Cascaded Events Sample Clauses

Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable, it is natu- ral to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. In fact, cascaded events and their impact on group protocols are of- ten considered in group communication literature, but, alas, frequently neglected in the security literature. Furthermore, the probability of a cascaded event is much higher on a wide area network. A cascaded event occurs when one membership change occurs while another is be- ing handled. For example, a partition can occur while a prior partition is processed, resulting in a cascade of size two. We claim that the STR partition protocol is self-stabilizing, i.e., ro- bust against cascaded network events. In general, self-stabilization is a very desirable feature since lack thereof requires extensive and compli- cated protocol ”coating” to either 1) shield the protocol from cascaded events, or 2) xxxxxx it sufficiently to make the protocol robust with respect to cascaded events (essentially, by making it re-entrant). The latter is often very complicated and inefficient as seen from [AKNR+01]. The pseudocode for the self-stabilizing protocol is shown as below. receive msg (msg type = membership event) construct new tree while there are missing blinded keys if (I can compute any missing keys and I am the sponsor) compute missing blinded keys broadcast new blinded keys endif receive msg if (msg type = broadcast) update current tree else (msg type = membership event) construct new tree endwhile Based on view synchrony discussed in Section 2, we provide an infor- mal proof that the above protocol terminates on any finite number of consecutive cascaded events. Due to view synchrony, every member has the same membership view. We can further assume that the ordering of members in the group communication system is same as that of the key tree. By Remark 1, at least a member, say Mi can compute the group key if all of the blinded session randoms are known. All members can then compute the group key using the broadcast message of the member Mi by Remark 2. Hence, it is enough to show that at least one member knows every other member’s session random, eventually. In the above pseudocode, the sponsor is the node below the lowest node whose blinded session random is missing. Now, if a sponsor Ms cannot compute the group key since some of the blinded keys are missing, it broadcasts the key tree which includes every blinded session random and blinded keys Ms knows. Th...
Sample 1See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable, it is natural to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. (In fact, cascaded events and their impact on group and multi-round protocols are often considered in group communication literature, but, alas, not often enough in the security literature.) A cascaded event occurs, in a simplest form, when one membership change occurs while another is being handled. Here event means any of: join, leave, partition, merge or any combination thereof. For example, a partition can occur while a prior partition is being dealt with, resulting in a cascade of size two. In principle, cascaded events of arbitrary size can occur if the underlying network is highly volatile. We claim that the TGDH partition protocol is self-stabilizing, i.e., robust against cascaded network events. This property is notable and rare as most multi-round cryptographic protocols are not geared towards handling of such events. In general, self-stabilization is a very desirable feature since lack thereof requires extensive and complicated protocol “coating” to either: 1) shield the protocol from cascaded events, or 2) xxxxxx it sufficiently to make the protocol robust with respect to cascaded events (essentially, by making it re-entrant). The high-level pseudocode for the self-stabilizing protocol is shown in Figure 11. The changes from Figure 10 are minimal (lines 18 – 19 are added). Instead of providing a formal proof of self-stabilization we demonstrate it with an example. Figure 12 shows an example of a cascaded partition event. The first part of the figure depicts a partition of , , and from the prior group of ten members . This partition normally requires two rounds to complete the key agreement. As described in Section 5.4, every member constructs the same tree after completing the initial round. The middle part shows the resulting tree. In it, all non-leaf nodes except must be recomputed as follows:
Sample 1Sample 2
Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable it is natural to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. (In fact, this is typically done in group communication literature, but, alas, not often enough in the security literature.) A cascaded event occurs when a join, leave, merge or partition takes place while a prior event is being handled. We claim that the TGDH partition protocol is self-stabilizing, i.e., robust against cascaded network events. This is quite rare as most multi-round cryptographic protocols are not geared towards handling of such events. In general, self-stabilization is a very desirable feature since lack thereof requires extensive and complicated protocol ”coating” to either 1) shield the protocol from cascaded events, or 2) xxxxxx it sufficiently to make the protocol robust with respect to cascaded events (essentially, by making it re-entrant). The high-level pseudocode for the self-stabilizing protocol is shown in figure 11. The changes from fig- ure 10 are minimal. Instead of providing a formal proof of self-stabilization (which we omit due to submission page limitations) we demonstrate it with an example. Figure 12 shows an example of a cascaded partition event. The first part of the figure depicts a partition of M1, M4, and M7 from the prior group of ten members [M1::M10]. This partition normally requires two rounds to complete the key agreement. As described in section 5.4, every receive msg (msg type = membership event) construct new tree while there are missing blinded keys if (I can compute any missing keys) /* sponsor? */ compute missing blinded keys broadcast new blinded keys endif receive msg if (msg type = broadcast) update current tree else (msg type = membership event) construct new tree endwhile /* as many as possible */ /* including own broadcast */ Figure 11: Self-stabilizing protocol pseudocode <0,0> <0,0> <1,0> <1,1> <1,0> <1,1> <2,0> <2,1> <2,2> M8 <2,3> <2,0> M2 <2,1> <2,2> M9 <2,3> M10 <3,0> <3,1> <3,2> <3,3> <3,6> <3,7> <3,2> <3,3> <0,0> <1,0> <1,1> <2,0> <2,1> <2,2> <2,3> <3,0> <3,1> <3,2> <3,3> <3,4> <3,5> <3,6> <3,7> M3 <4,0> <4,1> <4,2> <4,3> M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M2 M3 M5 M6 M9 M10 M5 M6 M1 M2 M4 M5 Figure 12: An Example of Cascaded Partition member constructs the same tree after completing the initial round. The middle part shows the resulting tree. In it, all non-leaf nodes except Kh2;3i must be recomputed as follows:
Sample 1
Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable, it is natural to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. (In fact, cascaded events and their impact on group protocols are often considered in group communication literature, but, alas, not often enough in the security literature.) A cascaded event occurs, in its simplest form, when one membership change occurs while another is being handled. Event here means any of: join, leave, partition, merge or a combination thereof. For example, a partition can occur while a prior partition is being dealt with, resulting in a cascade of size two. In principle, cascaded events of arbitrary size can occur if the underlying network is highly volatile. As discussed before, STR protocol requires at most two rounds. One might wonder why robustness against cascaded failure is important for only a 2-round protocol. We give couple of examples that illustrate (potential) failure of the STR protocol. • Suppose a network partition breaks a group G into groups G1 and G2. The sponsor MG1 needs to compute missing keys and bkeys. While computing these keys, another partition breaks G1 into two other groups G1 (containing MG1 ) and G2. Based on the partition protocol
Sample 1
Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable, it is natural to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. (In fact, cascaded events and their impact on group and multi-round protocols are often considered in group communication literature, but, alas, not often enough in the security literature.) A cascaded event occurs, in a simplest form, when one membership change occurs while another is being handled. Here event means any of: join, leave, partition, merge or any combination thereof. For example, a partition can occur while a prior partition is being dealt with, resulting in a cascade of size two. In principle, cascaded events of arbitrary size can occur if the underlying network is highly volatile. We claim that the TGDH partition protocol is self-stabilizing, i.e., robust against cascaded network events. This property is notable and rare as most multi-round cryptographic protocols are not geared towards handling of such events. In general, self-stabilization is a very desirable feature since lack thereof requires extensive and complicated protocol “coating” to either: 1) shield the protocol from cascaded events, or 2) xxxxxx it sufficiently to make the protocol robust with respect to cascaded events (essentially, by making it re-entrant). The high-level pseudocode for the self-stabilizing protocol is shown in Figure 11. The changes from Figure 10 are minimal (lines 18 – 19 are added). { }
Sample 1

