Group Signature Management with Consensus Circuit

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing digital signature schemes lack effective mechanisms for consensus-based group signature management, where group members' identities and signing privileges are not adequately controlled, leading to potential misuse of group public keys without sufficient consensus among members.

Innovation Solution

Implementing a group consensus system that utilizes a network interface circuit and consensus circuit to manage group signatures, where a group manager sets rules for consensus, and a consensus circuit analyzes data to determine category and applies rules based on sender identities, ensuring only authorized members can use the group public key, with cooperation from a Digital Certificate authority for revoking revoked members.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If traditional digital signature schemes are used, then individual signing capability is achieved, but group consensus control and identity management are lacking

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvegroup signature management capabilityVSAvoidsystem structure

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the signing function by introducing a group manager who controls group public key generation and a consensus mechanism that requires multiple member signatures. This segmentation allows group-level control while maintaining individual signing capabilities, resolving the contradiction between traditional individual signatures and group consensus management.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The group manager acts as an intermediary between individual members and the verification system. The group manager generates group public keys and manages member identities, enabling group signature functionality without requiring each member to directly manage group-level security, thus adding adaptability while controlling complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If group public key is made accessible to all members, then signing flexibility is improved, but security control and authorization management deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesigning flexibilityVSAvoidsecurity control

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by having the group manager generate group public keys before members use them for signing. The group manager pre-establishes authorization rules and manages the group signature parameters, ensuring security control is in place before any member can sign, thus maintaining both flexibility and security.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The verification process provides feedback by checking both the group public key and individual member signatures. The system verifies that the signature was created by an authorized group member using the group public key, ensuring that signing flexibility does not compromise security control through proper authorization verification.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Loss of information

If individual signer identities are kept anonymous, then privacy protection is improved, but traceability and accountability deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveidentity privacyVSAvoidtraceability

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies local quality by providing different levels of identity disclosure for different verification needs. For general verification, only group-level anonymity is provided. For administrative or audit purposes, the group manager can reveal individual signer identities. This localized approach to identity disclosure maintains privacy where needed while enabling traceability when required.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

4Reliability

If consensus requirements are made strict, then security and authorization control are improved, but operational efficiency and signing speed deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveauthorization controlVSAvoidsigning efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial action by requiring only a threshold number of member signatures rather than unanimous consent. This partial consensus approach provides sufficient authorization control to prevent misuse while avoiding the inefficiency of requiring all members to sign, thus balancing security with operational efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS12028463B1Systems and methods of group signature management with consensus

Publication Date: 2024.07.02 WELLS FARGO BANK NA

AI summary

Systems and methods are described for leveraging group signature technology to allow a group manager to set up rules that govern what requires consensus between members of the group. Consensus may require a plurality or a majority of signers using their individual private keys to use a group public key associated with the group. Group membership with group signatures allow for one group public key and a plurality of private keys, where each private key is associated with a group member.