Skip to content
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
118 lines (94 sloc) 11 KB

Verifiable Offline Credentials

Author: Michael Lodder



Self Sovereign Identity is now a widely discussed topic especially in the context of verifiable credentials–attributes attested by third-parties about an individual or entity that can be used as proof about them such as a digital drivers license or passport. This has enabled new systems to be developed to address security and privacy issues. Sovrin is a permissioned ledger to facilitate privacy preserving verifiable credentials using zero-knowledge proofs.


All current solutions for verifiable credentials involve computer systems and networks. These systems perform all the complex cryptographic algorithms on a user's behalf, communicate with all involved parties, and are responsible for safeguarding the information. Developed countries such as those in Europe and North America have no problem using these platforms, these solutions exclude parts of the word that do not have the same sophistication. For example, the vast majority of Africa does not have access to the internet. Many Africa locations that do, connection speeds are incredibly slow. There are also possible scenarios where a computer system may not be available to individuals like refugees. Refugees must still be able to prove attributes about themselves and relying parties must still be able to validate that information.


Offline credentials aims to fill this niche. The benefits to such a system include an individual being able to carry the credentials with them, can be safeguarded without computers, and still be cryptographically verified by relying parties. Offline credentials should not require the use of computer systems or other electronic devices, but may use them to implement pieces of the process. Otherwise, this voids the entire idea of offline credentials. In addition, it is recommended any cryptographic algorithms and material remain offline to prevent electronic compromises, alterations or theft. Offline encryption is also not susceptible to a malware attack; and side channel attacks require cameras to record the person performing the encryption. Offline encryption systems have existed for centuries as ciphers. Only in the last few decades has offline cryptography algorithms become sophisticated enough to offer the more powerful features of modern cryptography like authenticated encryption and yield ciphertexts with uniform random distribution of character frequencies.

Offline benefits encompass three categories: usability, deployability, and security. Each of these come with risks and limits that computers already handle or solve. One argument is how this is different than having a physical credential like a drivers license today. A drivers license or passport cannot be cryptographically verified by hand and all information must be shown when presented to a relying party. Offline credentials should also support selective disclosure–only the information that a credential holder allows is shared with a verifier. This paper discusses possible solutions that could be implemented to create verifiable offline credentials along with their pros and cons.


Before I can detail offline solutions, it is necessary to cover the aspects of offline credentials that will be used to measure solutions before a solution is considered viable. Some offline ciphers require more sophistication and are more prone to mistakes but hard to break, while others may be simpler with fewer mistakes possible but not hard enough for an attacker with sufficient resources to break. Many of these terms are borrowed from The quest to replace passwords (particularly concerning usability and security) but adapted to offline credentials. Below is a list of those considered relevant for offline credential systems.


  1. Holder: A person or entity that physically holds offline credentials.
  2. Issuer: A person or entity that creates offline credentials for Holders.
  3. Verifier: A person or entity that receives a presentation of credentials from Holders and verifies their truthfullness.


  1. Memorywise-Effortless: Holders do not have to remember any secrets at all or possibly one secret for everything.
  2. Scalable: Dozens of credentials shouldn't increase the burden for the user. "Scalable" means only from the user's perspective.
  3. Nothing-to-carry: Users do not need to carry any additional physical object (electronic, mechanical key, piece of paper) other than the credential.
  4. Physically-Effortless: Process does not require physical user effort beyond, say, performing a simple task like pressing a button.
  5. Easy-to-learn: Users who don't know the process can figure it out and learn it without too much trouble, and then easily recall how to use it.
  6. Efficient-to-Use: The time the user must spend for each presentation is acceptably short. The time required for enrolling with a new issuer, although possibly longer than presentation to a verifier, is also reasonable.
  7. Infrequent-Errors: Process a user must perform should succeed when done by an honest and legitimate person. In other words, the system isn't so hard to use or unreliable that genuine users are routinely rejected (like when performing an authenticated encryption scheme by hand).
  8. Easy-Recovery-from-Loss: Users can conveniently regain their credentials if lost or stolen. This combines other aspects like low latency before restored credentials; low user inconvenience (e.g., no requirement for physically standing in line); and assurance that recovery will be possible.
  9. Selective-disclosure: Users can easily choose which attributes to present and withhold the rest.


