Re: voting by m of n digital signature?

[Florian Weimer]

* James A. Donald:

 Is there a way of constructing a digital signature so
 that the signature proves that at least m possessors of
 secret keys corresponding to n public keys signed, for n
 a dozen or less, without revealing how many more than m,
 or which ones signed?

What about this?

  Christian Cachin, Asad Samar
  Secure Distributed DNS
  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/dti/#dnsrepl

Or do you require that potential signers must not be able to prove
that they signed?

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: voting by m of n digital signature?

[dan]

James A. Donald writes:
-+---
 | Is there a way of constructing a digital signature so
 | that the signature proves that at least m possessors of
 | secret keys corresponding to n public keys signed, for n
 | a dozen or less, without revealing how many more than m,
 | or which ones signed?
 | 

quorum threshhold crypto; if Avishai Wool or Moti Yung
or Yvo Desmedt or Yair Frankel or...  are here on this
list, they should answer

a *tiny* contribution on my part

  http://geer.tinho.net/geer.yung.pdf

humbly,

--dan

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

voting by m of n digital signature?

[James A. Donald]

Is there a way of constructing a digital signature so
that the signature proves that at least m possessors of
secret keys corresponding to n public keys signed, for n
a dozen or less, without revealing how many more than m,
or which ones signed?

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]