Related to Cascaded Events

  • Subsequent Taxable Events If, within 10 years from the date on which the relevant Participating TO's Interconnection Facilities are placed in service, (i) the Interconnection Customer Breaches the covenants contained in Article 5.17.2, (ii) a "disqualification event" occurs within the meaning of IRS Notice 88-129, or (iii) this LGIA terminates and the Participating TO retains ownership of the Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, the Interconnection Customer shall pay a tax gross-up for the cost consequences of any current tax liability imposed on the Participating TO, calculated using the methodology described in Article 5.17.4 and in accordance with IRS Notice 90-60.

  • Reports of unusual occurrence The Contractor shall, during the Maintenance Period, prior to the close of each day, send to the Authority and the Authority’s Engineer, by facsimile or e- mail, a report stating accidents and unusual occurrences on the Project Highway relating to the safety and security of the Users and Project Highway. A monthly summary of such reports shall also be sent within 3 (three) business days of the closing of month. For the purposes of this Clause 15.4, accidents and unusual occurrences on the Project Highway shall include:

  • Regulatory Event New Taxes If, after the Effective Date, a Regulatory Event occurs or New Taxes are imposed, and such event or taxes have a direct, material and adverse effect on the economic benefits to a Party of this ESA, the affected Party shall send written notice to the other Party, setting forth the Regulatory Event or New Taxes and reasonably demonstrating the effect of the same on the affected Party. Upon delivery of such notice, the Parties shall use reasonable efforts to negotiate an amendment to this ESA to mitigate such effect. Alternatively, if as a direct result of such a Regulatory Event or New Taxes, the Competitive Supplier incurs additional, material costs, the Competitive Supplier shall provide a written notice to the Town that documents: a) the effective date of the Regulatory Event or New Taxes; b) a detailed explanation and reasonable demonstration of the material costs incurred as a result of the Regulatory Event or New Taxes; c) the timing of the cost impact to be incurred by the Competitive Supplier; d) the proposed price increase per kWh to be passed on to Participating Consumers; and e) a proposed plan for coordinating with the Local Distributor for an increase in the price per kWh that is billed by the Local Distributor, designed to reimburse the Competitive Supplier for such cost impact. If the Town and the Competitive supplier cannot agree on the amendment to this ESA or reimbursement contemplated by this section, the matter may be subject to dispute resolution in accordance with section 12.2. In no event shall a price change become effective without providing Participating Consumers with a 30-day advance notice of the price change.

  • Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences The Hirer must report all accidents involving injury to the public to a member of the Village Hall management committee as soon as possible and complete the relevant section in the Village Hall’s accident book. Any failure of equipment belonging to the Village Hall or brought in by the Hirer must also be reported as soon as possible. Certain types of accident or injury must be reported on a special form to the local authority. The Hall Secretary will give assistance in completing this form. This is in accordance with the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR).

  • Default Events (a) Any material breach of the Funding Agreement by the Recipient, including those set out below, will be an event of default (“Default Event”):

  • Train Operator Events of Default The following are Train Operator Events of Default:

  • Reporting of Reportable Events If Xxxxx determines (after a reasonable opportunity to conduct an appropriate review or investigation of the allegations) through any means that there is a Reportable Event, Xxxxx shall notify OIG, in writing, within 30 days after making the determination that the Reportable Event exists.

  • Environmental Contamination Neither Party shall in any event be liable to the other Party for any costs whatsoever resulting from the presence or release of any environmental hazard such Party did not cause or contribute to causing. Each Party shall, at the other Party's request, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other Party, each of its officers, directors and employees from and against any losses, damages, claims, demands, suits, liabilities, fines, penalties and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) that arise out of or from (i) any environmental hazard that such Party, its contractors or agents caused in the work locations or (ii) the presence or release of any environmental hazard for which such Party is responsible under Applicable Law. In the event both Parties contribute to such environmental hazard, they shall each proportionately bear such liability.

  • Qualifying Events In order to be eligible for COBRA continuation, you need to have experienced a Qualifying Event. A Qualifying Event is one of the events listed below which would result in loss of coverage if not for the COBRA continuation:

  • Consequences of Events of Default and Corrective Action If an Event of Default occurs, the Province may, at any time, take one or more of the following actions:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.