<p>Their comment was not meant to apply to all signature schemes, just the specific construction they are talking about in that paragraph. (Also, it was not meant as a formal statement; it was just mentioned as part of the intuition for their construction.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-03T00:28:46.673Z
2011-08-03T00:28:46.673Z
user6584
<p>Signature scheme is strongly unforgeable. 
"making the message m being signed depend on the randomness r — we break
the proof of security for the underlying signature."</p>

<p>From Paper: Strongly Unforgeable Signatures Based on Computational Diffie-Hellman - Dan Boneh, Emily Shen, and Brent Waters.</p>

<p>Can some one point out how a scheme can be broken when the message being signed depends on the randomness?</p>

<p>Thanks. Please let me know if I am not clear. The paper has it all.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2011-03-27T05:56:09.937Z
I suggest taking a look at [A digital signature scheme secure against adaptive chosen-message attacks](http://en.scientificcommons.org/43510384).
Sadeq Dousti
<cr.crypto-security><cryptographic-attack>
A clarification in Signature schemes for Strong Unforgeability.
bala maverick
# A clarification in Signature schemes for Strong Unforgeability.

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-03-25)

Signature scheme is strongly unforgeable.
"making the message m being signed depend on the randomness r — we break
the proof of security for the underlying signature."

From Paper: Strongly Unforgeable Signatures Based on Computational Diffie-Hellman - Dan Boneh, Emily Shen, and Brent Waters.

Can some one point out how a scheme can be broken when the message being signed depends on the randomness?

Thanks. Please let me know if I am not clear. The paper has it all.

**Tags:** cr.crypto-security, cryptographic-attack
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I suggest taking a look at [A digital signature scheme secure against adaptive chosen-message attacks](http://en.scientificcommons.org/43510384).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2011-08-03. Score: 1

Their comment was not meant to apply to all signature schemes, just the specific construction they are talking about in that paragraph. (Also, it was not meant as a formal statement; it was just mentioned as part of the intuition for their construction.)


---

