Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NIP-111: Nostr-specific Private Keys from Deterministic Wallet Signatures (Sign-in-With-X) #268

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
242 changes: 242 additions & 0 deletions 111.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
# NIP-111

Nostr-Specific Private Key Generation from Deterministic Wallet Signatures (Sign-In-With-X)
--
`draft` `optional` `author:0xc0de4c0ffee` `author:sshmatrix`

## Abstract

This specification provides an optional method for Nostr Clients, NIP-07 providers and Wallet providers to generate deterministic private keys from chain-agnostic CAIP-122 Signatures (`Sign-In-With-X` specification). The keypairs generated using this specification are Nostr-specific and do not expose the original signing keypair. The new private keys are derived using SHA-256 HMAC Key Derivation Function (HKDF) with NIP-02 or NIP-05 names, CAIP-02 Blockchain ID & CAIP-10 Account ID Specification identifiers, and deterministic signatures from connected wallets as inputs.

## Introduction

NIP-111 at its core is an account abstraction specification in which a cryptographic signature calculated by one signing algorithm and its native keypair (e.g. [Bitcoin-native Schnorr algorithm](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki)) can be used to derive a deterministic cryptographic keypair for another signing algorithm (e.g. [Ethereum-native ECDSA algorithm](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-191)) using an appropriate singular (non-invertible) key derivation function. This specification particularly describes the case where the former and latter algorithms are Schnorr and ECDSA respectively, and the one-way adaptor from ECDSA to Schnorr keypair is HMAC-based Key Derivation Function ([HKDF](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc586)).

NIP-111 specification originated from the desire to allow Nostr to function with widely popular Ethereum wallets such as Metamask and leverage the strong network effects of Ethereum ecosystem. The problem however lay in the fact that Nostr Protocol uses Bitcoin-native Schnorr algorithm for signing messages/data while Ethereum (and its wallets such as Metamask etc) uses ECDSA algorithm. The difference in two signing algorithms and respective signing keypairs is the exact technical incompatibility that this specification originally succeeded in resolving by enabling [Sign-In With Ethereum](https://login.xyz) (SIWE) on Nostr. The underlying schema however is fully capable of functioning as a chain-agnostic workflow and this improved draft reflects that property by using [CAIP](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs) (Chain-Agnostic Improvement Proposals) implementations.

## Terminology

### a) Username
`username` is either of the following:

- `petname` is a [NIP-02](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/02.md) compatible name,
- `petname@example.com` is a [NIP-05](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/05.md) identifier,
- `example.com` is NIP-05 identifier `_@example.com`,
- `sub.example.com` is NIP-05 identifier `_@sub.example.com`,

such that

```js
let username = 'petname' || 'petname@example.com' || 'example.com' || 'sub.example.com'
```

### b) Password
`password` is an optional `string` value used to salt the key derivation function (HKDF),
```js
let password = "horse staple battery"
```

## c) Chain-agnostic Identifiers
Chain-agnostic [CAIP-02: Blockchain ID Specification](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/blob/master/CAIPs/caip-2.md) and [CAIP-10: Account ID Specification](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/blob/master/CAIPs/caip-10.md) schemes are used to generate blockchain and address identifiers `caip02` and `caip10` respectively,
```js
let caip02 =
`eip155:<evm_chain_id>` ||
`cosmos:<hub_id_name>` ||
`bip122:<16 bytes genesis/fork hash>`;

let caip10 = `${caip02}:<checksum_address>`;
```

### d) Info
`info` is CAIP-10 and NIP-02/NIP-05 identifier string formatted as:
```js
let info = `${caip10}:${username}`;
```

### e) Message
Deterministic `message` to be signed by the wallet provider,
```js
let message = `Log into Nostr client as '${username}'\n\nIMPORTANT: Please verify the integrity and authenticity of connected Nostr client before signing this message\n\nSIGNED BY: ${caip10}`
```

### f) Signature
[RFC-6979](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6979) compatible (ECDSA) deterministic `signature` calculated by the wallet provider using native keypair,
```js
let signature = wallet.signMessage(message);
```

### g) Salt
`salt` is SHA-256 hash of the `info`, optional password and last **32 bytes** of signature string formatted as:
```js
let salt = await sha256(`${info}:${password?password:""}:${signature.slice(68)}`);
```
where, `signature.slice(68)` are the last 32 bytes of the deterministic ECDSA-derived Ethereum signature.

