XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures
draftirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document  Type 
This is an older version of an InternetDraft that was ultimately published as RFC 8391.



Authors  Andreas Huelsing , Denis Butin , StefanLukas Gazdag , Aziz Mohaisen  
Last updated  20170330  
Replaces  drafthuelsingcfrghashsigxmss  
RFC stream  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)  
Formats  
IETF conflict review  conflictreviewirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures, conflictreviewirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures, conflictreviewirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures, conflictreviewirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures, conflictreviewirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures, conflictreviewirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures  
Additional resources  Mailing list discussion  
Stream  IRTF state  Waiting for IRTF Chair  
Consensus boilerplate  Yes  
Document shepherd  (None)  
IESG  IESG state  ID Exists  
Telechat date  (None)  
Responsible AD  (None)  
Send notices to  (None) 
draftirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures09
Crypto Forum Research Group A. Huelsing InternetDraft TU Eindhoven Intended status: Informational D. Butin Expires: October 1, 2017 TU Darmstadt S. Gazdag genua GmbH A. Mohaisen SUNY Buffalo March 30, 2017 XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures draftirtfcfrgxmsshashbasedsignatures09 Abstract This note describes the eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme (XMSS), a hashbased digital signature system. It follows existing descriptions in scientific literature. The note specifies the WOTS+ onetime signature scheme, a singletree (XMSS) and a multitree variant (XMSS^MT) of XMSS. Both variants use WOTS+ as a main building block. XMSS provides cryptographic digital signatures without relying on the conjectured hardness of mathematical problems. Instead, it is proven that it only relies on the properties of cryptographic hash functions. XMSS provides strong security guarantees and is even secure when the collision resistance of the underlying hash function is broken. It is suitable for compact implementations, relatively simple to implement, and naturally resists sidechannel attacks. Unlike most other signature systems, hashbased signatures can withstand attacks using quantum computers. Status of This Memo This InternetDraft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. InternetDrafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as InternetDrafts. The list of current Internet Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. InternetDrafts 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 InternetDrafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This InternetDraft will expire on October 1, 2017. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 1] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/licenseinfo) 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. CFRG Note on PostQuantum Cryptography . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Integer to Byte Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. Hash Function Address Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6. Strings of Base w Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.7. Member Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1. WOTS+ OneTime Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.1. WOTS+ Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.1.1. WOTS+ Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.2. WOTS+ Chaining Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.3. WOTS+ Private Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.1.4. WOTS+ Public Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.5. WOTS+ Signature Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.6. WOTS+ Signature Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1.7. Pseudorandom Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4. Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1. XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1.1. XMSS Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.2. XMSS Hash Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.3. XMSS Private Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1.4. Randomized Tree Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1.5. LTrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.1.6. TreeHash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.1.7. XMSS Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.1.8. XMSS Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 2] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 4.1.9. XMSS Signature Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.1.10. XMSS Signature Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.1.11. Pseudorandom Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.1.12. Free Index Handling and Partial Private Keys . . . . 30 4.2. XMSS^MT: MultiTree XMSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.1. XMSS^MT Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.2. XMSS^MT Key generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.3. XMSS^MT Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2.4. XMSS^MT Signature Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.5. XMSS^MT Signature Verification . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.2.6. Pseudorandom Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2.7. Free Index Handling and Partial Private Keys . . . . 38 5. Parameter Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.1. WOTS+ Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.2. XMSS Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.3. XMSS^MT Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 8.1. Security Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 8.2. Minimal Security Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 8.3. PostQuantum Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix A. WOTS+ XDR Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendix B. XMSS XDR Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix C. XMSS^MT XDR Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 1. Introduction A (cryptographic) digital signature scheme provides asymmetric message authentication. The key generation algorithm produces a key pair consisting of a private and a public key. A message is signed using a private key to produce a signature. A message/signature pair can be verified using a public key. A OneTime Signature (OTS) scheme allows using a key pair to sign exactly one message securely. A ManyTime Signature (MTS) system can be used to sign multiple messages. OTS schemes, and MTS schemes composed from them, were proposed by Merkle in 1979 [Merkle79]. They were wellstudied in the 1990s and have regained interest from the mid 2000s onwards because of their resistance against quantumcomputeraided attacks. These kinds of signature schemes are called hashbased signature schemes as they are built out of a cryptographic hash function. Hashbased signature Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 3] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 schemes generally feature small private and public keys as well as fast signature generation and verification but large signatures and relatively slow key generation. In addition, they are suitable for compact implementations that benefit various applications and are naturally resistant to most kinds of sidechannel attacks. Some progress has already been made toward introducing and standardizing hashbased signatures. McGrew, Curcio, and Fluhrer have published an InternetDraft [MCF17] specifying the Lamport DiffieWinternitzMerkle (LDWM) scheme, also taking into account subsequent adaptations by Leighton and Micali. Independently, Buchmann, Dahmen and Huelsing have proposed XMSS [BDH11], the eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme, offering better efficiency and a modern security proof. Very recently, the stateless hashbased signature scheme SPHINCS was introduced [BHH15], with the intent of being easier to deploy in current applications. A reasonable next step toward introducing hashbased signatures is to complete the specifications of the basic algorithms  LDWM, XMSS, SPHINCS and/or variants [Kaliski15]. The eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme (XMSS) [BDH11] is the latest stateful hashbased signature scheme. It has the smallest signatures out of such schemes and comes with a multitree variant that solves the problem of slow key generation. Moreover, it can be shown that XMSS is secure, making only mild assumptions on the underlying hash function. Especially, it is not required that the cryptographic hash function is collisionresistant for the security of XMSS. Improvements upon XMSS, as described in [HRS16], are part of this note. This document describes a singletree and a multitree variant of XMSS. It also describes WOTS+, a variant of the Winternitz OTS scheme introduced in [Huelsing13] that is used by XMSS. The schemes are described with enough specificity to ensure interoperability between implementations. This document is structured as follows. Notation is introduced in Section 2. Section 3 describes the WOTS+ signature system. MTS schemes are defined in Section 4: the eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme (XMSS) in Section 4.1, and its MultiTree variant (XMSS^MT) in Section 4.2. Parameter sets are described in Section 5. Section 6 describes the rationale behind choices in this note. The IANA registry for these signature systems is described in Section 7. Finally, security considerations are presented in Section 8. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 4] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 1.1. CFRG Note on PostQuantum Cryptography All postquantum algorithms documented by CFRG are today considered ready for experimentation and further engineering development (e.g. to establish the impact of performance and sizes on IETF protocols). However, at the time of writing, we do not have significant deployment experience with such algorithms. Many of these algorithms come with specific restrictions, e.g. change of classical interface or less cryptanalysis of proposed parameters than established schemes. CFRG has consensus that all documents describing postquantum technologies include the above paragraph and a clear additional warning about any specific restrictions, especially as those might affect use or deployment of the specific scheme. That guidance may be changed over time via document updates. Additionally, for XMSS: CFRG consensus is that we are confident in the cryptographic security of the signature schemes described in this document against quantum computers, given the current state of the research community's knowledge about quantum algorithms. Indeed, we are confident that the security of a significant part of the Internet could be made dependent on the signature schemes defined in this document, if developers take care of the following. In contrast to traditional signature schemes, the signature schemes described in this document are stateful, meaning the secret key changes over time. If a secret key state is used twice, no cryptographic security guarantees remain. This is a new property that most developers will not be familiar with and requires careful handling of secret keys. Developers should not use the schemes described here except in systems that prevent the reuse of secret key states. 1.2. Conventions Used In This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Notation Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 5] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 2.1. Data Types Bytes and byte strings are the fundamental data types. A byte is a sequence of eight bits. A single byte is denoted as a pair of hexadecimal digits with a leading "0x". A byte string is an ordered sequence of zero or more bytes and is denoted as an ordered sequence of hexadecimal characters with a leading "0x". For example, 0xe534f0 is a byte string of length 3. An array of byte strings is an ordered, indexed set starting with index 0 in which all byte strings have identical length. We assume bigendian representation for any data types or structures. 2.2. Functions If x is a nonnegative real number, then we define the following functions: ceil(x) : returns the smallest integer greater than or equal to x. floor(x) : returns the largest integer less than or equal to x. lg(x) : returns the logarithm to base 2 of x. 2.3. Operators When a and b are integers, mathematical operators are defined as follows: ^ : a ^ b denotes the result of a raised to the power of b. * : a * b denotes the product of a and b. This operator is sometimes omitted in the absence of ambiguity, as in usual mathematical notation. / : a / b denotes the quotient of a by nonzero b. % : a % b denotes the nonnegative remainder of the integer division of a by b. + : a + b denotes the sum of a and b.  : a  b denotes the difference of a and b. ++ : a++ denotes incrementing a by 1, i.e., a = a + 1.  : a denotes decrementing a by 1, i.e., a = a  1. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 6] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 << : a << b denotes a logical left shift with b being non negative, i.e., a * 2^b. >> : a >> b denotes a logical right shift with b being non negative, i.e. floor(a / 2^b). The standard order of operations is used when evaluating arithmetic expressions. Arrays are used in the common way, where the i^th element of an array A is denoted A[i]. Byte strings are treated as arrays of bytes where necessary: If X is a byte string, then X[i] denotes its i^th byte, where X[0] is the leftmost byte. If A and B are byte strings of equal length, then: A AND B denotes the bitwise logical conjunction operation. A XOR B denotes the bitwise logical exclusive disjunction operation. When B is a byte and i is an integer, then B >> i denotes the logical rightshift operation. Similarly, B << i denotes the logical left shift operation. If X is an xbyte string and Y a ybyte string, then X  Y denotes the concatenation of X and Y, with X  Y = X[0] ... X[x1] Y[0] ... Y[y1]. 2.4. Integer to Byte Conversion If x and y are nonnegative integers, we define Z = toByte(x, y) to be the ybyte string containing the binary representation of x in bigendian byteorder. 2.5. Hash Function Address Scheme The schemes described in this document randomize each hash function call. This means that aside from the initial message digest, for each hash function call a different key and different bitmask is used. These values are pseudorandomly generated using a pseudorandom function that takes a key SEED and a 32byte address ADRS as input and outputs an nbyte value, where n is the security parameter. Here we explain the structure of address ADRS and propose setter methods to manipulate the address. We explain the generation of the addresses in the following sections where they are used. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 7] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 The schemes in the next two sections use two kinds of hash functions parameterized by security parameter n. For the hash tree constructions, a hash function that maps an nbyte key and 2nbyte inputs to nbyte outputs is used. To randomize this function, 3n bytes are needed  n bytes for the key and 2n bytes for a bitmask. For the OTS scheme constructions, a hash function that maps nbyte keys and nbyte inputs to nbyte outputs is used. To randomize this function, 2n bytes are needed  n bytes for the key and n bytes for a bitmask. Consequently, three addresses are needed for the first function and two addresses for the second one. There are three different types of addresses for the different use cases. One type is used for the hashes in OTS schemes, one is used for hashes within the main Merkle tree construction, and one is used for hashes in the Ltrees. The latter is used to compress onetime public keys. All these types share as much format as possible. In the following we describe these types in detail. The structure of an address complies with word borders, with a word being 32 bits long in this context. Only the tree address is too long to fit a single word but matches a double word. An address is structured as follows. It always starts with a layer address of one word in the most significant bits, followed by a tree address of two words. Both addresses are needed for the multitree variant (see Section 4.2) and describe the position of a tree within a multitree. They are therefore set to zero in case of singletree applications. For multitree hashbased signatures the layer address describes the height of a tree within the multitree starting from height zero for trees at the bottom layer. The tree address describes the position of a tree within a layer of a multitree starting with index zero for the leftmost tree. The next word defines the type of the address. It is set to 0 for an OTS address, to 1 for an Ltree address, and to 2 for a hash tree address. Whenever the type word of an address is changed, all following words should be initialized with 0 to prevent nonzero values in unused padding words. We first describe the OTS address case. In this case, the type word is followed by an OTS address word that encodes the index of the OTS key pair within the tree. The next word encodes the chain address followed by a word that encodes the address of the hash function call within the chain. The last word, called keyAndMask, is used to generate two different addresses for one hash function call. The word is set to zero to generate the key. To generate the nbyte bitmask, the word is set to one. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 8] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 An OTS hash address ++  layer address (32 bit) ++  tree address (64 bit) ++  type = 0 (32 bit) ++  OTS address (32 bit) ++  chain address (32 bit) ++  hash address (32 bit) ++  keyAndMask (32 bit) ++ We now discuss the Ltree case, which means that the type word is set to one. In that case the type word is followed by an Ltree address word that encodes the index of the leaf computed with this Ltree. The next word encodes the height of the node inside the Ltree and the following word encodes the index of the node at that height, inside the Ltree. This time, the last word, keyAndMask, is used to generate three different addresses for one function call. The word is set to zero to generate the key. To generate the most significant n bytes of the 2nbyte bitmask, the word is set to one. The least significant bytes are generated using the address with the word set to two. An Ltree address ++  layer address (32 bit) ++  tree address (64 bit) ++  type = 1 (32 bit) ++  Ltree address (32 bit) ++  tree height (32 bit) ++  tree index (32 bit) ++  keyAndMask (32 bit) ++ We now describe the remaining type for the main tree hash addresses. In this case the type word is set to two, followed by a zero padding Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 9] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 of one word. The next word encodes the height of the tree node being input for the next computation, followed by a word that encodes the index of this node at that height. As for the Ltree addresses, the last word, keyAndMask, is used to generate three different addresses for one function call. The word is set to zero to generate the key. To generate the most significant n bytes of the 2nbyte bitmask, the word is set to one. The least significant bytes are generated using the address with the word set to two. A hash tree address ++  layer address (32 bit) ++  tree address (64 bit) ++  type = 2 (32 bit) ++  Padding = 0 (32 bit) ++  tree height (32 bit) ++  tree index (32 bit) ++  keyAndMask (32 bit) ++ All fields within these addresses encode unsigned integers. When describing the generation of addresses we use setter methods that take positive integers and set the bits of a field to the binary representation of that integer of the length of the field. We furthermore assume that the setType() method sets the four words following the type word to zero. 2.6. Strings of Base w Numbers A byte string can be considered as a string of base w numbers, i.e. integers in the set {0, ... , w  1}. The correspondence is defined by the function base_w(X, w, out_len) as follows. If X is a len_X byte string, and w is a member of the set {4, 16}, then base_w(X, w, out_len) outputs an array of out_len integers between 0 and w  1. The length out_len is REQUIRED to be less than or equal to 8 * len_X / lg(w). Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 10] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Algorithm 1: base_w Input: len_Xbyte string X, int w, output length out_len Output: out_len int array basew int in = 0; int out = 0; unsigned int total = 0; int bits = 0; int consumed; for ( consumed = 0; consumed < out_len; consumed++ ) { if ( bits == 0 ) { total = X[in]; in++; bits += 8; } bits = lg(w); basew[out] = (total >> bits) AND (w  1); out++; } return basew; For example, if X is the (bigendian) byte string 0x1234, then base_w(X, 16, 4) returns the array a = {1, 2, 3, 4}. X (represented as bits) +++++++++++++++++  0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 +++++++++++++++++ X[0]  X[1] X (represented as base 16 numbers) +++++  1  2  3  4  +++++ base_w(X, 16, 4) +++++  1  2  3  4  +++++ a[0] a[1] a[2] a[3] 2.7. Member Functions To simplify algorithm descriptions, we assume the existence of member functions. If a complex data structure like a public key PK contains a value X then getX(PK) returns the value of X for this public key. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 11] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Accordingly, setX(PK, X, Y) sets value X in PK to the value held by Y. Since camelCase is used for member function names, a value z may be referred to as Z in the function name, e.g. getZ. 3. Primitives 3.1. WOTS+ OneTime Signatures This section describes the WOTS+ OTS system, in a version similar to [Huelsing13]. WOTS+ is a OTS scheme; while a private key can be used to sign any message, each private key MUST be used only once to sign a single message. In particular, if a private key is used to sign two different messages, the scheme becomes insecure. The section starts with an explanation of parameters. Afterwards, the socalled chaining function, which forms the main building block of the WOTS+ scheme, is explained. A description of the algorithms for key generation, signing and verification follows. Finally, pseudorandom key generation is discussed. 3.1.1. WOTS+ Parameters WOTS+ uses the parameters n, and w; they all take positive integer values. These parameters are summarized as follows: n : the message length as well as the length of a private key, public key, or signature element in bytes. w : the Winternitz parameter; it is a member of the set {4, 16}. The parameters are used to compute values len, len_1 and len_2: len : the number of nbyte string elements in a WOTS+ private key, public key, and signature. It is computed as len = len_1 + len_2, with len_1 = ceil(8n / lg(w)) and len_2 = floor(lg(len_1 * (w  1)) / lg(w)) + 1. The value of n is determined by the cryptographic hash function used for WOTS+. The hash function is chosen to ensure an appropriate level of security. The value of n is the input length that can be processed by the signing algorithm. It is often the length of a message digest. The parameter w can be chosen from the set {4, 16}. A larger value of w results in shorter signatures but slower overall signing operations; it has little effect on security. Choices of w are limited to the values 4 and 16 since these values yield optimal tradeoffs and easy implementation. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 12] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 WOTS+ parameters are implicitly included in algorithm inputs as needed. 3.1.1.1. WOTS+ Functions The WOTS+ algorithm uses a keyed cryptographic hash function F. F accepts and returns byte strings of length n using keys of length n. More detail on specific instantiations can be found in Section 5. Security requirements on F are discussed in Section 8. In addition, WOTS+ uses a pseudorandom function PRF. PRF takes as input an nbyte key and a 32byte index and generates pseudorandom outputs of length n. More detail on specific instantiations can be found in Section 5. Security requirements on PRF are discussed in Section 8. 3.1.2. WOTS+ Chaining Function The chaining function (Algorithm 2) computes an iteration of F on an nbyte input using outputs of PRF. It takes an OTS hash address as input. This address will have the first six 32bit words set to encode the address of this chain. In each iteration, PRF is used to generate a key for F and a bitmask that is XORed to the intermediate result before it is processed by F. In the following, ADRS is a 32byte OTS hash address as specified in Section 2.5 and SEED is an nbyte string. To generate the keys and bitmasks, PRF is called with SEED as key and ADRS as input. The chaining function takes as input an nbyte string X, a start index i, a number of steps s, as well as ADRS and SEED. The chaining function returns as output the value obtained by iterating F for s times on input X, using the outputs of PRF. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 13] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Algorithm 2: chain  Chaining Function Input: Input string X, start index i, number of steps s, seed SEED, address ADRS Output: value of F iterated s times on X if ( s == 0 ) { return X; } if ( (i + s) > w  1 ) { return NULL; } byte[n] tmp = chain(X, i, s  1, SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setHashAddress(i + s  1); ADRS.setKeyAndMask(0); KEY = PRF(SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setKeyAndMask(1); BM = PRF(SEED, ADRS); tmp = F(KEY, tmp XOR BM); return tmp; 3.1.3. WOTS+ Private Key The private key in WOTS+, denoted by sk (s for secret), is a length len array of nbyte strings. This private key MUST be only used to sign at most one message. Each nbyte string MUST either be selected randomly from the uniform distribution or using a cryptographically secure pseudorandom procedure. In the latter case, the security of the used procedure MUST at least match that of the WOTS+ parameters used. For a further discussion on pseudorandom key generation, see Section 3.1.7. The following pseudocode (Algorithm 3) describes an algorithm for generating sk. Algorithm 3: WOTS_genSK  Generating a WOTS+ Private Key Input: / Output: WOTS+ private key sk for ( i = 0; i < len; i++ ) { initialize sk[i] with a uniformly random nbyte string; } return sk; Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 14] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 3.1.4. WOTS+ Public Key A WOTS+ key pair defines a virtual structure that consists of len hash chains of length w. The len nbyte strings in the private key each define the start node for one hash chain. The public key consists of the end nodes of these hash chains. Therefore, like the private key, the public key is also a length len array of nbyte strings. To compute the hash chain, the chaining function (Algorithm 2) is used. An OTS hash address ADRS and a seed SEED have to be provided by the calling algorithm. This address will encode the address of the WOTS+ key pair within a greater structure. Hence, a WOTS+ algorithm MUST NOT manipulate any other parts of ADRS than the last three 32bit words. Please note that the SEED used here is public information also available to a verifier. The following pseudocode (Algorithm 4) describes an algorithm for generating the public key pk, where sk is the private key. Algorithm 4: WOTS_genPK  Generating a WOTS+ Public Key From a Private Key Input: WOTS+ private key sk, address ADRS, seed SEED Output: WOTS+ public key pk for ( i = 0; i < len; i++ ) { ADRS.setChainAddress(i); pk[i] = chain(sk[i], 0, w  1, SEED, ADRS); } return pk; 3.1.5. WOTS+ Signature Generation A WOTS+ signature is a length len array of nbyte strings. The WOTS+ signature is generated by mapping a message to len integers between 0 and w  1. To this end, the message is transformed into len_1 base w numbers using the base_w function defined in Section 2.6. Next, a checksum is computed and appended to the transformed message as len_2 base w numbers using the base_w function. Note that the checksum may reach a maximum value of len_1 * (w  1) * 2^8 and therefore depends on the parameters n and w. For the parameter sets given in Section 5 a 32bit unsigned integer is sufficient. If other parameter settings are used the size of the variable MUST be sufficiently large. Each of the base w integers is used to select a node from a different hash chain. The signature is formed by concatenating the selected nodes. An OTS hash address ADRS and a seed SEED have to be provided by the calling algorithm. This address will encode the address of the WOTS+ key pair within a greater structure. Hence, a WOTS+ algorithm MUST NOT manipulate any other parts of ADRS than the last three 32bit words. Please note that the SEED used here is public information Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 15] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 also available to a verifier. The pseudocode for signature generation is shown below (Algorithm 5), where M is the message and sig is the resulting signature. Algorithm 5: WOTS_sign  Generating a signature from a private key and a message Input: Message M, WOTS+ private key sk, address ADRS, seed SEED Output: WOTS+ signature sig csum = 0; // Convert message to base w msg = base_w(M, w, len_1); // Compute checksum for ( i = 0; i < len_1; i++ ) { csum = csum + w  1  msg[i]; } // Convert csum to base w csum = csum << ( 8  ( ( len_2 * lg(w) ) % 8 )); len_2_bytes = ceil( ( len_2 * lg(w) ) / 8 ); msg = msg  base_w(toByte(csum, len_2_bytes), w, len_2); for ( i = 0; i < len; i++ ) { ADRS.setChainAddress(i); sig[i] = chain(sk[i], 0, msg[i], SEED, ADRS); } return sig; The data format for a signature is given below. WOTS+ Signature ++    sig_ots[0]  n bytes   ++   ~ .... ~   ++    sig_ots[len  1]  n bytes   ++ Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 16] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 3.1.6. WOTS+ Signature Verification In order to verify a signature sig on a message M, the verifier computes a WOTS+ public key value from the signature. This can be done by "completing" the chain computations starting from the signature values, using the base w values of the message hash and its checksum. This step, called WOTS_pkFromSig, is described below in Algorithm 6. The result of WOTS_pkFromSig is then compared to the given public key. If the values are equal, the signature is accepted. Otherwise, the signature MUST be rejected. An OTS hash address ADRS and a seed SEED have to be provided by the calling algorithm. This address will encode the address of the WOTS+ key pair within a greater structure. Hence, a WOTS+ algorithm MUST NOT manipulate any other parts of ADRS than the last three 32bit words. Please note that the SEED used here is public information also available to a verifier. Algorithm 6: WOTS_pkFromSig  Computing a WOTS+ public key from a message and its signature Input: Message M, WOTS+ signature sig, address ADRS, seed SEED Output: 'Temporary' WOTS+ public key tmp_pk csum = 0; // Convert message to base w msg = base_w(M, w, len_1); // Compute checksum for ( i = 0; i < len_1; i++ ) { csum = csum + w  1  msg[i]; } // Convert csum to base w csum = csum << ( 8  ( ( len_2 * lg(w) ) % 8 )); len_2_bytes = ceil( ( len_2 * lg(w) ) / 8 ); msg = msg  base_w(toByte(csum, len_2_bytes), w, len_2); for ( i = 0; i < len; i++ ) { ADRS.setChainAddress(i); tmp_pk[i] = chain(sig[i], msg[i], w  1  msg[i], SEED, ADRS); } return tmp_pk; Note: XMSS uses WOTS_pkFromSig to compute a public key value and delays the comparison to a later point. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 17] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 3.1.7. Pseudorandom Key Generation An implementation MAY use a cryptographically secure pseudorandom method to generate the private key from a single nbyte value. For example, the method suggested in [BDH11] and explained below MAY be used. Other methods MAY be used. The choice of a pseudorandom method does not affect interoperability, but the cryptographic strength MUST match that of the used WOTS+ parameters. The advantage of generating the private key elements from a random nbyte string is that only this nbyte string needs to be stored instead of the full private key. The key can be regenerated when needed. The suggested method from [BDH11] can be described using PRF. During key generation a uniformly random nbyte string S is sampled from a secure source of randomness. This string S is stored as private key. The private key elements are computed as sk[i] = PRF(S, toByte(i, 32)) whenever needed. Please note that this seed S MUST be different from the seed SEED used to randomize the hash function calls. Also, this seed S MUST be kept secret. 4. Schemes In this section, the eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme (XMSS) is described using WOTS+. XMSS comes in two flavors: First, a single tree variant (XMSS) and second a multitree variant (XMSS^MT). Both allow combining a large number of WOTS+ key pairs under a single small public key. The main ingredient added is a binary hash tree construction. XMSS uses a single hash tree while XMSS^MT uses a tree of XMSS key pairs. 4.1. XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme XMSS is a method for signing a potentially large but fixed number of messages. It is based on the Merkle signature scheme. XMSS uses four cryptographic components: WOTS+ as OTS method, two additional cryptographic hash functions H and H_msg, and a pseudorandom function PRF. One of the main advantages of XMSS with WOTS+ is that it does not rely on the collision resistance of the used hash functions but on weaker properties. Each XMSS public/private key pair is associated with a perfect binary tree, every node of which contains an nbyte value. Each tree leaf contains a special tree hash of a WOTS+ public key value. Each nonleaf tree node is computed by first concatenating the values of its child nodes, computing the XOR with a bitmask, and applying the keyed hash function H to the result. The bitmasks and the keys for the hash function H are generated from a (public) seed that is part of the public key using the pseudorandom function PRF. The value corresponding to the root of the XMSS tree forms the XMSS public key together with the seed. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 18] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 To generate a key pair that can be used to sign 2^h messages, a tree of height h is used. XMSS is a stateful signature scheme, meaning that the private key changes with every signature generation. To prevent onetime private keys from being used twice, the WOTS+ key pairs are numbered from 0 to (2^h)  1 according to the related leaf, starting from index 0 for the leftmost leaf. The private key contains an index that is updated with every signature generation, such that it contains the index of the next unused WOTS+ key pair. A signature consists of the index of the used WOTS+ key pair, the WOTS+ signature on the message and the socalled authentication path. The latter is a vector of tree nodes that allow a verifier to compute a value for the root of the tree starting from a WOTS+ signature. A verifier computes the root value and compares it to the respective value in the XMSS public key. If they match, the signature is declared valid. The XMSS private key consists of all WOTS+ private keys and the current index. To reduce storage, a pseudorandom key generation procedure, as described in [BDH11], MAY be used. The security of the used method MUST at least match the security of the XMSS instance. 4.1.1. XMSS Parameters XMSS has the following parameters: h : the height (number of levels  1) of the tree n : the length in bytes of the message digest as well as of each node w : the Winternitz parameter as defined for WOTS+ in Section 3.1 There are 2^h leaves in the tree. For XMSS and XMSS^MT, private and public keys are denoted by SK (S for secret) and PK. For WOTS+, private and public keys are denoted by sk (s for secret) and pk, respectively. XMSS and XMSS^MT signatures are denoted by Sig. WOTS+ signatures are denoted by sig. XMSS and XMSS^MT parameters are implicitly included in algorithm inputs as needed. 4.1.2. XMSS Hash Functions Besides the cryptographic hash function F and the pseudorandom function PRF required by WOTS+, XMSS uses two more functions: Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 19] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 A cryptographic hash function H. H accepts nbyte keys and byte strings of length 2n and returns an nbyte string. A cryptographic hash function H_msg. H_msg accepts 3nbyte keys and byte strings of arbitrary length and returns an nbyte string. More detail on specific instantiations can be found in Section 5. Security requirements on H and H_msg are discussed in Section 8. 4.1.3. XMSS Private Key An XMSS private key SK contains 2^h WOTS+ private keys, the leaf index idx of the next WOTS+ private key that has not yet been used, SK_PRF, an nbyte key to generate pseudorandom values for randomized message hashing, the nbyte value root, which is the root node of the tree and SEED, the nbyte public seed used to pseudorandomly generate bitmasks and hash function keys. Although root and SEED formally would be considered only part of the public key, they are needed e.g. for signature generation and hence are also required for functions that do not take the public key as input. The leaf index idx is initialized to zero when the XMSS private key is created. The key SK_PRF MUST be sampled from a secure source of randomness that follows the uniform distribution. The WOTS+ private keys MUST either be generated as described in Section 3.1 or, to reduce the private key size, a cryptographic pseudorandom method MUST be used as discussed in Section 4.1.11. SEED is generated as a uniformly random nbyte string. Although SEED is public, it is critical for security that it is generated using a good entropy source. The root node is generated as described below in the section on key generation (Section 4.1.7). That section also contains an example algorithm for combined private and public key generation. For the following algorithm descriptions, the existence of a method getWOTS_SK(SK, i) is assumed. This method takes as inputs an XMSS private key SK and an integer i and outputs the i^th WOTS+ private key of SK. 4.1.4. Randomized Tree Hashing To improve readability we introduce a function RAND_HASH(LEFT, RIGHT, SEED, ADRS) that does the randomized hashing in the tree. It takes as input two nbyte values LEFT and RIGHT that represent the left and the right half of the hash function input, the seed SEED used as key for PRF and the address ADRS of this hash function call. RAND_HASH first uses PRF with SEED and ADRS to generate a key KEY and nbyte bitmasks BM_0, BM_1. Then it returns the randomized hash H(KEY, (LEFT XOR BM_0)  (RIGHT XOR BM_1)). Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 20] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Algorithm 7: RAND_HASH Input: nbyte value LEFT, nbyte value RIGHT, seed SEED, address ADRS Output: nbyte randomized hash ADRS.setKeyAndMask(0); KEY = PRF(SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setKeyAndMask(1); BM_0 = PRF(SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setKeyAndMask(2); BM_1 = PRF(SEED, ADRS); return H(KEY, (LEFT XOR BM_0)  (RIGHT XOR BM_1)); 4.1.5. LTrees To compute the leaves of the binary hash tree, a socalled Ltree is used. An Ltree is an unbalanced binary hash tree, distinct but similar to the main XMSS binary hash tree. The algorithm ltree (Algorithm 8) takes as input a WOTS+ public key pk and compresses it to a single nbyte value pk[0]. Towards this end it also takes an Ltree address ADRS as input that encodes the address of the Ltree, and the seed SEED. Algorithm 8: ltree Input: WOTS+ public key pk, address ADRS, seed SEED Output: nbyte compressed public key value pk[0] unsigned int len' = len; ADRS.setTreeHeight(0); while ( len' > 1 ) { for ( i = 0; i < floor(len' / 2); i++ ) { ADRS.setTreeIndex(i); pk[i] = RAND_HASH(pk[2i], pk[2i + 1], SEED, ADRS); } if ( len' % 2 == 1 ) { pk[floor(len' / 2)] = pk[len'  1]; } len' = ceil(len' / 2); ADRS.setTreeHeight(ADRS.getTreeHeight() + 1); } return pk[0]; Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 21] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 4.1.6. TreeHash For the computation of the internal nbyte nodes of a Merkle tree, the subroutine treeHash (Algorithm 9) accepts an XMSS private key SK (including seed SEED), an unsigned integer s (the start index), an unsigned integer t (the target node height), and an address ADRS that encodes the address of the containing tree. For the height of a node within a tree counting starts with the leaves at height zero. The treeHash algorithm returns the root node of a tree of height t with the leftmost leaf being the hash of the WOTS+ pk with index s. It is REQUIRED that s % 2^t = 0, i.e. that the leaf at index s is a left most leaf of a subtree of height t. Otherwise the hashaddressing scheme fails. The treeHash algorithm described here uses a stack holding up to (t  1) nodes, with the usual stack functions push() and pop(). We furthermore assume that the height of a node (an unsigned integer) is stored alongside a node's value (an nbyte string) on the stack. Algorithm 9: treeHash Input: XMSS private key SK, start index s, target node height t, address ADRS Output: nbyte root node  top node on Stack if( s % (1 << t) != 0 ) return 1; for ( i = 0; i < 2^t; i++ ) { SEED = getSEED(SK); ADRS.setType(0); // Type = OTS hash address ADRS.setOTSAddress(s + i); pk = WOTS_genPK (getWOTS_SK(SK, s + i), SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setType(1); // Type = Ltree address ADRS.setLTreeAddress(s + i); node = ltree(pk, SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setType(2); // Type = hash tree address ADRS.setTreeHeight(0); ADRS.setTreeIndex(i + s); while ( Top node on Stack has same height t' as node ) { ADRS.setTreeIndex((ADRS.getTreeIndex()  1) / 2); node = RAND_HASH(Stack.pop(), node, SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setTreeHeight(ADRS.getTreeHeight() + 1); } Stack.push(node); } return Stack.pop(); Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 22] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 4.1.7. XMSS Key Generation The XMSS key pair is computed as described in XMSS_keyGen (Algorithm 10). The XMSS public key PK consists of the root of the binary hash tree and the seed SEED, both also stored in SK. The root is computed using treeHash. For XMSS, there is only a single main tree. Hence, the used address is set to the allzero string in the beginning. Note that we do not define any specific format or handling for the XMSS private key SK by introducing this algorithm. It relates to requirements described earlier and simply shows a basic but very inefficient example to initialize a private key. Algorithm 10: XMSS_keyGen  Generate an XMSS key pair Input: / Output: XMSS private key SK, XMSS public key PK // Example initialization for SKspecific contents idx = 0; for ( i = 0; i < 2^h; i++ ) { wots_sk[i] = WOTS_genSK(); } initialize SK_PRF with a uniformly random nbyte string; setSK_PRF(SK, SK_PRF); // Initialization for common contents initialize SEED with a uniformly random nbyte string; setSEED(SK, SEED); setWOTS_SK(SK, wots_sk)); ADRS = toByte(0, 32); root = treeHash(SK, 0, h, ADRS); SK = idx  wots_sk  SK_PRF  root  SEED; PK = OID  root  SEED; return (SK  PK); The above is just an example algorithm. It is strongly RECOMMENDED to use pseudorandom key generation to reduce the private key size. Public and private key generation MAY be interleaved to save space. Especially, when a pseudorandom method is used to generate the private key, generation MAY be done when the respective WOTS+ key pair is needed by treeHash. The format of an XMSS public key is given below. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 23] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 XMSS Public Key ++  algorithm OID  ++    root node  n bytes   ++    SEED  n bytes   ++ 4.1.8. XMSS Signature An XMSS signature is a (4 + n + (len + h) * n)byte string consisting of the index idx_sig of the used WOTS+ key pair (4 bytes), a byte string r used for randomized message hashing (n bytes), a WOTS+ signature sig_ots (len * n bytes), the socalled authentication path 'auth' for the leaf associated with the used WOTS+ key pair (h * n bytes). The authentication path is an array of h nbyte strings. It contains the siblings of the nodes on the path from the used leaf to the root. It does not contain the nodes on the path itself. These nodes are needed by a verifier to compute a root node for the tree from the WOTS+ public key. A node Node is addressed by its position in the tree. Node(x, y) denotes the y^th node on level x with y = 0 being the leftmost node on a level. The leaves are on level 0, the root is on level h. An authentication path contains exactly one node on every layer 0 <= x <= h  1. For the i^th WOTS+ key pair, counting from zero, the j^th authentication path node is Node(j, floor(i / (2^j)) XOR 1) The computation of the authentication path is discussed in Section 4.1.9. The data format for a signature is given below. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 24] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 XMSS Signature ++    index idx_sig  4 bytes   ++    randomness r  n bytes   ++    WOTS+ signature sig_ots  len * n bytes   ++    auth[0]  n bytes   ++   ~ .... ~   ++    auth[h  1]  n bytes   ++ 4.1.9. XMSS Signature Generation To compute the XMSS signature of a message M with an XMSS private key, the signer first computes a randomized message digest using a random value r, idx_sig, the index of the WOTS+ key pair to be used, and the root value from the public key as key. Then a WOTS+ signature of the message digest is computed using the next unused WOTS+ private key. Next, the authentication path is computed. Finally, the private key is updated, i.e. idx is incremented. An implementation MUST NOT output the signature before the private key is updated. The node values of the authentication path MAY be computed in any way. This computation is assumed to be performed by the subroutine buildAuth for the function XMSS_sign, as below. The fastest alternative is to store all tree nodes and set the array in the signature by copying the respective nodes. The least storage intensive alternative is to recompute all nodes for each signature online using the treeHash algorithm (Algorithm 9). There exist several algorithms in between, with different time/storage trade Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 25] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 offs. For an overview, see [BDS09]. A further approach can be found in [KMN14]. Note that the details of this procedure are not relevant to interoperability; it is not necessary to know any of these details in order to perform the signature verification operation. The following version of buildAuth is given for completeness. It is a simple example for understanding, but extremely inefficient. The use of one of the alternative algorithms is strongly RECOMMENDED. Given an XMSS private key SK, all nodes in a tree are determined. Their value is defined in terms of treeHash (Algorithm 9). Hence, one can compute the authentication path as follows: (Example) buildAuth  Compute the authentication path for the i^th WOTS+ key pair Input: XMSS private key SK, WOTS+ key pair index i, ADRS Output: Authentication path auth for ( j = 0; j < h; j++ ) { k = floor(i / (2^j)) XOR 1; auth[j] = treeHash(SK, k * 2^j, j, ADRS); } We split the description of the signature generation into two main algorithms. The first one, treeSig (Algorithm 11), generates the main part of an XMSS signature and is also used by the multitree version XMSS^MT. XMSS_sign (Algorithm 12) calls treeSig but handles message compression before and the private key update afterwards. The algorithm treeSig (Algorithm 11) described below calculates the WOTS+ signature on an nbyte message and the corresponding authentication path. treeSig takes as inputs an nbyte message M', an XMSS private key SK, and an address ADRS. It returns the concatenation of the WOTS+ signature sig_ots and authentication path auth. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 26] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Algorithm 11: treeSig  Generate a WOTS+ signature on a message with corresponding authentication path Input: nbyte message M', XMSS private key SK, ADRS Output: Concatenation of WOTS+ signature sig_ots and authentication path auth idx_sig = getIdx(SK); auth = buildAuth(SK, idx_sig, ADRS); ADRS.setType(0); // Type = OTS hash address ADRS.setOTSAddress(idx_sig); sig_ots = WOTS_sign(getWOTS_SK(SK, idx_sig), M', getSEED(SK), ADRS); Sig = sig_ots  auth; return Sig; The algorithm XMSS_sign (Algorithm 12) described below calculates an updated private key SK and a signature on a message M. XMSS_sign takes as inputs a message M of arbitrary length, and an XMSS private key SK. It returns the byte string containing the concatenation of the updated private key SK and the signature Sig. Algorithm 12: XMSS_sign  Generate an XMSS signature and update the XMSS private key Input: Message M, XMSS private key SK Output: Updated SK, XMSS signature Sig idx_sig = getIdx(SK); setIdx(SK, idx_sig + 1); ADRS = toByte(0, 32); byte[n] r = PRF(getSK_PRF(SK), toByte(idx_sig, 32)); byte[n] M' = H_msg(r  getRoot(SK)  (toByte(idx_sig, n)), M); Sig = idx_sig  r  treeSig(M', SK, ADRS); return (SK  Sig); 4.1.10. XMSS Signature Verification An XMSS signature is verified by first computing the message digest using randomness r, index idx_sig, the root from PK and message M. Then the used WOTS+ public key pk_ots is computed from the WOTS+ signature using WOTS_pkFromSig. The WOTS+ public key in turn is used to compute the corresponding leaf using an Ltree. The leaf, together with index idx_sig and authentication path auth is used to compute an alternative root value for the tree. The verification succeeds if and only if the computed root value matches the one in the XMSS public key. In any other case it MUST return fail. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 27] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 As for signature generation, we split verification into two parts to allow for reuse in the XMSS^MT description. The steps also needed for XMSS^MT are done by the function XMSS_rootFromSig (Algorithm 13). XMSS_verify (Algorithm 14) calls XMSS_rootFromSig as a subroutine and handles the XMSSspecific steps. The main part of XMSS signature verification is done by the function XMSS_rootFromSig (Algorithm 13) described below. XMSS_rootFromSig takes as inputs an index idx_sig, a WOTS+ signature sig_ots, an authentication path auth, an nbyte message M', seed SEED, and address ADRS. XMSS_rootFromSig returns an nbyte string holding the value of the root of a tree defined by the input data. Algorithm 13: XMSS_rootFromSig  Compute a root node from a tree signature Input: index idx_sig, WOTS+ signature sig_ots, authentication path auth, nbyte message M', seed SEED, address ADRS Output: nbyte root value node[0] ADRS.setType(0); // Type = OTS hash address ADRS.setOTSAddress(idx_sig); pk_ots = WOTS_pkFromSig(sig_ots, M', SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setType(1); // Type = Ltree address ADRS.setLTreeAddress(idx_sig); byte[n][2] node; node[0] = ltree(pk_ots, SEED, ADRS); ADRS.setType(2); // Type = hash tree address ADRS.setTreeIndex(idx_sig); for ( k = 0; k < h; k++ ) { ADRS.setTreeHeight(k); if ( (floor(idx_sig / (2^k)) % 2) == 0 ) { ADRS.setTreeIndex(ADRS.getTreeIndex() / 2); node[1] = RAND_HASH(node[0], auth[k], SEED, ADRS); } else { ADRS.setTreeIndex((ADRS.getTreeIndex()  1) / 2); node[1] = RAND_HASH(auth[k], node[0], SEED, ADRS); } node[0] = node[1]; } return node[0]; The full XMSS signature verification is depicted below (Algorithm 14). It handles message compression, delegates the root computation to XMSS_rootFromSig, and compares the result to the value in the public key. XMSS_verify takes an XMSS signature Sig, a message M, and an XMSS public key PK. XMSS_verify returns true if and only if Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 28] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Sig is a valid signature on M under public key PK. Otherwise, it returns false. Algorithm 14: XMSS_verify  Verify an XMSS signature using the corresponding XMSS public key and a message Input: XMSS signature Sig, message M, XMSS public key PK Output: Boolean ADRS = toByte(0, 32); byte[n] M' = H_msg(r  getRoot(PK)  (toByte(idx_sig, n)), M); byte[n] node = XMSS_rootFromSig(idx_sig, sig_ots, auth, M', getSEED(PK), ADRS); if ( node == getRoot(PK) ) { return true; } else { return false; } 4.1.11. Pseudorandom Key Generation An implementation MAY use a cryptographically secure pseudorandom method to generate the XMSS private key from a single nbyte value. For example, the method suggested in [BDH11] and explained below MAY be used. Other methods, such as the one in [HRS16], MAY be used. The choice of a pseudorandom method does not affect interoperability, but the cryptographic strength MUST match that of the used XMSS parameters. For XMSS a similar method than the one used for WOTS+ can be used. The suggested method from [BDH11] can be described using PRF. During key generation a uniformly random nbyte string S is sampled from a secure source of randomness. This seed S MUST NOT be confused with the public seed SEED. The seed S MUST be independent of SEED and as it is the main secret, it MUST be kept secret. This seed S is used to generate an nbyte value S_ots for each WOTS+ key pair. The nbyte value S_ots can then be used to compute the respective WOTS+ private key using the method described in Section 3.1.7. The seeds for the WOTS+ key pairs are computed as S_ots[i] = PRF(S, toByte(i, 32)) where i is the index of the WOTS+ key pair. An advantage of this method is that a WOTS+ key can be computed using only len + 1 evaluations of PRF when S is given. