Timeline for Is it safe to "sign" a message with such a zk proof
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14 at 21:11 | comment | added | Geoffroy Couteau | A digital signature is publicly verifiable. Since your scheme is not publicly verifiable, it cannot be considered a signature protocol. | |
| Dec 20, 2023 at 15:04 | comment | added | Makubu | No you can't but in this case I want to use the ZKP to: (1) prove that the MAC is correct and corresponds to a certain private key. (2) Ensure some properties associated with this private key, e.g. if I prove in the same ZKP that sk corresponds to a known public key pk, then could it be considered as a signature protocol ? | |
| Dec 20, 2023 at 13:16 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | Well, it is a MAC as you cannot use $\mathit{pk}$ to verify, right? Sometimes MAC's are considered "symmetric signatures". Note that I didn't go into the ZK-proof part at all, maybe that's required and in that case somebody should come by and pinch me for getting it wrong... | |
| Dec 20, 2023 at 10:55 | comment | added | Makubu | Thanks for the answer, so the protocol I described can in deed be considered as a signature protocol ? | |
| Dec 19, 2023 at 17:29 | history | answered | Maarten Bodewes♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |