Efficient Identity-Based Universal Designated Verifier Signature Proof Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article, an identity-based (ID-based) SM2 digital signature scheme is used to construct an ID-based UDVSP 9 system to tackle the cumbersome certificate management issue complemented
by the OR-proof and Fiat-Shamir technologies for designing an ID-based UDVSP system.
Further, please find below a set of suggestions to be tackled for strengthening the reasoning and approach presented in this article:
- In the Introduction section, the contribution of this paper should be integrated in order to blend with the rest of the section, not as a somehow sub-section as it is now considered.
- In Section 3 the four steps taken should be explained to the audience, and, in particular, more examples need to be accounted in the Verify phase.
- In a similar way, in Section 4, an explanation and concrete examples need to be included in the Verify phase of the system.
- It is important that a section dedicated to existing studies in this domain is added and named as Related Work or Related Studies.
- Another section should be included in the article that explains the methodological approach taken in this article. If this is not desired, then more explaination needs to be provided
in the Introduction section to assure the overall reasoning of the paper.
- As a last point, a discussion section needs to be added, or the Conclusions section needs to be properly structured and include the following points: concluding remarks based on the propositions
of the paper and approach taken, existing limitations of the system proposed, and potential future research perspectives.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, Author first propose the ID-based UDVSP system constructed from the ID-based SM2 digital signature scheme to eschew the intricate certificate management procedures then construct non-interactive ID-based UDVSP by using the OR-proof and Fiat-Shamir technologies. Here are the comments/suggestions.

-       The overall presentation of the paper is not in the well standard format. The literature review and related work part is completely missing.

-       The section 2 and 3 are more related to proposed approach which are considered to be the part of methodological section.

-       The steps in section 2.2 are to be presented in the diagrammatic form for better understanding to the users. Section 3.1 is also to be presented in an algorithmic style or with proper diagram for better visualization of the proposed approach. Same applies to section 4 proposed system too.

-       The overall study framework/approach is needed. The analysis is only theoretical analysis which are supposed to be mathematically validated and clearly visualize the analysis in the visual standard related to comparative analysis as well as computational complexity analysis.

-       It is confined to the security analysis against impersonation attacks only, why is it confined? It makes the scope of the study very limited in terms of usability.

-       How are the Theorem 1, 2 and 3 validated? Similarly, the proposed approaches better performance has to be justified through empirical analysis.

-       In terms of concept/background analysis, related work presentation, and sufficient comparison, the references provided are limited.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A bit massive refinement required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  The paper presents a novel approach to improving Universal Designated Verifier Signature Proof (UDVSP) systems by introducing an identity-based (ID-based) solution leveraging the SM2 digital signature scheme. The paper is well-structured, with a clear problem statement, theoretical foundations, and performance analysis. Even though, I have some suggestions like  Needs for improvement [1]. The author should improve the technical explanations of some sections such as the description of Σ-protocols and OR-proofs with appropriate diagrams or examples. [2]. The notation used in equations and algorithms should be clearly defined in a dedicated section to improve readability. [3]. The proposed system architecture is missing inside the article [4]. The author should explain how the proposed system integrates into real-world cryptographic protocols (e.g., blockchain). [5]. The security evaluation needs improvement such as side-channel attacks or implementation-specific vulnerabilities. [6]. The author should take care of the formatting of all Equations and symbols in the paper to improve readability. [7] There are two Lin et al in while referring. The one mentioned in abstracts refers which one? Provide the reference properly to identify the details. [8] Page 3; line 99 : Was is repeated two times. So check the clarity of the paper for language once again.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language can be improved

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

I can see that you tackled the core of the points raised. Further, I do not have additional comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is fairly improved as pre the previous comments provided. But still the analysis to justify the proposed work is not convincing.

However, it can be more improved, such that the Table 2 presentation has to be elaborated more with the meaning of "theoretical performance comparison", it shows that the theoretical performance comparison can't be verified practically.  

The label/unit of Y-axis of Figure 4 is not clear.  Please indicate the time unit of 2nd column of Table 3. 

 

Still needs, careful grammar/language correction, e.g. Line 286 - The signature "hoder" >> maybe it is "holder". 

 

Hence, another round refinement of the article is required for publication acceptance. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thorough proof reading is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments are addressed

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The refinement in the manuscript is acceptable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Few refinement required.