### h) Key Derivation Function (KDF)
HMAC-Based KDF `hkdf(sha256, inputKey, salt, info, dkLen = 42)` is used to derive the **42 bytes** long **hashkey** with inputs,

- `inputKey` is SHA-256 hash of signature bytes,
```js
let inputKey = await sha256(hexToBytes(signature.slice(2)));
```

- `info` is same as defined before, i.e.
```js
let info = `${caip10}:${username}`;
```

- `salt` is same as defined before, i.e.
```js
let salt = await sha256(`${info}:${password?password:""}:${signature.slice(68)}`);
```

- `dkLen` (Derived Key Length) is set to `42`,
```js
let dkLen = 42;
```
[FIPS 186-4 B.4.1](https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/186/4/final) requires hashkey length to be `>= n + 8`, where `n = 32` is the **bytelength** of the final `secp256k1` private key, such that `42 >= 32 + 8`.

- `hashToPrivateKey()` function is FIPS 186-4 B.4.1 implementation to convert HKDF-derived hashkey to valid `secp256k1` keypair. This function is implemented in JavaScript library `@noble/secp256k1` as `hashToPrivateKey()`.

```js
let hashKey = hkdf(sha256, inputKey, salt, info, dkLen = 42);
let privKey = secp256k1.utils.hashToPrivateKey(hashKey);
let pubKey = secp256k1.schnorr.getPublicKey(privKey);
```

## Architecture

The resulting architecture of NIP-111 can be visually interpreted as follows:

![](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dostr-eth/resources/main/graphics/nip-111.png)

