Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 38 references

Sponsored group signatures let existing members sponsor new anonymous signers while revealing the sponsor upon opening.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

SPGS extends dynamic group signatures with sponsor sponsorship, sponsor opening, and sponsored-member linkability, realized generically from group signatures, commitments, and NIZK proofs, and applied to AGAT for smart-environment access.

T0 review reviewed 2026-06-25 challenge →

load-bearing objection SPGS adds sponsor opening and sponsored-member linkability to group signatures via a modular generic construction, then uses it for an AGAT guest-access token.

arxiv 2606.25248 v1 pith:DGZS4CRE submitted 2026-06-24 cs.CR cs.NI

Sponsored Group Signature and its Application to Privacy-preserving Guest Access in Smart Environments

Sepideh Avizheh , Reihaneh Safavi-Naini , Shiwei Sun This is my paper
classification cs.CR cs.NI
keywords sponsored group signaturegroup signaturesprivacy-preserving signaturessmart environmentsguest accesszero-knowledge proofsaccountabilityanonymous access tokens
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper defines a Sponsored Group Signature (SPGS) as a two-level group signature where level-one members sponsor level-two members to join. Sponsored signatures remain anonymous to outsiders but are linkable so that a sponsor can identify signatures from their own sponsored members, and opening a sponsored signature reveals the sponsor's identity for accountability. The authors give a generic construction from a dynamic group signature scheme, a commitment scheme, and a knowledge-sound non-interactive zero-knowledge proof of knowledge, prove its security in a game-based model, and show how the scheme directly yields Anonymous Guest Access Tokens for temporary anonymous access to resources in smart buildings.

Core claim

The central claim is that SPGS can be securely realized by composing a dynamic group signature scheme with a commitment scheme and a knowledge-sound NIZK proof of knowledge. This yields a scheme in which all signatures stay anonymous, sponsored signatures are linkable within the sponsor's view, and opening a sponsored signature identifies the sponsor rather than only the signer. The construction is then applied to produce an efficient Anonymous Guest Access Token protocol when combined with an IND-CPA public-key encryption scheme.

What carries the argument

The SPGS sponsored-join mechanism, which uses a dynamic group signature combined with commitments and NIZK proofs to enforce sponsor accountability and selective linkability on sponsored signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The underlying dynamic group signature scheme, commitment scheme, and knowledge-sound NIZK proof of knowledge are secure in the model required by the construction.

What would settle it

An adversary that produces a valid sponsored signature whose opening fails to identify the correct sponsor, or that links two sponsored signatures without the sponsor's secret, while the three underlying primitives remain unbroken.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • SPGS directly yields a construction for Anonymous Guest Access Tokens that lets temporary guests access building resources anonymously.
  • Sponsors can efficiently identify and distinguish signatures from their own sponsored members via linkability.
  • The generic construction is secure whenever its three component primitives are secure.
  • The resulting guest-access protocol can be instantiated with existing efficient schemes for practical deployment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sponsor-accountability property could support delegated access control in other distributed systems where a central manager is undesirable.
  • Selective linkability might simplify revocation or auditing tasks inside sponsored subgroups without affecting the anonymity of the larger group.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Sponsored Group Signature (SPGS), a two-level extension of dynamic group signatures in which level-1 members can sponsor level-2 members to join the group. Signatures remain anonymous, but sponsored signatures are linkable and can be opened to reveal the sponsor (who is held accountable). The authors formalize the SPGS syntax and security via game-based definitions, give a generic construction from a dynamic group signature scheme, a commitment scheme, and a knowledge-sound NIZKPoK, prove security of the construction by reduction to the underlying primitives, supply an explicit instantiation, and show how SPGS combined with IND-CPA public-key encryption yields an Anonymous Guest Access Token (AGAT) protocol for privacy-preserving guest access in smart buildings.

