Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.

Summary

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

Details

The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.

The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.

To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."

The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.

Impact

The potential impact is as follows:

• A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.

Mitigation

Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.

A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.

CL Signatures Issuer Key Correctness Proof lacks of prime strength checking

A weakness in the Hyperledger AnonCreds specification that is not mitigated in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations is that the Issuer does not publish a key correctness proof demonstrating that a generated private key is sufficient to meet the unlinkability guarantees of AnonCreds. A sufficient private key is one in which it's components p and q are safe primes, such that:

• p and q are both prime numbers
• p and q are not equal
• p and q have the same, sufficiently large, size
  • For example, using two values both 1024 bits long is sufficient, whereas using one value 2040 bits long and the other 8 bits long is not.

The Ursa and AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations always generate a sufficient private key. A malicious issuer could in theory create a custom CL Signature implementation (derived from the Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures implementations) that uses weakened private keys such that presentations from holders could be shared by verifiers to the issuer who could determine the holder to which the credential was issued.

Impact

This vulnerability could impact holders of AnonCreds credentials implemented using the CL-signature scheme in the Ursa and AnonCreds implementations of CL Signatures.

Mitigations

Jan Camenisch and Markus Michels. Proving in zero-knowledge that a number is the product of two safe primes (pages 12-13) demonstrates a key correctness proof that could be used to show the issuer has generated a sufficiently strong private key, proving the characteristics listed above.

In a future version of AnonCreds, the additional key correctness proof could be published separately or added to the Credential Definition. In the meantime, Issuers in existing ecosystems can share such a proof with their ecosystem co-participants in an ad hoc manner.

The lack of such a published key correctness proof allows a malicious Issuer to deliberately generate a private key that lacks the requirements listed above, enabling the Issuer to perform a brute force attack on presentations provided to colluding verifiers that breaks the unlinkability guarantee of AnonCreds.