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 29] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 4.1.12. Free Index Handling and Partial Private Keys Some applications might require to work with partial private keys or copies of private keys. Examples include delegation of signing rights / proxy signatures, and load balancing. Such applications MAY use their own key format and MAY use a signing algorithm different from the one described above. The index in partial private keys or copies of a private key MAY be manipulated as required by the applications. However, applications MUST establish means that guarantee that each index and thereby each WOTS+ key pair is used to sign only a single message. 4.2. XMSS^MT: MultiTree XMSS XMSS^MT is a method for signing a large but fixed number of messages. It was first described in [HRB13]. It builds on XMSS. XMSS^MT uses a tree of several layers of XMSS trees, a socalled hypertree. The trees on top and intermediate layers are used to sign the root nodes of the trees on the respective layer below. Trees on the lowest layer are used to sign the actual messages. All XMSS trees have equal height. Consider an XMSS^MT tree of total height h that has d layers of XMSS trees of height h / d. Then layer d  1 contains one XMSS tree, layer d  2 contains 2^(h / d) XMSS trees, and so on. Finally, layer 0 contains 2^(h  h / d) XMSS trees. 4.2.1. XMSS^MT Parameters In addition to all XMSS parameters, an XMSS^MT system requires the number of tree layers d, specified as an integer value that divides h without remainder. The same tree height h / d and the same Winternitz parameter w are used for all tree layers. All the trees on higher layers sign root nodes of other trees which are nbyte strings. Hence, no message compression is needed and WOTS+ is used to sign the root nodes themselves instead of their hash values. 4.2.2. XMSS^MT Key generation An XMSS^MT private key SK_MT (S for secret) consists of one reduced XMSS private key for each XMSS tree. These reduced XMSS private keys just contain the WOTS+ private keys corresponding to that XMSS key pair and no pseudorandom function key, no index, no public seed, no root node. Instead, SK_MT contains a single nbyte pseudorandom function key SK_PRF, a single (ceil(h / 8))byte index idx_MT, a single nbyte seed SEED, and a single root value root which is the Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 30] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 root of the single tree on the top layer. The index is a global index over all WOTS+ key pairs of all XMSS trees on layer 0. It is initialized with 0. It stores the index of the last used WOTS+ key pair on the bottom layer, i.e. a number between 0 and 2^h  1. The reduced XMSS private keys MUST either be generated as described in Section 4.1.3 or using a cryptographic pseudorandom method as discussed in Section 4.2.6. As for XMSS, the PRF key SK_PRF MUST be sampled from a secure source of randomness that follows the uniform distribution. SEED is generated as a uniformly random nbyte string. Although SEED is public, it is critical for security that it is generated using a good entropy source. The root is the root node of the single XMSS tree on the top layer. Its computation is explained below. As for XMSS, root and SEED are public information and would classically be considered part of the public key. However, as both are needed for signing, which only takes the private key, they are also part of SK_MT. This document does not define any specific format for the XMSS^MT private key SK_MT as it is not required for interoperability. The algorithm descriptions below use a function getXMSS_SK(SK, x, y) that outputs the reduced private key of the x^th XMSS tree on the y^th layer. The XMSS^MT public key PK_MT contains the root of the single XMSS tree on layer d  1 and the seed SEED. These are the same values as in the private key SK_MT. The pseudorandom function PRF keyed with SEED is used to generate the bitmasks and keys for all XMSS trees. XMSSMT_keyGen (Algorithm 15) shows example pseudocode to generate SK_MT and PK_MT. The nbyte root node of the top layer tree is computed using treeHash. The algorithm XMSSMT_keyGen outputs an XMSS^MT private key SK_MT and an XMSS^MT public key PK_MT. The algorithm below gives an example of how the reduced XMSS private keys can be generated. However, any of the above mentioned ways is acceptable as long as the cryptographic strength of the used method matches or superseeds that of the used XMSS^MT parameter set. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 31] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Algorithm 15: XMSSMT_keyGen  Generate an XMSS^MT key pair Input: / Output: XMSS^MT private key SK_MT, XMSS^MT public key PK_MT // Example initialization idx_MT = 0; setIdx(SK_MT, idx_MT); initialize SK_PRF with a uniformly random nbyte string; setSK_PRF(SK_MT, SK_PRF); initialize SEED with a uniformly random nbyte string; setSEED(SK_MT, SEED); // Generate reduced XMSS private keys ADRS = toByte(0, 32); for ( layer = 0; layer < d; layer++ ) { ADRS.setLayerAddress(layer); for ( tree = 0; tree < (1 << ((d  1  layer) * (h / d))); tree++ ) { ADRS.setTreeAddress(tree); for ( i = 0; i < 2^(h / d); i++ ) { wots_sk[i] = WOTS_genSK(); } setXMSS_SK(SK_MT, wots_sk, tree, layer); } } SK = getXMSS_SK(SK_MT, 0, d  1); setSEED(SK, SEED); root = treeHash(SK, 0, h / d, ADRS); setRoot(SK_MT, root); PK_MT = OID  root  SEED; return (SK_MT  PK_MT); The above is just an example algorithm. It is strongly RECOMMENDED to use pseudorandom key generation to reduce the private key size. Public and private key generation MAY be interleaved to save space. Especially, when a pseudorandom method is used to generate the private key, generation MAY be delayed to the point when the respective WOTS+ key pair is needed by another algorithm. The format of an XMSS^MT public key is given below. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 32] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 XMSS^MT Public Key ++  algorithm OID  ++    root node  n bytes   ++    SEED  n bytes   ++ 4.2.3. XMSS^MT Signature An XMSS^MT signature Sig_MT is a byte string of length (ceil(h / 8) + n + (h + d * len) * n). It consists of the index idx_sig of the used WOTS+ key pair on the bottom layer (ceil(h / 8) bytes), a byte string r used for randomized message hashing (n bytes), d reduced XMSS signatures ((h / d + len) * n bytes each). The reduced XMSS signatures only contain a WOTS+ signature sig_ots and an authentication path auth. They contain no index idx and no byte string r. The data format for a signature is given below. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 33] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 XMSS^MT signature ++    index idx_sig  ceil(h / 8) bytes   ++    randomness r  n bytes   ++    (reduced) XMSS signature Sig  (h / d + len) * n bytes  (bottom layer 0)    ++    (reduced) XMSS signature Sig  (h / d + len) * n bytes  (layer 1)    ++   ~ .... ~   ++    (reduced) XMSS signature Sig  (h / d + len) * n bytes  (layer d  1)    ++ 4.2.4. XMSS^MT Signature Generation To compute the XMSS^MT signature Sig_MT of a message M using an XMSS^MT private key SK_MT, XMSSMT_sign (Algorithm 16) described below uses treeSig as defined in Section 4.1.9. First, the signature index is set to idx_sig. Next, PRF is used to compute a pseudorandom nbyte string r. This nbyte string, idx_sig, and the root node from PK_MT are then used to compute a randomized message digest of length n. The message digest is signed using the WOTS+ key pair on the bottom layer with absolute index idx. The authentication path for the WOTS+ key pair is computed as well as the root of the containing XMSS tree. The root is signed by the parent XMSS tree. This is repeated until the top tree is reached. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 34] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Algorithm 16: XMSSMT_sign  Generate an XMSS^MT signature and update the XMSS^MT private key Input: Message M, XMSS^MT private key SK_MT Output: Updated SK_MT, signature Sig_MT // Init ADRS = toByte(0, 32); SEED = getSEED(SK_MT); SK_PRF = getSK_PRF(SK_MT); idx_sig = getIdx(SK_MT); // Update SK_MT setIdx(SK_MT, idx_sig + 1); // Message compression byte[n] r = PRF(SK_PRF, toByte(idx_sig, 32)); byte[n] M' = H_msg(r  getRoot(SK_MT)  (toByte(idx_sig, n)), M); // Sign Sig_MT = idx_sig; unsigned int idx_tree = (h  h / d) most significant bits of idx_sig; unsigned int idx_leaf = (h / d) least significant bits of idx_sig; SK = idx_leaf  getXMSS_SK(SK_MT, idx_tree, 0)  SK_PRF  toByte(0, n)  SEED; ADRS.setLayerAddress(0); ADRS.setTreeAddress(idx_tree); Sig_tmp = treeSig(M', SK, ADRS); Sig_MT = Sig_MT  r  Sig_tmp; for ( j = 1; j < d; j++ ) { root = treeHash(SK, 0, h / d, ADRS); idx_leaf = (h / d) least significant bits of idx_tree; idx_tree = (h  j * (h / d)) most significant bits of idx_tree; SK = idx_leaf  getXMSS_SK(SK_MT, idx_tree, j)  SK_PRF  toByte(0, n)  SEED; ADRS.setLayerAddress(j); ADRS.setTreeAddress(idx_tree); Sig_tmp = treeSig(root, SK, ADRS); Sig_MT = Sig_MT  Sig_tmp; } return SK_MT  Sig_MT; Algorithm 16 is only one method to compute XMSS^MT signatures. Especially, there exist timememory tradeoffs that allow to reduce the signing time to less than the signing time of an XMSS scheme with tree height h / d. These tradeoffs prevent certain values from being recomputed several times by keeping a state and distribute all Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 35] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 computations over all signature generations. Details can be found in [Huelsing13a]. 4.2.5. XMSS^MT Signature Verification XMSS^MT signature verification (Algorithm 17) can be summarized as d XMSS signature verifications with small changes. First, the message is hashed. The XMSS signatures are then all on nbyte values. Second, instead of comparing the computed root node to a given value, a signature on this root node is verified. Only the root node of the top tree is compared to the value in the XMSS^MT public key. XMSSMT_verify uses XMSS_rootFromSig. The function getXMSSSignature(Sig_MT, i) returns the ith reduced XMSS signature from the XMSS^MT signature Sig_MT. XMSSMT_verify takes as inputs an XMSS^MT signature Sig_MT, a message M and a public key PK_MT. XMSSMT_verify returns true if and only if Sig_MT is a valid signature on M under public key PK_MT. Otherwise, it returns false. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 36] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Algorithm 17: XMSSMT_verify  Verify an XMSS^MT signature Sig_MT on a message M using an XMSS^MT public key PK_MT Input: XMSS^MT signature Sig_MT, message M, XMSS^MT public key PK_MT Output: Boolean idx_sig = getIdx(Sig_MT); SEED = getSEED(PK_MT); ADRS = toByte(0, 32); byte[n] M' = H_msg(getR(Sig_MT)  getRoot(PK_MT)  (toByte(idx_sig, n)), M); unsigned int idx_leaf = (h / d) least significant bits of idx_sig; unsigned int idx_tree = (h  h / d) most significant bits of idx_sig; Sig' = getXMSSSignature(Sig_MT, 0); ADRS.setLayerAddress(0); ADRS.setTreeAddress(idx_tree); byte[n] node = XMSS_rootFromSig(idx_leaf, getSig_ots(Sig'), getAuth(Sig'), M', SEED, ADRS); for ( j = 1; j < d; j++ ) { idx_leaf = (h / d) least significant bits of idx_tree; idx_tree = (h  j * h / d) most significant bits of idx_tree; Sig' = getXMSSSignature(Sig_MT, j); ADRS.setLayerAddress(j); ADRS.setTreeAddress(idx_tree); node = XMSS_rootFromSig(idx_leaf, getSig_ots(Sig'), getAuth(Sig'), node, SEED, ADRS); } if ( node == getRoot(PK_MT) ) { return true; } else { return false; } 4.2.6. Pseudorandom Key Generation Like for XMSS, an implementation MAY use a cryptographically secure pseudorandom method to generate the XMSS^MT private key from a single nbyte value. For example, the method explained below MAY be used. Other methods, such as the one in [HRS16], MAY be used. The choice of a pseudorandom method does not affect interoperability, but the cryptographic strength MUST match that of the used XMSS^MT parameters. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 37] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 For XMSS^MT a method similar to that for XMSS and WOTS+ can be used. The method uses PRF. During key generation a uniformly random nbyte string S_MT is sampled from a secure source of randomness. This seed S_MT is used to generate one nbyte value S for each XMSS key pair. This nbyte value can be used to compute the respective XMSS private key using the method described in Section 4.1.11. Let S[x][y] be the seed for the x^th XMSS private key on layer y. The seeds are computed as S[x][y] = PRF(PRF(S, toByte(y, 32)), toByte(x, 32)). 4.2.7. Free Index Handling and Partial Private Keys The content of Section 4.1.12 also applies to XMSS^MT. 5. Parameter Sets This section provides a basic set of parameter sets which are assumed to cover most relevant applications. Parameter sets for two classical security levels are defined. Parameters with n = 32 provide a classical security level of 256 bits. Parameters with n = 64 provide a classical security level of 512 bits. Considering quantumcomputeraided attacks, these output sizes yield postquantum security of 128 and 256 bits, respectively. For the n = 32 and n = 64 settings, we give parameters that use SHA2256, SHA2512 as defined in [FIPS180], and the SHA3/Keccakbased extendable output functions SHAKE128, SHAKE256 as defined in [FIPS202]. The parameter sets using SHA2256 are mandatory for deployment and therefore MUST be provided by any implementation. The remaining parameter sets specified in this document are OPTIONAL. SHA2 does not provide a keyedmode itself. To implement the keyed hash functions the following is used for SHA2 with n = 32: F: SHA2256(toByte(0, 32)  KEY  M), H: SHA2256(toByte(1, 32)  KEY  M), H_msg: SHA2256(toByte(2, 32)  KEY  M), PRF: SHA2256(toByte(3, 32)  KEY  M). Accordingly, for SHA2 with n = 64 we use: F: SHA2512(toByte(0, 64)  KEY  M), H: SHA2512(toByte(1, 64)  KEY  M), H_msg: SHA2512(toByte(2, 64)  KEY  M), Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 38] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 PRF: SHA2512(toByte(3, 64)  KEY  M). The nbyte padding is used for two reasons. First, it is necessary that the internal compression function takes 2nbyte blocks but keys are n and 3n bytes long. Second, the padding is used to achieve independence of the different function families. Finally, for the PRF no fullfledged HMAC is needed as the message length is fixed, meaning that standard length extension attacks are not a concern here. For that reason, the simpler construction above suffices. Similar constructions are used with SHA3. To implement the keyed hash functions the following is used for SHA3 with n = 32: F: SHAKE128(toByte(0, 32)  KEY  M, 256), H: SHAKE128(toByte(1, 32)  KEY  M, 256), H_msg: SHAKE128(toByte(2, 32)  KEY  M, 256), PRF: SHAKE128(toByte(3, 32)  KEY  M, 256). Accordingly, for SHA3 with n = 64 we use: F: SHAKE256(toByte(0, 64)  KEY  M, 512), H: SHAKE256(toByte(1, 64)  KEY  M, 512), H_msg: SHAKE256(toByte(2, 64)  KEY  M, 512), PRF: SHAKE256(toByte(3, 64)  KEY  M, 512). As for SHA2, an initial nbyte identifier is used to achieve independence of the different function families. While a shorter identifier could be used in case of SHA3, we use n bytes for consistency with the SHA2 implementations. 