Significance. If the reductions are correct, the work supplies a cleanly motivated primitive that relaxes the join process while preserving anonymity and adding sponsor accountability and sponsored-member linkability; the generic construction from standard primitives and the direct AGAT application are practical strengths. Explicit credit is due for the reduction to IND-CPA encryption and for supplying a concrete instantiation that can be evaluated with existing schemes.

minor comments (3)
  1. The formal security definitions (games for anonymity, sponsor opening, and linkability) are stated at a high level in the abstract; the manuscript should include the complete game descriptions with oracles and winning conditions in the main body so that the reduction steps can be checked line-by-line.
  2. The efficiency discussion of the AGAT protocol would benefit from an explicit table (or reference to one) comparing communication and computation costs of the chosen instantiation against a baseline guest-access scheme.
  3. Notation for the two membership levels and the sponsor-opening algorithm should be introduced once in a dedicated subsection and used consistently thereafter to avoid overloading symbols already standard in dynamic group signatures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary, significance assessment, and recommendation of minor revision. The report contains no major comments, so we provide no point-by-point responses below.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper formalizes SPGS via a game-based security definition and supplies a generic construction from three standard primitives (dynamic group signature, commitment scheme, knowledge-sound NIZKPoK) together with an explicit security reduction. An instantiation and an application reduction to IND-CPA encryption are also given. These steps follow the conventional cryptographic reduction paradigm; no equation or definition reduces the claimed properties to fitted parameters, self-referential inputs, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation remains self-contained against external security assumptions on the underlying primitives.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard cryptographic assumptions of the three building-block primitives; no new free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Security of the underlying dynamic group signature scheme
    Invoked in the generic construction paragraph of the abstract.
  • domain assumption Security of the commitment scheme
    Invoked in the generic construction paragraph of the abstract.
  • domain assumption Knowledge soundness of the NIZK proof of knowledge
    Invoked in the generic construction paragraph of the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Sponsored Group Signature (SPGS) no independent evidence
    purpose: New two-level signature primitive with sponsor accountability
    Defined and constructed in the paper; no independent evidence outside the definition itself.

reviewed 2026-06-25 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sponsored Group Signature and its Application to Privacy-preserving Guest Access in Smart Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGZS4CRE

@misc{pith2026260625248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sponsored Group Signature and its Application to Privacy-preserving Guest Access in Smart Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGZS4CRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.25248}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Group signatures are privacy preserving signature schemes in which a group member can anonymously sign messages on behalf of the group, while providing accountability, by allowing the signature of a misbehaving group member be ``opened'' and the identity of the signer be revealed. In group signature members are admitted to the group by a (trusted) group manager. We motivate the need for a flexible mechanism in applications, such as privacy preserving access in smart environments, and propose a two-level member-join group signature that we call SPonsored Group Signature (SPGS) where group members of level 1 can ``sponsor'' new members, in level 2, to join the group. This relaxation of user join comes with additional accountability mechanisms: we require that the signature of a sponsored member can be opened to the identity of the sponsor (that is sponsor is responsible for the sponsored member), and while all signatures are anonymous, for the sponsored members, the signatures are linkable. This allows a sponsor to efficiently identify an undesirable sponsored member. We formalize SPGS scheme, define its security using a game-based approach, and give a generic construction of SPGS that uses a (dynamic) group signature scheme, a commitment scheme, and a knowledge-sound non-interactive zero knowledge proof of knowledge, and prove its security. We also give an instantiation of our construction. To show applicability of SPGS in practice, we consider the problem of providing guest access in a smart building, and introduce Anonymous Guest Access Token (AGAT) that allows a temporary guest to anonymously access (a subset of) the building resources. We show how SPGS can be used (together with an IND-CPA secure public key encryption scheme) to give a direct construction for AGAT, and show the efficiency of our guest access protocol when it is instantiated with existing schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25248 by Reihaneh Safavi-Naini, Sepideh Avizheh, Shiwei Sun.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In Appendix A we also use the framework to define [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Oracles used in experiments idSm0 , or two entities (idSm0 and idSm1 ) by outputting 1 or 0, to show whether the two signatures are from the same identity or not. We show that this is equivalent to the definition in [3] in Lemma A.1 in Appendix A. A. Our construction In the following, we give a generic con￾struction using a (partially) dynamic group signature scheme denoted by GS consisting of (GS.Setup, G… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Security games of SP GS Round (3) Sp sends the private parameters paramSm = (pp, σ, P kSm) to Sm. – Sp outputs ⊤. • SignSp(m, paramSp) → σ, this algorithm runs by the sponsor idSp. It takes m and paramSp as input, and – computes σ = GS.Sign(m, paramSp) – outputs the sponsor signature σ. • SignSm(m, paramSm) → σ ′ , is run by the sponsored￾member idSm. This algorithm – parses paramSm = (pp, σ, P kSm) – gene… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Oracles used in experiments Definition A.1. For any security parameter λ ∈ N and for any [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Security games of group signature GS NIZK allows a prover who knows a witness w for a statement x can convince a verifier that (w, x) ∈ R, without revealing the witness w, where R is a relation (R ⊂ L) defined in language L. NIZK consists of the following algorithms: • NIZK.Setup(R) which takes the relation R (which implicitly defines the security parameter λ) and outputs the common reference string crs. •… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Security games of k-AGAT Our construction is generic and uses a sponsored group signature SP GS, and a public key encryption scheme E as its building blocks (please see Section III and IV for their algorithms and security properties). In the nutshell, in our scheme, host act as the sponsor and the guest acts as the sponsored-member of a SPGS scheme. Host uses a sponsor signature to issue a guest token, and… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Group signatures,

