2
$\begingroup$

Can someone explain to me, why Zero-Knowledge-Protocols are used instead of letting the person sign a random string and then verify the signature?

Doesn't Fiat-Shamir need even more processing-power than RSA with swapped private and public keys? (RSA can be used as signature-method by "encrypting" with the private key and "decrypting" with the public key, can't it?)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

In Zero knowledge protocols , the verifier trying to verify the validity of the prover's arguments or parameters. So according to the theory , the verifier doesn't know anything about the prover in the beginning and gain knowledge when the testing process goes along. This is a statistical approach and probability of the "truth" increases when you do more tests.

Contrary , if you using a PSK system, you have the knowledge about the prover and verification process is one time and binary(either true or false).

Yes the Zero-knowledge protocols requires more processing power and consume more time.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ But if you add a nonce to the proof and create a 1-time use signature then what useful information have you given up as a prover? $\endgroup$
    – NickJ
    Commented Apr 2, 2023 at 23:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.