Complexity Comparison Sample Clauses

Complexity Comparison. − Regardless of the master key loading scheme, our protocol requires at most 2(t 1) PRF evaluations. Assuming that an X- bit secure HMAC is used as the PRF in our protocol and that a hash-based pseudo-random number generator (e.g., [43]) is used in Xxxxxxxxx and Desmedt’s protocol, the total complex- ity of the PRF evaluation and random number generation in the two protocols is comparable. The difference in computational complexity therefore lies elsewhere. . Σ By extending the standard linear time greedy set cover algo- rithm [40] to the hypergraph setting, it can be shown that the number of operations required by the MCSH approximation in Algorithm 1 grows as O (tn) (assuming O(n) total master keys). Since this algorithm is executed at all t clients in paral- solution suitable for implementation in power-constrained wireless networks. The key issue to address in that translation is protocol scalability. For example, a pseudo-random master key distribution that can be derived from a single seed could be used in place of the random distributions considered herein. This would enable low-overhead network join operations while maintaining energy-efficient group key agreement. Other is- sues to address include support for group join operations, robustness to lossy wireless links, and key refreshing.