Hash-based digital signature schemes (like Lamport signatures, Merkle trees, and even more advanced ones like SPHINCS+) offer strong security guarantees, even against quantum attacks.
But several practical trade-offs have prevented their widespread adoption in place of RSA or ECDSA. Let’s break down the key issues:
1. Signature and Key Sizes
-
Large Signatures and Keys:
Many hash-based signature schemes produce signatures and/or public keys that are significantly larger than those produced by RSA or ECDSA.
- Example: A Lamport signature can be on the order of several kilobytes per signature, which is much larger than a typical 256-bit ECDSA signature.
- Impact: Larger sizes mean more bandwidth, more storage, and sometimes higher costs when transmitting or storing these signatures—especially problematic for resource-constrained environments (like IoT devices).
-
Merkle Tree Overhead:
While Merkle trees allow many one-time signatures to be combined under a single public key, they still require storing tree authentication paths that add extra overhead.
2. One-Time or Limited-Use Nature
-
Statefulness:
Many hash-based schemes (e.g., Lamport or XMSS) are inherently stateful. They are designed to be one-time or few-time use:
- Risk of Key Reuse: If a private key is used more than once, the security guarantees can break down. This means the signer must track which keys have been used, which introduces complexity and potential for errors.
- Real-World Implications: In systems where maintaining such state is error-prone or where stateless operations are preferred (like many web applications), these schemes are less attractive.
-
SPHINCS+ Approach:
Some newer schemes like SPHINCS+ attempt to be stateless. However, this comes at the cost of even larger signatures and slower performance compared to stateful counterparts.
3. Performance Considerations
-
Signing Speed:
- Computation Intensive: Hash-based schemes can require a large number of hash computations, which can slow down the signing process.
- Verification Efficiency: While verification might be relatively efficient (often just a series of hash computations), the overall performance—especially in signing—is not yet on par with optimized elliptic curve operations.
-
Practical Impact:
In high-throughput systems (e.g., servers handling millions of transactions), even modest increases in computation per operation can add up, impacting latency and resource utilization.
4. Compatibility and Infrastructure
- Existing Standards and Ecosystem:
- Widespread Adoption of RSA/ECDSA: Much of the current cryptographic infrastructure, libraries, and protocols are built around RSA and ECDSA.
- Integration Costs: Transitioning to hash-based schemes would require significant updates to standards, software libraries, hardware accelerators, and protocols (like TLS/SSL).
- Legacy Systems:
- Backward Compatibility: Many systems require compatibility with legacy protocols and hardware, making it difficult to introduce signatures with radically different properties (e.g., very large sizes or state management requirements).
5. Use Case Trade-Offs