5.1. WOTS+ Parameters To fully describe a WOTS+ signature method, the parameters n, and w, as well as the functions F and PRF MUST be specified. This section defines several WOTS+ signature systems, each of which is identified by a name. Values for len are provided for convenience. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 39] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 ++++++  Name  F / PRF  n  w  len  ++++++  REQUIRED:             WOTSP_SHA2256_W16  SHA2256  32  16  67         OPTIONAL:             WOTSP_SHA2512_W16  SHA2512  64  16  131         WOTSP_SHAKE128_W16  SHAKE128  32  16  67         WOTSP_SHAKE256_W16  SHAKE256  64  16  131  ++++++ Table 1 The implementation of the single functions is done as described above. XDR formats for WOTS+ are listed in Appendix A. 5.2. XMSS Parameters To fully describe an XMSS signature method, the parameters n, w, and h, as well as the functions F, H, H_msg, and PRF MUST be specified. This section defines different XMSS signature systems, each of which is identified by a name. We define parameter sets that implement the functions using SHA2 and SHA3 for n = 32 and n = 64 as described above. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 40] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 +++++++  Name  Functions  n  w  len  h  +++++++  REQUIRED:               XMSS_SHA2256_W16_H10  SHA2256  32  16  67  10          XMSS_SHA2256_W16_H16  SHA2256  32  16  67  16          XMSS_SHA2256_W16_H20  SHA2256  32  16  67  20          OPTIONAL:               XMSS_SHA2512_W16_H10  SHA2512  64  16  131  10          XMSS_SHA2512_W16_H16  SHA2512  64  16  131  16          XMSS_SHA2512_W16_H20  SHA2512  64  16  131  20          XMSS_SHAKE128_W16_H10  SHAKE128  32  16  67  10          XMSS_SHAKE128_W16_H16  SHAKE128  32  16  67  16          XMSS_SHAKE128_W16_H20  SHAKE128  32  16  67  20          XMSS_SHAKE256_W16_H10  SHAKE256  64  16  131  10          XMSS_SHAKE256_W16_H16  SHAKE256  64  16  131  16          XMSS_SHAKE256_W16_H20  SHAKE256  64  16  131  20  +++++++ Table 2 The XDR formats for XMSS are listed in Appendix B. 5.3. XMSS^MT Parameters To fully describe an XMSS^MT signature method, the parameters n, w, h, and d, as well as the functions F, H, H_msg, and PRF MUST be specified. This section defines several XMSS^MT signature systems, each of which is identified by a name. We define parameter sets that implement the functions using SHA2 and SHA3 for n = 32 and n = 64 as described above. ++++++++  Name  Functions  n  w  len  h  d  ++++++++ Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 41] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017  REQUIRED:                 XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H20_D2  SHA2256  32  16  67  20  2           XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H20_D4  SHA2256  32  16  67  20  4           XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H40_D2  SHA2256  32  16  67  40  2           XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H40_D4  SHA2256  32  16  67  40  4           XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H40_D8  SHA2256  32  16  67  40  8           XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H60_D3  SHA2256  32  16  67  60  3           XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H60_D6  SHA2256  32  16  67  60  6           XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H60_D12  SHA2256  32  16  67  60  12           OPTIONAL:                 XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H20_D2  SHA2512  64  16  131  20  2           XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H20_D4  SHA2512  64  16  131  20  4           XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H40_D2  SHA2512  64  16  131  40  2           XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H40_D4  SHA2512  64  16  131  40  4           XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H40_D8  SHA2512  64  16  131  40  8           XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H60_D3  SHA2512  64  16  131  60  3           XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H60_D6  SHA2512  64  16  131  60  6           XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H60_D12  SHA2512  64  16  131  60  12           XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H20_D2  SHAKE128  32  16  67  20  2           XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H20_D4  SHAKE128  32  16  67  20  4           XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H40_D2  SHAKE128  32  16  67  40  2           XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H40_D4  SHAKE128  32  16  67  40  4           XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H40_D8  SHAKE128  32  16  67  40  8           XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H60_D3  SHAKE128  32  16  67  60  3          Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 42] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017  XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H60_D6  SHAKE128  32  16  67  60  6           XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H60_D12  SHAKE128  32  16  67  60  12           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H20_D2  SHAKE256  64  16  131  20  2           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H20_D4  SHAKE256  64  16  131  20  4           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H40_D2  SHAKE256  64  16  131  40  2           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H40_D4  SHAKE256  64  16  131  40  4           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H40_D8  SHAKE256  64  16  131  40  8           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H60_D3  SHAKE256  64  16  131  60  3           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H60_D6  SHAKE256  64  16  131  60  6           XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H60_D12  SHAKE256  64  16  131  60  12  ++++++++ Table 3 XDR formats for XMSS^MT are listed in Appendix C. 6. Rationale The goal of this note is to describe the WOTS+, XMSS and XMSS^MT algorithms following the scientific literature. The description is done in a modular way that allows to base a description of stateless hashbased signature algorithms like SPHINCS [BHH15] on it. This note slightly deviates from the scientific literature using a tweak that prevents multiuser / multitarget attacks against H_msg. To this end, the public key as well as the index of the used onetime key pair become part of the hash function key. Thereby we achieve a domain separation that forces an attacker to decide which hash value to attack. For the generation of the randomness used for randomized message hashing, we apply a PRF, keyed with a secret value, to the index of the used onetime key pair instead of the message. The reason is that this requires to process the message only once instead of twice. For long messages this improves speed and simplifies implementations on resource constrained devices that cannot hold the entire message in storage. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 43] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 We give one mandatory set of parameters using SHA2256. The reasons are twofold. On the one hand, SHA2256 is part of most cryptographic libraries. On the other hand, a 256bit hash function leads to parameters that provide 128 bit of security even against quantum computeraided attacks. A postquantum security level of 256 bit seems overly conservative. However, to prepare for possible cryptanalytic breakthroughs, we also provide OPTIONAL parameter sets using the less widely supported SHA2512, SHAKE256, and SHAKE512 functions. We suggest the value w = 16 for the Winternitz parameter. No bigger values are included since the decrease in signature size then becomes less significant. Furthermore, the value w = 16 considerably simplifies the implementations of some of the algorithms. Please note that we do allow w = 4, but limit the specified parameter sets to w = 16 for efficiency reasons. The signature and public key formats are designed so that they are easy to parse. Each format starts with a 32bit enumeration value that indicates all of the details of the signature algorithm and hence defines all of the information that is needed in order to parse the format. The enumeration values used in this note are palindromes, which have the same byte representation in either host order or network order. This fact allows an implementation to omit the conversion between byte order for those enumerations. Note however that the idx field used in XMSS and XMSS^MT signatures and private keys MUST be properly converted to and from network byte order; this is the only field that requires such conversion. There are 2^32 XDR enumeration values, 2^16 of which are palindromes, which is adequate for the foreseeable future. If there is a need for further assignments, nonpalindromes can be assigned. 7. IANA Considerations The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is requested to create three registries: one for WOTS+ signatures as defined in Section 3, one for XMSS signatures and one for XMSS^MT signatures; the latter two being defined in Section 4. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the first sets of WOTS+, XMSS, and XMSS^MT parameter sets are defined in Section 5. Additions to these registries require that a specification be documented in an RFC or another permanent and readily available reference in sufficient detail to make interoperability between independent implementations possible. Each entry in the registry contains the following elements: a short name, such as "XMSS_SHA2256_W16_H20", Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 44] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 a positive number, and a reference to a specification that completely defines the signature method test cases that can be used to verify the correctness of an implementation. Requests to add an entry to the registry MUST include the name and the reference. The number is assigned by IANA. These number assignments SHOULD use the smallest available palindromic number. Submitters SHOULD have their requests reviewed by the IRTF Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) at cfrg@ietf.org. Interested applicants that are unfamiliar with IANA processes should visit http://www.iana.org. The numbers between 0xDDDDDDDD (decimal 3,722,304,989) and 0xFFFFFFFF (decimal 4,294,967,295) inclusive, will not be assigned by IANA, and are reserved for private use; no attempt will be made to prevent multiple sites from using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways [RFC5226]. The WOTS+ registry is as follows. ++++  Name  Reference  Numeric Identifier  ++++  WOTSP_SHA2256_W16  Section 5.1  0x01000001       WOTSP_SHA2512_W16  Section 5.1  0x02000002       WOTSP_SHAKE128_W16  Section 5.1  0x03000003       WOTSP_SHAKE256_W16  Section 5.1  0x04000004  ++++ Table 4 The XMSS registry is as follows. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 45] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 ++++  Name  Reference  Numeric Identifier  ++++  XMSS_SHA2256_W16_H10  Section 5.2  0x01000001       XMSS_SHA2256_W16_H16  Section 5.2  0x02000002       XMSS_SHA2256_W16_H20  Section 5.2  0x03000003       XMSS_SHA2512_W16_H10  Section 5.2  0x04000004       XMSS_SHA2512_W16_H16  Section 5.2  0x05000005       XMSS_SHA2512_W16_H20  Section 5.2  0x06000006       XMSS_SHAKE128_W16_H10  Section 5.2  0x07000007       XMSS_SHAKE128_W16_H16  Section 5.2  0x08000008       XMSS_SHAKE128_W16_H20  Section 5.2  0x09000009       XMSS_SHAKE256_W16_H10  Section 5.2  0x0a00000a       XMSS_SHAKE256_W16_H16  Section 5.2  0x0b00000b       XMSS_SHAKE256_W16_H20  Section 5.2  0x0c00000c  ++++ Table 5 The XMSS^MT registry is as follows. ++++  Name  Reference  Numeric Identifier  ++++  XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H20_D2  Section 5.3  0x01000001       XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H20_D4  Section 5.3  0x02000002       XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H40_D2  Section 5.3  0x03000003       XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H40_D4  Section 5.3  0x04000004       XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H40_D8  Section 5.3  0x05000005       XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H60_D3  Section 5.3  0x06000006       XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H60_D6  Section 5.3  0x07000007  Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 46] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017      XMSSMT_SHA2256_W16_H60_D12  Section 5.3  0x08000008       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H20_D2  Section 5.3  0x09000009       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H20_D4  Section 5.3  0x0a00000a       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H40_D2  Section 5.3  0x0b00000b       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H40_D4  Section 5.3  0x0c00000c       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H40_D8  Section 5.3  0x0d00000d       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H60_D3  Section 5.3  0x0e00000e       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H60_D6  Section 5.3  0x0f00000f       XMSSMT_SHA2512_W16_H60_D12  Section 5.3  0x01010101       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H20_D2  Section 5.3  0x02010102       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H20_D4  Section 5.3  0x03010103       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H40_D2  Section 5.3  0x04010104       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H40_D4  Section 5.3  0x05010105       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H40_D8  Section 5.3  0x06010106       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H60_D3  Section 5.3  0x07010107       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H60_D6  Section 5.3  0x08010108       XMSSMT_SHAKE128_W16_H60_D12  Section 5.3  0x09010109       XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H20_D2  Section 5.3  0x0a01010a       XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H20_D4  Section 5.3  0x0b01010b       XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H40_D2  Section 5.3  0x0c01010c       XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H40_D4  Section 5.3  0x0d01010d       XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H40_D8  Section 5.3  0x0e01010e       XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H60_D3  Section 5.3  0x0f01010f       XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H60_D6  Section 5.3  0x01020201  Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 47] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017      XMSSMT_SHAKE256_W16_H60_D12  Section 5.3  0x02020202  ++++ Table 6 An IANA registration of a signature system does not constitute an endorsement of that system or its security. 8. Security Considerations A signature system is considered secure if it prevents an attacker from forging a valid signature. More specifically, consider a setting in which an attacker gets a public key and can learn signatures on arbitrary messages of his choice. A signature system is secure if, even in this setting, the attacker can not produce a new message, signature pair of his choosing such that the verification algorithm accepts. Preventing an attacker from mounting an attack means that the attack is computationally too expensive to be carried out. There exist various estimates for when a computation is too expensive to be done. For that reason, this note only describes how expensive it is for an attacker to generate a forgery. Parameters are accompanied by a bit security value. The meaning of bit security is as follows. A parameter set grants b bits of security if the best attack takes at least 2^(b  1) bit operations to achieve a success probability of 1/2. Hence, to mount a successful attack, an attacker needs to perform 2^b bit operations on average. The given values for bit security were estimated according to [HRS16]. 8.1. Security Proofs A full security proof for all schemes described in this document can be found in [HRS16]. This proof shows that an attacker has to break at least one out of certain security properties of the used hash functions and PRFs to forge a signature in any of the described schemes. The proof in [HRS16] considers a different initial message compression than the randomized hashing used here. We comment on this below. For the original schemes, these proofs show that an attacker has to break certain minimal security properties. In particular, it is not sufficient to break the collision resistance of the hash functions to generate a forgery. More specifically, the requirements on the used functions are that F and H are postquantum multifunction multitarget secondpreimage resistant keyed functions, F fulfills an additional statistical requirement that roughly says that most images have at least two Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 48] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 preimages, PRF is a postquantum pseudorandom function, H_msg is a postquantum multitarget extended target collision resistant keyed hash function. For detailed definitions of these properties see [HRS16]. To give some intuition: Multifunction multitarget second preimage resistance is an extension of second preimage resistance to keyed hash functions, covering the case where an adversary succeeds if it finds a second preimage for one out of many values. The same holds for multitarget extended target collision resistance which just lacks the multifunction identifier as target collision resistance already considers keyed hash functions. The proof in [HRS16] splits PRF into two functions. When PRF is used for pseudorandom key generation or generation of randomness for randomized message hashing it is still considered a pseudorandom function. Whenever PRF is used to generate bitmasks and hash function keys it is modeled as a random oracle. This is due to technical reasons in the proof and an implementation using a pseudorandom function is secure. The proof in [HRS16] considers classical randomized hashing for the initial message compression, i.e., H(r, M) instead of H(r  getRoot(PK)  index, M). This classical randomized hashing allows to get a security reduction from extended target collision resistance [HRS16], a property that is conjectured to be strictly weaker than collision resistance. However, it turns out that in this case, an attacker could still launch a multitarget attack even against multiple users at the same time. The reason is that the adversary attacking u users at the same time learns u * 2^h randomized hashes H(r_i_j  M_i_j) with signature index i in [0, 2^h  1] and user index j in [0, u]. It suffices to find a single pair (r*, M*) such that H(r*  M*) = H(r_i_u  M_i_u) for one out of the u * 2^h learned hashes. Hence, an attacker can do a brute force search in time 2^n / u * 2^h instead of 2^n. The indexed randomized hashing H(r  getRoot(PK)  toByte(idx, n), M) used in this work makes the hash function calls position and userdependent. This thwarts the above attack because each hash function evaluation during an attack can only target one of the learned randomized hash values. More specifically, an attacker now has to decide which index idx and which root value to use for each query. If one assumes that the used hash function is a random function it can be shown that a multi user existential forgery attack that targets this message compression has a complexity of 2^n hash function calls. The given bit security values were estimated based on the complexity of the best known generic attacks against the required security properties of the used hash and pseudorandom functions assuming conventional and quantum adversaries. At the time of writing, Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 49] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 generic attacks are the best known attacks for the parameters suggested in the classical setting. Also in the quantum setting there are no dedicated attacks known that perform better than generic attacks. Nevertheless, the topic of quantum cryptanalysis of hash functions is not as well understood as in the classical setting. 8.2. Minimal Security Assumptions The security assumptions made to argue for the security of the described schemes are minimal. Any signature algorithm that allows arbitrary size messages relies on the security of a cryptographic hash function, either on collision resistance or on extended target collision resistance if randomized hashing is used for message compression. For the schemes described here this is already sufficient to be secure. In contrast, common signature schemes like RSA, DSA, and ECDSA additionally rely on the conjectured hardness of certain mathematical problems. 8.3. PostQuantum Security A postquantum cryptosystem is a system that is secure against attackers with access to a reasonably sized quantum computer. At the time of writing this note, whether or not it is feasible to build such a machine is an open conjecture. However, significant progress was made over the last few years in this regard. Hence, we consider it a matter of risk assessment to prepare for this case. In contrast to RSA, DSA, and ECDSA, the described signature systems are postquantumsecure if they are used with an appropriate cryptographic hash function. In particular, for postquantum security, the size of n must be twice the size required for classical security. This is in order to protect against quantum square root attacks due to Grover's algorithm. It has been shown in [HRS16] that variants of Grover's algorithm are the optimal generic attacks against the security properties of hash functions required for the described scheme. As stated above, we only consider generic attacks here, as cryptographic hash functions should be deprecated as soon as there exist dedicated attacks that perform significantly better. This also applies for the quantum setting. As soon as there exist dedicated quantum attacks against the used hash function that perform significantly better than the described generic attacks these hash functions should not be used anymore for the described schemes or the computation of the security level has to be redone. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 50] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 9. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Johannes Braun, Peter Campbell, Scott Fluhrer, Burt Kaliski, Adam Langley, David McGrew, Rafael Misoczki, Sean Parkinson, Joost Rijneveld, Sebastian Roland, and the Keccak team for their help and comments. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [FIPS180] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS 1804, 2012. [FIPS202] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "SHA3 Standard: PermutationBased Hash and ExtendableOutput Functions", FIPS 202, 2015. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfceditor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, DOI 10.17487/RFC4506, May 2006, <http://www.rfceditor.org/info/rfc4506>. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfceditor.org/info/rfc5226>. 10.2. Informative References [BDH11] Buchmann, J., Dahmen, E., and A. Huelsing, "XMSS  A Practical Forward Secure Signature Scheme Based on Minimal Security Assumptions", Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 7071. PostQuantum Cryptography, 2011. [BDS09] Buchmann, J., Dahmen, E., and M. Szydlo, "Hashbased Digital Signature Schemes", Book chapter PostQuantum Cryptography, Springer, 2009. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 51] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 [BHH15] Bernstein, D., Hopwood, D., Huelsing, A., Lange, T., Niederhagen, R., Papachristodoulou, L., Schneider, M., Schwabe, P., and Z. WilcoxO'Hearn, "SPHINCS: Practical Stateless HashBased Signatures", Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 9056. Advances in Cryptology  EUROCRYPT, 2015. [HRB13] Huelsing, A., Rausch, L., and J. Buchmann, "Optimal Parameters for XMSS^MT", Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 8128. CDARES, 2013. [HRS16] Huelsing, A., Rijneveld, J., and F. Song, "Mitigating MultiTarget Attacks in Hashbased Signatures", Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 9614. PublicKey Cryptography  PKC 2016, 2016. [Huelsing13] Huelsing, A., "WOTS+  Shorter Signatures for HashBased Signature Schemes", Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 7918. Progress in Cryptology  AFRICACRYPT, 2013. [Huelsing13a] Huelsing, A., "Practical Forward Secure Signatures using Minimal Security Assumptions", PhD thesis TU Darmstadt, 2013, <http://tuprints.ulb.tudarmstadt.de/3651/1/Thesis.pdf>. [Kaliski15] Kaliski, B., "Panel: Shoring up the Infrastructure: A Strategy for Standardizing Hash Signatures", NIST Workshop on Cybersecurity in a PostQuantum World, 2015. [KMN14] Knecht, M., Meier, W., and C. Nicola, "A space and time efficient Implementation of the Merkle Tree Traversal Algorithm", Computing Research Repository (CoRR). arXiv:1409.4081, 2014. [MCF17] McGrew, D., Curcio, M., and S. Fluhrer, "HashBased Signatures", Work in Progress, draftmcgrewhashsigs06, March 2017, <http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/ draftmcgrewhashsigs06.txt>. [Merkle79] Merkle, R., "Secrecy, Authentication, and Public Key Systems", Stanford University Information Systems Laboratory Technical Report 19791, 1979, <http://www.merkle.com/papers/Thesis1979.pdf>. Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 52] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Appendix A. WOTS+ XDR Formats The WOTS+ signature and public key formats are formally defined using XDR [RFC4506] in order to provide an unambiguous, machine readable definition. Though XDR is used, these formats are simple and easy to parse without any special tools. To avoid the need to convert to and from network / host byte order, the enumeration values are all palindromes. Note that this representation includes all optional parameter sets. The same applies for the XMSS and XMSS^MT formats below. WOTS+ parameter sets are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* ots_algorithm_type identifies a particular signature algorithm */ enum ots_algorithm_type { wotsp_reserved = 0x00000000, wotsp_sha2256_w16 = 0x01000001, wotsp_sha2512_w16 = 0x02000002, wotsp_shake128_w16 = 0x03000003, wotsp_shake256_w16 = 0x04000004, }; WOTS+ signatures are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* Byte strings */ typedef opaque bytestring32[32]; typedef opaque bytestring64[64]; union ots_signature switch (ots_algorithm_type type) { case wotsp_sha2256_w16: case wotsp_shake128_w16: bytestring32 ots_sig_n32_len67[67]; case wotsp_sha2512_w16: case wotsp_shake256_w16: bytestring64 ots_sig_n64_len18[131]; default: void; /* error condition */ }; Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 53] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 WOTS+ public keys are defined using XDR syntax as follows: union ots_pubkey switch (ots_algorithm_type type) { case wotsp_sha2256_w16: case wotsp_shake128_w16: bytestring32 ots_pubk_n32_len67[67]; case wotsp_sha2512_w16: case wotsp_shake256_w16: bytestring64 ots_pubk_n64_len18[131]; default: void; /* error condition */ }; Appendix B. XMSS XDR Formats Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 54] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 XMSS parameter sets are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* Byte strings */ typedef opaque bytestring4[4]; /* Definition of parameter sets */ enum xmss_algorithm_type { xmss_reserved = 0x00000000, /* 256 bit classical security, 128 bit postquantum security */ xmss_sha2256_w16_h10 = 0x01000001, xmss_sha2256_w16_h16 = 0x02000002, xmss_sha2256_w16_h20 = 0x03000003, /* 512 bit classical security, 256 bit postquantum security */ xmss_sha2512_w16_h10 = 0x04000004, xmss_sha2512_w16_h16 = 0x05000005, xmss_sha2512_w16_h20 = 0x06000006, /* 256 bit classical security, 128 bit postquantum security */ xmss_shake128_w16_h10 = 0x07000007, xmss_shake128_w16_h16 = 0x08000008, xmss_shake128_w16_h20 = 0x09000009, /* 512 bit classical security, 256 bit postquantum security */ xmss_shake256_w16_h10 = 0x0a00000a, xmss_shake256_w16_h16 = 0x0b00000b, xmss_shake256_w16_h20 = 0x0c00000c, }; XMSS signatures are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* Authentication path types */ union xmss_path switch (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmss_sha2256_w16_h10: case xmss_shake128_w16_h10: bytestring32 path_n32_t10[10]; Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 55] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmss_sha2256_w16_h16: case xmss_shake128_w16_h16: bytestring32 path_n32_t16[16]; case xmss_sha2256_w16_h20: case xmss_shake128_w16_h20: bytestring32 path_n32_t20[20]; case xmss_sha2512_w16_h10: case xmss_shake256_w16_h10: bytestring64 path_n64_t10[10]; case xmss_sha2512_w16_h16: case xmss_shake256_w16_h16: bytestring64 path_n64_t16[16]; case xmss_sha2512_w16_h20: case xmss_shake256_w16_h20: bytestring64 path_n64_t20[20]; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* Types for XMSS random strings */ union random_string_xmss switch (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmss_sha2256_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h20: case xmss_shake128_w16_h10: case xmss_shake128_w16_h16: case xmss_shake128_w16_h20: bytestring32 rand_n32; case xmss_sha2512_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h20: case xmss_shake256_w16_h10: case xmss_shake256_w16_h16: case xmss_shake256_w16_h20: bytestring64 rand_n64; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* Corresponding WOTS+ type for given XMSS type */ Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 56] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 union xmss_ots_signature switch (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmss_sha2256_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h20: wotsp_sha2256_w16; case xmss_sha2512_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h20: wotsp_sha2512_w16; case xmss_shake128_w16_h10: case xmss_shake128_w16_h16: case xmss_shake128_w16_h20: wotsp_shake128_w16; case xmss_shake256_w16_h10: case xmss_shake256_w16_h16: case xmss_shake256_w16_h20: wotsp_shake256_w16; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* XMSS signature structure */ struct xmss_signature { /* WOTS+ key pair index */ bytestring4 idx_sig; /* Random string for randomized hashing */ random_string_xmss rand_string; /* WOTS+ signature */ xmss_ots_signature sig_ots; /* authentication path */ xmss_path nodes; }; XMSS public keys are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* Types for bitmask seed */ union seed switch (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmss_sha2256_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h20: Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 57] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmss_shake128_w16_h10: case xmss_shake128_w16_h16: case xmss_shake128_w16_h20: bytestring32 seed_n32; case xmss_sha2512_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h20: case xmss_shake256_w16_h10: case xmss_shake256_w16_h16: case xmss_shake256_w16_h20: bytestring64 seed_n64; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* Types for XMSS root node */ union xmss_root switch (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmss_sha2256_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2256_w16_h20: case xmss_shake128_w16_h10: case xmss_shake128_w16_h16: case xmss_shake128_w16_h20: bytestring32 root_n32; case xmss_sha2512_w16_h10: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h16: case xmss_sha2512_w16_h20: case xmss_shake256_w16_h10: case xmss_shake256_w16_h16: case xmss_shake256_w16_h20: bytestring64 root_n64; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* XMSS public key structure */ struct xmss_public_key { xmss_root root; /* Root node */ seed SEED; /* Seed for bitmasks */ }; Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 58] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 Appendix C. XMSS^MT XDR Formats XMSS^MT parameter sets are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* Byte strings */ typedef opaque bytestring3[3]; typedef opaque bytestring5[5]; typedef opaque bytestring8[8]; /* Definition of parameter sets */ enum xmssmt_algorithm_type { xmssmt_reserved = 0x00000000, /* 256 bit classical security, 128 bit postquantum security */ xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d2 = 0x01000001, xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d4 = 0x02000002, xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d2 = 0x03000003, xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d4 = 0x04000004, xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d8 = 0x05000005, xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d3 = 0x06000006, xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d6 = 0x07000007, xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d12 = 0x08000008, /* 512 bit classical security, 256 bit postquantum security */ xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d2 = 0x09000009, xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d4 = 0x0a00000a, xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d2 = 0x0b00000b, xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d4 = 0x0c00000c, xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d8 = 0x0d00000d, xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d3 = 0x0e00000e, xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d6 = 0x0f00000f, xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d12 = 0x01010101, /* 256 bit classical security, 128 bit postquantum security */ xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d2 = 0x02010102, xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d4 = 0x03010103, xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d2 = 0x04010104, xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d4 = 0x05010105, xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d8 = 0x06010106, xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d3 = 0x07010107, xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d6 = 0x08010108, xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d12 = 0x09010109, Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 59] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 /* 512 bit classical security, 256 bit postquantum security */ xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d2 = 0x0a01010a, xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d4 = 0x0b01010b, xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d2 = 0x0c01010c, xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d4 = 0x0d01010d, xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d8 = 0x0e01010e, xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d3 = 0x0f01010f, xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d6 = 0x01020201, xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d12 = 0x02020202, }; XMSS^MT signatures are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* Type for XMSS^MT key pair index */ /* Depends solely on h */ union idx_sig_xmssmt switch (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d4: bytestring3 idx3; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d8: bytestring5 idx5; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d3: Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 60] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d12: bytestring8 idx8; default: void; /* error condition */ }; union random_string_xmssmt switch (xmssmt_algorithm_type type) { case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d12: bytestring32 rand_n32; case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d6: Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 61] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d12: bytestring64 rand_n64; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* Type for reduced XMSS signatures */ union xmss_reduced (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d6: bytestring32 xmss_reduced_n32_t77[77]; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d12: bytestring32 xmss_reduced_n32_t72[72]; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d3: bytestring32 xmss_reduced_n32_t87[87]; case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d6: bytestring64 xmss_reduced_n32_t141[141]; case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d12: bytestring64 xmss_reduced_n32_t136[136]; Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 62] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d3: bytestring64 xmss_reduced_n32_t151[151]; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* xmss_reduced_array depends on d */ union xmss_reduced_array (xmss_algorithm_type type) { case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d2: xmss_reduced xmss_red_arr_d2[2]; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d3: xmss_reduced xmss_red_arr_d3[3]; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d4: xmss_reduced xmss_red_arr_d4[4]; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d6: xmss_reduced xmss_red_arr_d6[6]; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d8: Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 63] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d8: xmss_reduced xmss_red_arr_d8[8]; case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d12: xmss_reduced xmss_red_arr_d12[12]; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* XMSS^MT signature structure */ struct xmssmt_signature { /* WOTS+ key pair index */ idx_sig_xmssmt idx_sig; /* Random string for randomized hashing */ random_string_xmssmt randomness; /* Array of d reduced XMSS signatures */ xmss_reduced_array; }; XMSS^MT public keys are defined using XDR syntax as follows: /* Types for bitmask seed */ union seed switch (xmssmt_algorithm_type type) { case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d3: bytestring32 seed_n32; Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 64] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d3: bytestring64 seed_n64; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* Types for XMSS^MT root node */ union xmssmt_root switch (xmssmt_algorithm_type type) { case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2256_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake128_w16_h60_d12: bytestring32 root_n32; case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h40_d8: Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 65] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_sha2512_w16_h60_d12: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h20_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d2: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d4: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h40_d8: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d3: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d6: case xmssmt_shake256_w16_h60_d12: bytestring64 root_n64; default: void; /* error condition */ }; /* XMSS^MT public key structure */ struct xmssmt_public_key { xmssmt_root root; /* Root node */ seed SEED; /* Seed for bitmasks */ }; Authors' Addresses Andreas Huelsing TU Eindhoven P.O. Box 513 Eindhoven 5600 MB NL Email: ietf@huelsing.net Denis Butin TU Darmstadt Hochschulstrasse 10 Darmstadt 64289 DE Email: dbutin@cdc.informatik.tudarmstadt.de Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 66] InternetDraft XMSS: Extended HashBased Signatures March 2017 StefanLukas Gazdag genua GmbH Domagkstrasse 7 Kirchheim bei Muenchen 85551 DE Email: ietf@gazdag.de Aziz Mohaisen SUNY Buffalo 323 Davis Hall Buffalo, NY 14260 US Phone: +1 716 6451592 Email: mohaisen@buffalo.edu Huelsing, et al. Expires October 1, 2017 [Page 67]