## Implementation Requirements

- Connected Ethereum wallet Signer **MUST** be EIP-191 and RFC-6979 compatible.
- The `message` **MUST** be string formatted as
```
`Log into Nostr client as '${username}'\n\nIMPORTANT: Please verify the integrity and authenticity of connected Nostr client before signing this message\n\nSIGNED BY: ${caip10}`

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a little confused, is this "inspired by" Sign-In With Ethereum/CAIP-122 or is it meant to be conformant to one or both of those two specs? If the latter was intended, the message should probably conform the CAIP-122/EIP-4361 ABNF, which could include the entire message (with \ns removed) in the statement field, use the salt value for nonce, and info as first entry in the resources array (not really sure what to do with inputKey, as I'm unclear on its exact function on a cursory read-through). If it's not too late to go in that direction, I think it might have some benefits, such as being displayed to metamask users in the familiar, locked-down "Sign-In With Ethereum" modal rather than as a generic "personal_sign" modal... which only displays when presented with a personal_sign message matching the ABNF :D
image

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And apologies for not reading this sooner! Exciting work, in any case, supportive of the general direction and thankful to see CAIP-10 being used as the "export format" for addresses of signers 💪

Copy link

@sshmatrix sshmatrix Apr 6, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @bumblefudge! We intended to conform to CAIP-122 as much as possible but we had to strip all the variable quantities from the message format to retain deterministic nature of key derivation. In some sense, this implementation is not really "Sign-In" but more of "Ephemeral KeyGen and then Sign-In", and hence the necessary deviation from the standard. Our implementation requires that the verifiable signature is static.

Copy link

@bumblefudge bumblefudge Apr 6, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, the problem with an ABNF-based syntax is that you can't deviate and still get interop with other SIWX libraries or take advantage of SIWX support built into Metamask! Can I suggest hard-coding conformant dummy values into the spec and template rather than removing the key/value pairs that you don't need, so that the message can still conform to the ABNF and get displayed to the users as a SIWX message? I would note that ephemeral keygen is already baked into the SIWX standard, and is being used for that exact usecase by most implementers (the generated ephemeral public key is usually included as a value in the Resources array, although this isn't really mentioned explicitly in the specification itself!)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a little confused, is this "inspired by" Sign-In With Ethereum/CAIP-122 or is it meant to be conformant to one or both of those two specs? If the latter was intended, the message should probably conform the CAIP-122/EIP-4361 ABNF, which could include the entire message (with \n removed) in the statement field, use the salt value for nonce, and info as first entry in the resources array (not really sure what to do with inputKey, as I'm unclear on its exact function on a cursory read-through).

@bumblefudge 🙏
Should we remove CAIP122 ref as we can't pass full strict ABNF? or req all as new CAIP?

We actually started as basic signature request before upgrading to full CAIP122/ERC4361 format but had to remove all extradata for deterministic keys as they are too strict to fit in all.. So it's now back to generic "personal_sign" modal for chain agnostic "sign-in-with-x" in Nostr context, internally it's using deterministic signature from wallet to generate "app specific deterministic keys" across all Nostr clients.

We could fill in all ABNF required formats with deterministic/fixed values but we can't pass URI validation in wallets, and "${service} wants you to sign in with <chain> account: \n<addr>\n...must:have" text message for ALL web2+3 D/Apps is too strict for our deterministic keygen, web3+dapps are not supposed to have single URLs/apps as entry point..

"Important: .....\n\n" is supposed to be "Warning! ..." statement, it's not key: value. All other extradata is wrapped in SIGNED BY : ${CAIP10}, & our msg is simple 3 blocks <title>\n\n<statement>\n\n<key:value>...

I would note that ephemeral keygen is already baked into the SIWX standard, and is being used for that exact usecase by most implementers (the generated ephemeral public key is usually included as a value in the Resources array, although this isn't really mentioned explicitly in the specification itself!)

Can you add some ref codes/links for that?

Copy link

@sshmatrix sshmatrix Apr 10, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could fill in all ABNF required formats with deterministic/fixed values but we can't pass URI validation in wallets, and "${service} wants you to sign in with <chain> account: \n<addr>\n...must:have" text message for ALL web2+3 D/Apps is too strict for our deterministic keygen, web3+dapps are not supposed to have single URLs/apps as entry point..

URI is definitely a bigger issue and it hadn't come to my mind before. While timestamp and nonce can be replaced with placeholders, URI is used by Metamask for its community-audited safe dApp list. This is problematic for dApps or services without a unique entry point. CAIP122 is too strict for all use-cases and pretty much a death sentence for the deterministic use-case.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couldn't the uri be:
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/111.md
? It doesn't need to be on the domain

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couldn't the uri be: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/111.md ? It doesn't need to be on the domain

That's not a bad idea honestly but it will make users highly suspicious and wary of a service with 1/1/1970 in timestamp and a GitHub link in URI. I personally won't sign and subscribe to such a service at first glance. I believe there is room for a new CAIP detailing a separate signature format standard for deterministic use-cases.

Copy link
Author

@0xc0de4c0ffee 0xc0de4c0ffee Apr 10, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couldn't the uri be: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/111.md ? It doesn't need to be on the domain

When we connect MM at https://app.dostr.eth.limo it'll check and add "WARNING" if connected domain isn't matching domain URL. It's good feature for web2 & web3 apps with single point of entry but for our use case we're adding extra user info & pw with static signature request as basic security.

It all works as plaintext "sign in with xyz on Nostr" signature request so we're missing all SWIx interface/features.

  • it's better if we explain why we're doing this, our keygen design is inspired by Umbra cash & old Whisper(ssh) newKeypair/ newIdentity function. We use window.ethereum to sign eth tx/permits then use deterministic keys in window.nostr to send that over Nostr relays for off-chain features like stealth payments, DeFi, NFT markets, alt-mempool for AA, xyz services, bundlers/bots, games...

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

personally I think if we don't need timestamp, adding a placeholder for it is not a good idea.

```
- HKDF `inputKey` **MUST** be generated as the SHA-256 hash of 65 bytes long signature.
- HKDF `salt` **MUST** be generated as SHA-256 hash of string
```
${info}:${password?password:""}:${signature.slice(68)}
```
- HKDF Derived Key Length (`dkLen`) **MUST** be 42.
- HKDF `info` **MUST** be string formatted as
```
${caip10}:${username}
```

## JS Example
```js
import * as secp256k1 from '@noble/secp256k1'
import {hkdf} from '@noble/hashes/hkdf'
import {sha256} from '@noble/hashes/sha256'
import {queryProfile} from './nip05'
import {getPublicKey} from './keys'
import {ProfilePointer} from './nip19'

// const wallet = connected ethereum wallet with ethers.js
let username = "me@example.com"
let chainId = wallet.getChainId(); // get ChainID from connected wallet
let address = wallet.getAddress(); // get Address from wallet
let caip10 = `eip155:${chainId}:${address}`;
let message = `Log into Nostr client as '${username}'\n\nIMPORTANT: Please verify the integrity and authenticity of connected Nostr client before signing this message\n\nSIGNED BY: ${caip10}`
let signature = wallet.signMessage(message); // request Signature from wallet
let password = "horse staple battery"

/**
*
* @param username NIP-02/NIP-05 identifier
* @param caip10 CAIP identifier for the blockchain account
* @param sig Deterministic signature from X-wallet provider
* @param password Optional password
* @returns Deterministic private key as hex string
*/
export async function privateKeyFromX(
username: string,
caip10: string,
sig: string,
password: string | undefined
): Promise < string > {
if (sig.length < 64)
throw new Error("Signature too short");
let inputKey = await sha256(secp256k1.utils.hexToBytes(sig.toLowerCase().startsWith("0x") ? sig.slice(2) : sig))
let info = `${caip10}:${username}`
let salt = await sha256(`${info}:${password?password:""}:${sig.slice(-64)}`)
let hashKey = await hkdf(sha256, inputKey, salt, info, 42)
return secp256k1.utils.bytesToHex(secp256k1.utils.hashToPrivateKey(hashKey))
}

/**
*
* @param username NIP-02/NIP-05 identifier
* @param caip10 CAIP identifier for the blockchain account
* @param sig Deterministic signature from X-wallet provider
* @param password Optional password
* @returns
*/
export async function signInWithX(
username: string,
caip10: string,
sig: string,
password: string | undefined
): Promise < {
petname: string,
profile: ProfilePointer | null,
privkey: string
} > {
let profile = null
let petname = username
if (username.includes(".")) {
try {
profile = await queryProfile(username)
} catch (e) {
console.log(e)
throw new Error("Nostr Profile Not Found")
}
if(profile == null){
throw new Error("Nostr Profile Not Found")
}
petname = (username.split("@").length == 2) ? username.split("@")[0] : username.split(".")[0]
}
let privkey = await privateKeyFromX(username, caip10, sig, password)
let pubkey = getPublicKey(privkey)
if (profile?.pubkey && pubkey !== profile.pubkey) {
throw new Error("Invalid Signature/Password")
}
return {
petname,
profile,
privkey
}
}
```

## Implementations
1) Nostr Tools : [Sign-In-With-X](https://github.com/dostr-eth/nostr-tools/tree/siwx) ([Pull Request #132](https://github.com/nbd-wtf/nostr-tools/pull/132))
2) Nostr Client: [Dostr](https://github.com/dostr-eth/dostr-client)


## Security Considerations

- Users **SHOULD** always verify the integrity and authenticity of the Nostr client before signing the message.
- Users **SHOULD** ensure that they only input their Nostr `username` and `password` in trusted and secure clients.

## References:

- [RFC-6979: Deterministic Usage of the DSA and ECDSA](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6979)
- [RFC-5869: HKDF (HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function)](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5869)
- [CAIP-02: Blockchain ID Specification](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/blob/master/CAIPs/caip-2.md)
- [CAIP-10: Account ID Specification](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/blob/master/CAIPs/caip-10.md)
- [CAIP-122: Sign-in-With-X)](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/pull/122)
- [Digital Signature Standard (DSS), FIPS 186-4 B.4.1](https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/186/4/final)
- [BIP-340: Schnorr Signature Standard](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki)
- [ERC-191: Signed Data Standard](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-191)
- [EIP-155: Simple Replay Attack Protection](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-155)
- [NIP-02: Contact List and Petnames](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/02.md)
- [NIP-05: Mapping Nostr Keys to DNS-based Internet Identifiers](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/05.md)
- [ECDSA Signature Standard](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.38.8014)
- [@noble/hashes](https://github.com/paulmillr/noble-hashes)
- [@noble/secp256k1](https://github.com/paulmillr/noble-secp256k1)