    D. Chaum and E. Van Heyst, “Group signatures,” inWorkshop on the Theory and Application of of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 1991, pp. 257–265

    1991

  2. [2]

    Linkable group signature for auditing anonymous communication,

    H. Zheng, Q. Wu, B. Qin, L. Zhong, S. He, and J. Liu, “Linkable group signature for auditing anonymous communication,” inAustralasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy. Springer, 2018, pp. 304–321

    2018

  3. [3]

    Linkable spontaneous anonymous group signature for ad hoc groups,

    J. K. Liu, V . K. Wei, and D. S. Wong, “Linkable spontaneous anonymous group signature for ad hoc groups,” inAustralasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy. Springer, 2004, pp. 325–335

    2004

  4. [4]

    Foundations of fully dynamic group signatures,

    J. Bootle, A. Cerulli, P. Chaidos, E. Ghadafi, and J. Groth, “Foundations of fully dynamic group signatures,” inInt. Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security. Springer, 2016, pp. 117–136

    2016

  5. [5]

    Dgm: Ad ynamic and revocable g roup m erkle signature,

    M. Buser, J. K. Liu, R. Steinfeld, A. Sakzad, and S.-F. Sun, “Dgm: Ad ynamic and revocable g roup m erkle signature,” inEuropean Symposium on Research in Computer Security. Springer, 2019, pp. 194–214

    2019

  6. [6]

    Foundations of group signatures: The case of dynamic groups,

    M. Bellare, H. Shi, and C. Zhang, “Foundations of group signatures: The case of dynamic groups,” inCryptographers’ track at the RSA conference. Springer, 2005, pp. 136–153

    2005

  7. [7]

    New group signature schemes,

    L. Chen and T. P. Pedersen, “New group signature schemes,” inWork- shop on the Theory and Application of of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 1994, pp. 171–181

    1994

  8. [8]

    A group signature scheme from lattice assumptions,

    S. D. Gordon, J. Katz, and V . Vaikuntanathan, “A group signature scheme from lattice assumptions,” inInternational conference on the theory and application of cryptology and information security. Springer, 2010, pp. 395–412

    2010

  9. [9]

    Efficient group signature schemes for large groups,

    J. Camenisch and M. Stadler, “Efficient group signature schemes for large groups,” inAnnual international cryptology conference. Springer, 1997, pp. 410–424