  1. Accessible: Holders are not prevented from using the system by disabilities or other physical (not cognitive) conditions.
  2. Negligible-Cost-per-User: The total cost per Holder is negligible.
  3. System-compatible: The process could be done by computers if needed.
  4. Non-Proprietary: Anyone can implement or use the process for any purpose without having to pay royalties to anyone else. Relevant techniques are generally known, published openly and not protected by patents or trade secrets.


  1. Resilient-to-Physical-Observation: An attacker cannot impersonate a user after observing them present a credential. Attacks include any form of observation.
  2. Resilient-to-Targeted-Impersonation: It is not possible for an attacker to impersonate a holder without having their credentials and by exploiting knowledge of personal details.
  3. Resilent-to-Guessing: Since offline credential presentations are done in person, relying parties can constrain guessing or detect an impersonator trying to guess.
  4. Resilent-to-Leaks-from-Other-Verifiers: Nothing a verifier could possibly leak can help an attacker impersonate the user to another verifier.
  5. Resilent-to-Theft: An attacker in possession of a Holder's credentials cannot use them for presentation to another party.
  6. No-Trusted-Third-Party: The process does not rely on a trusted third party who could, upon being attacked or otherwise becoming untrustworthy, compromise a holder's security or privacy.
  7. Unlinkable: Colluding verifiers cannot determine, whether the same holder is presenting to both.


We define a set of requirements that a verifiable offline credential system must meet.

  1. Cryptographic keys must remain offline: We assume once a computer knows the keys, they are compromised.
  2. Encryption must be performed by humans: For the previous reason, a person must do encryption/decryption since it requires knowledge of the key.
  3. Encryption must be performable by humans: All parties involved must be able to learn the algorithms and compute them by hand without any electronics.
  4. Encryption must not take unreasonable amount of time by humans: Honest parties should be able to complete computations in a reasonable time limit, say, a few minutes but not longer than 20.
  5. Encryption must be hard to break: A adversary with a computer and the ciphertext should not be able to decrypt it in a reasonable amount of time.
  6. Credentials must be available offline: Holder's should be able to present their credentials without any electronics.
  7. Credentials may be available online: Holders may choose to backup their credentials online.
  8. Credential issuance and presentation must require holder involvement: Otherwise, impersonation becomes easy.
  9. Parties must be mutually authenticated: Holder must know they are talking with the Issuer to receive a credential and a Verifier then expect.
  10. Computers may be used for safeguarding credentials: Holders may not be able to or want to physically carry their credentials. Computers shoudl only serve as an data only.


Offline credentials cannot use existing public key cryptography as they are based on the difficulty of factoring large primes and solving the discrete log problem. If the math were done by hand, the numbers would have to be small which would permit computers to easily break the corresponding secrets. Nor can offline credentials use existing symmetric cryptography like AES or 3DES as these algorithms were designed to be implemented by computers and would violate the requirement to be performable by humans.

This leaves pen-and-paper methods. We discuss each possibility and outcome.

Solitaire Encryption Algorithm

Solitaire was written in 1999 by Bruce Schneier and uses a deck of playing cards. It was designed to be secure even against the most well-funded military adveraries with the biggest computers and the smartest cryptanalysts. The biggest problem with it is the time it takes to perform encryption. The author describes it requiring most of an evening to encrypt a reasonably long message. It does not offer authenticated encryption. This violates are requirement that encryption not require unreasonable amounts of time, and how to mutually authenticate each party. See Problems with Bruce Schneier's "Solitaire" for other reasons why this algorithm will no longer be considered.


One-time-pads cannot be cracked provided they are the same size or larger than the message. The problem is creating one with sufficient entropy by hand is difficult. One-time pads cannot be reused either. This makes them very easy to get wrong, and provides no security if done wrong. This violates multiple requirements and will no longer be considered.


LC4 is a new cipher that supports authenticated encryption and nonces to prevent key leaks. The algorithm is easy to perform which makes it susceptible to some attacks. It supports up to 36 characters and keys are 36 characters long. Nonce's should be at least 6 characters long per plaintext message. For my first attempt at offline credentials, I choose to use LC4 as it has most of the considerations and allows the scheme to meet all the requirements.


You can’t perform that action at this time.