, we slightly modify the McCullagh and Barreto’s second protocol and then formally analyse the security of the modified scheme in the Bellare-Rogaway key agreement model.
McCullagh and Barreto presented an identity-based authenticated key agreement protocol in CT-RSA 2005. Their protocol was found to be vulnerable to a key-compromise impersonation attack. In order to recover the weakness, McCullagh and Barreto and Xie proposed two variants of the protocol respectively. In each of these works, a security proof of the proposed protocol was presented. In this paper, we revisit these three security proofs and show that all the reductions in these proofs are invalid, because the property of indistinguishability between their simulation and the real world was not held. As a replacement, we slightly modify the McCullagh and Barreto's second protocol and then formally analyse the security of the modified scheme in the BellareRogaway key agreement model.
Recently, two certificateless three-party authenticated key agreement protocols were proposed, and both protocols were claimed they can meet the desirable security properties including forward security, key compromise impersonation resistance and so on. Through cryptanalysis, we show that one neither meets forward security and key compromise impersonation resistance nor resists an attack by an adversary who knows all users' secret values, and the other cannot resist key compromise impersonation attack. Finally, we propose improved protocols to make up two original protocols' security weaknesses, respectively. Further security analysis shows that our improved protocols can remove such security weaknesses.
Key agreement and digital signature are two significant and most useful contributions of modern cryptography. Such protocols and schemes allow two or more parties to establish a common session key securely in the presence of a malicious adversary and provide means of ensuring data origin authentication, data integrity and non-repudiation. Thus, secure key agreement protocols and signature schemes are fundamental building blocks for constructing complex higher-level protocols. In this thesis, we deal with security analysis of existing key agreement protocols and digital signature schemes. We examine ten authenticated key agreement protocols without key confirmation, out of which half are two-party and the other half are three-party, and one deterministic identity-based aggregate signature scheme. By giving concrete attacks, we show that these protocols and the scheme do not possess the desirable security attributes or security attributes claimed by their authors. We also present a secure deterministic identity-based signature scheme that supports partial aggregation. First, we show that Okamoto's and Chen et al.’s protocol cannot withstand the key-compromise impersonation attack and that Tan et al.’s, Lim et al.’s and two protocols of Holbl et al. are insecure against the impersonation attack and the man-in-the-middle attack. Next, we prove that one protocol of Holbl et al. is vulnerable to the insider attack, one to the unknown key-share attack, one protocol allows an adversary to compute the private key of any user and one protocol allows her to compute the shared session key. We also show that Selvi et. al.'s deterministic identity-based aggregate signature scheme is universally forgeable, i.e., anyone is able to easily generate valid signatures on any messages of his choice having on average twelve genuine digital signatures. In the end, we introduce a new deterministic identity-based signature scheme and formally prove its security in the random oracle model. The scheme is a major improvement of the signature scheme proposed by Selvi et. al. and offers the same tight security reduction to the underlying gap Diffie-Hellman problem. Because the newly proposed scheme is deterministic it allows partial aggregation, i.e., all the signatures from the same signer can be aggregated into one single short signature.
This paper studied two-party authenticated agreement protocol in the certificateless public setting.Analyzed the security of Liu-xu's certificateless authenticated two-party key agreement protocol,and it was shown that the scheme did not achieve strong security.The scheme was vulnerable to key compromise impersonation attack and leakage of ephemeral secrets attack.The reason why the attack can work was analyzed and proposed an improved scheme to remove the attack.It is not hard to devise certificateless authenticated two-party key agreement protocols that look secure,but making the proofs word is not always so simple.
In 2008, Gang Yao et al. proposed an authenticated 3-round identity-based group key agreement protocol, which is based on Burmester and Desmedt’s protocol proposed at Eurocrypt 94. However, their protocol can only prevent passive attack. If the active attack is allowed, the protocol is vulnerable and an internal attacker can forge her neighbor’s keying material. It is obvious that the protocol do not achieve the aim of authentication. In this paper, we discuss the flaws to attack this protocol and propose an enhanced provably-secure protocol based on their protocol. At last, we make a detailed security analysis of our enhanced authenticated identity-based group key agreement protocol.