    1997

  10. [10]

    A group signature scheme with improved efficiency,

    J. Camenisch and M. Michels, “A group signature scheme with improved efficiency,” inInternational Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 1998, pp. 160–174

    1998

  11. [11]

    Efficient group signature scheme using lattices,

    M. Abhilash and B. Amberker, “Efficient group signature scheme using lattices,”International Journal of Information Technology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1845–1854, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    A code-based group signature scheme,

    Q. Alamélou, O. Blazy, S. Cauchie, and P. Gaborit, “A code-based group signature scheme,”Designs, Codes and Cryptography, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 469–493, 2017

    2017

  13. [13]

    Group signatures and more from isogenies and lattices: Generic, simple, and efficient,

    W. Beullens, S. Dobson, S. Katsumata, Y .-F. Lai, and F. Pintore, “Group signatures and more from isogenies and lattices: Generic, simple, and efficient,” inAnnual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 2022, pp. 95–126

    2022

  14. [14]

    Dgmt: A fully dynamic group signature from symmetric-key primitives,

    M. Fadavi, S. Karati, A. Erfanian, and R. Safavi-Naini, “Dgmt: A fully dynamic group signature from symmetric-key primitives,”Cryptogra- phy, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 12, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Randomizable proofs and delegatable anonymous credentials,

    M. Belenkiy, J. Camenisch, M. Chase, M. Kohlweiss, A. Lysyanskaya, and H. Shacham, “Randomizable proofs and delegatable anonymous credentials,” inAdvances in Cryptology-CRYPTO 2009: 29th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, August 16-20, 2009. Proceedings. Springer, 2009, pp. 108–125

    2009

  16. [16]

    Delegatable anonymous credentials,

    M. Belenkiy, J. Camenisch, M. Chase, M. Kohlweiss, A. Lysyanskaya, and et al., “Delegatable anonymous credentials,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2008

    2008

  17. [17]

    Practical delegatable anonymous credentials from equivalence class signatures,

    O. Mir, D. Slamanig, B. Bauer, and R. Mayrhofer, “Practical delegatable anonymous credentials from equivalence class signatures,”Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Delegatable anonymous credentials from mercurial signatures,

    E. C. Crites and A. Lysyanskaya, “Delegatable anonymous credentials from mercurial signatures,” inCryptographers’ Track at the RSA Con- ference. Springer, 2019, pp. 535–555

    2019

  19. [19]

    Delegatable attribute-based anonymous credentials from dynamically malleable signatures,

    J. Blömer and J. Bobolz, “Delegatable attribute-based anonymous credentials from dynamically malleable signatures,” inInternational Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security. Springer, 2018, pp. 221–239

    2018

  20. [20]

    Short linkable ring signatures for e-voting, e-cash and attestation,

    P. P. Tsang and V . K. Wei, “Short linkable ring signatures for e-voting, e-cash and attestation,” inInternational Conference on Information Security Practice and Experience. Springer, 2005, pp. 48–60

    2005

  21. [21]

    Linkable ring signature with unconditional anonymity,

    J. K. Liu, M. H. Au, W. Susilo, and J. Zhou, “Linkable ring signature with unconditional anonymity,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 157–165, 2013

    2013

  22. [22]

    Many- time linkable ring signatures,

    N. Tran, K. Nguyen, D. Liu, J. Pieprzyk, and W. Susilo, “Many- time linkable ring signatures,” inInternational Conference on Provable Security. Springer, 2025, pp. 3–22

    2025

  23. [23]

    Accountable tracing signatures,

    M. Kohlweiss and I. Miers, “Accountable tracing signatures,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014

    2014

  24. [24]

    Bifurcated signatures: folding the accountability vs. anonymity dilemma into a single private signing scheme,

    B. Libert, K. Nguyen, T. Peters, and M. Yung, “Bifurcated signatures: folding the accountability vs. anonymity dilemma into a single private signing scheme,” inAnnual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 2021, pp. 521– 552

    2021

  25. [25]

    Traceable signatures,

    A. Kiayias, Y . Tsiounis, and M. Yung, “Traceable signatures,” inInter- national Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 2004, pp. 571–589

    2004

  26. [26]

    Secure proxy signature schemes for delegation of signing rights,

    A. Boldyreva, A. Palacio, and B. Warinschi, “Secure proxy signature schemes for delegation of signing rights,”Journal of Cryptology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 57–115, 2012

    2012

  27. [27]

    Short group signatures,

    D. Boneh, X. Boyen, and H. Shacham, “Short group signatures,” in Annual int. cryptology conference. Springer, 2004, pp. 41–55

    2004

  28. [28]

    Trusted internet of things (iot) device network-layer onboarding and lifecycle management: Enhancing internet protocol-based iot device and network security,

    M. Fagan, J. Marron, P. Watrobski, M. Souppaya, W. Barker, C. Deane, J. Klosterman, C. Rearick, B. Mulugeta, S. Symingtonet al., “Trusted internet of things (iot) device network-layer onboarding and lifecycle management: Enhancing internet protocol-based iot device and network security,” NIST, Tech. Rep., 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Ace-oauth – a new standard for lightweight authorization and access control,

    E. Blog, “Ace-oauth – a new standard for lightweight authorization and access control,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ericsson.com/ en/blog/2023/7/ace-oauth-standard-for-lightweight-authorization

    2025

  30. [30]

    J. H. U. ISI. (2018) Charm-crypto documentation. [Online]. Available: https://jhuisi.github.io/charm/

    2018

  31. [31]

    Foundations of fully dynamic group signatures,

    J. Bootle, A. Cerulli, P. Chaidos, E. Ghadafi, and J. Groth, “Foundations of fully dynamic group signatures,”Journal of Cryptology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1822–1870, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    Anonymous counting tokens,

    F. Benhamouda, M. Raykova, and K. Seth, “Anonymous counting tokens,” inInternational Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 2023, pp. 245–278

    2023

  33. [33]

    How not to prove yourself: Pitfalls of the fiat-shamir heuristic and applications to helios,

    D. Bernhard, O. Pereira, and B. Warinschi, “How not to prove yourself: Pitfalls of the fiat-shamir heuristic and applications to helios,” in International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 2012, pp. 626–643

    2012

  34. [34]

    On signatures of knowledge,

    M. Chase and A. Lysyanskaya, “On signatures of knowledge,” inAnnual International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 2006, pp. 78–96

    2006

  35. [35]

    Zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge without interaction,

    A. De Santis and G. Persiano, “Zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge without interaction,” in33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 1992, pp. 427–436

    1992

  36. [36]

    Necessary and sufficient assumptions for non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge for all np relations,

    A. De Santis, G. Di Crescenzo, and G. Persiano, “Necessary and sufficient assumptions for non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge for all np relations,” inInternational Colloquium on Au- tomata, Languages, and Programming. Springer, 2000, pp. 451–462. APPENDIX Bootle et al. [31] proposed a framework to model and define the security requirements...

    2000

  37. [37]

    The sponsored-member signature in our generic construction can be seen as a group signature and a SOK (with weaker security than [34])

    (which is equivalent to a commitment scheme 4 [36]) and a simulation-sound non-interactive zero knowledge proof, one can construct a signature of knowledge for any languageL. The sponsored-member signature in our generic construction can be seen as a group signature and a SOK (with weaker security than [34]). One can also use the generic SOK con- structio...

  38. [38]

    Ifσ ′ 0 ̸=σ ′ 1 and one (or both)σ ′ b have not been queried toSignHUoracle before, meaning that (σ′ b, P kb,Sm,·)/∈Q Sign the adversary aborts. This game is indistinguishable from the previous one since ifσ ′ b has not been queried before, then it should have been forged which happens only with negligible probability sinceGS is non-frameable. We can see ...

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.3 on June 25, 2026.