Decentralized Group Key Distribution Protocols Sample Clauses

Decentralized Group Key Distribution Protocols. Decentralized group key distribution protocols can be preferred to contributory group key agreement protocols, since they rely on inexpensive symmetric key encryption technique. How- ever, all group key distribution schemes assume secure channel that is, in practice, implemented by public key cryptosystem (e.g. Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx). Furthermore, they require the leader to es- tablish multiple secure two-party channels between itself and other group members in order to securely distribute the new key. Maintaining such channels in dynamic groups can be expensive since setting up each channel involves a separate two-party key agreement. When a group is dynamic, amortized number of secure channel becomes O(n2). Another disadvantage is the reliance on a single entity to generate good (i.e., cryptographically strong, random) keys. First decentralized group key distribution scheme is due to Xxxxxxxxx et al. [12]. They propose efficient protocols for small-group key agreement and large-group key distribution. Unfortunately, their scheme for autonomous small group key agreement is not collusion resistant. Xxxxxxx et al. modified OFT (One-way Function Tree) [20] to provide dynamic server elec- tion [14]. This protocol has same key tree structure and uses similar notations (e.g. keys, blinded keys). Other than expensive maintainence of secure channels described above, this protocol has expensive communication cost: Even for single join and leave, this protocol can take O(h) rounds to complete, when h is the height of the key tree. The authors do not consider merge and partition event, and also implementation. One advantage different from others is that their group key does not depend on a single entity. Xxxxx et al. [24] propose a decentralized group key distribution protocol extended from LKH protocol [30]. It tolerates network partitions and other network events. Even though this approach cannot help incurring basic disadvantages discussed above, authors reduce the communication and computational cost. In addition, authors use AVL tree to provide provable and efficient tree height.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Decentralized Group Key Distribution Protocols. Decentralized group key distribution (DGKD) protocols involve dynamically selecting a group member who generates and distributes keys to other group members. After subtractive membership events, individual partitions can continue operation by electing a new key server. The drawback is that a key server must establish long-term pairwise secure channels (by making use of public key cryptosystem such as Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx) with all current group members in order to distribute group keys. Consequently, each time a new key server comes into play, significant costs must be incurred to set up these channels. Another disadvantage is the reliance on a single entity to generate good (i.e., cryptographically strong and random) keys. First DGKD protocol is due to Xxxxxxxxx et al. [16]. They propose efficient protocols for small-group key agree- ment and large-group key distribution. Unfortunately, their scheme for autonomous small group key agreement is insecure (not collusion resistant). Xxxxxxx et al. modified OFT (One-way Function Tree) [24] to provide dynamic server election [18]. This protocol has the same key tree structure and uses the notations (e.g. keys, blinded keys) similar to ours. Other than expensive maintenance of secure channels described above, this protocol has a high communication cost: even for single join and leave, this protocol can take rounds. This scheme does not handle merge and partition event. One advantage different from other DGKD protocols is that their group key has a contributory nature: whenever a group member changes its session random, the group key changes. Xxxxx et al. [30] propose a DGKD protocol derived from the LKH protocol [37]. It tolerates network partitions and other network events. Even though this approach does not avoid the disadvantages discussed above, it reduces the communication and computational costs. In addition, it uses AVL tree to provide provable tree height bound.

Related to Decentralized Group Key Distribution Protocols

  • Distribution Protocol (1) At a time wholly within the discretion of Class Counsel, but on notice to the Settling Defendants, Class Counsel will bring motions seeking orders from the Courts approving the Distribution Protocol. The motions can be brought before the Effective Date, but the orders approving the Distribution Protocol shall be conditional on the Effective Date occurring.

  • Distribution of UDP and TCP queries DNS probes will send UDP or TCP “DNS test” approximating the distribution of these queries.

  • Unbundled Subloop Distribution (USLD) 2.8.2.1 The USLD facility is a dedicated transmission facility that BellSouth provides from an End User’s point of demarcation to a BellSouth cross-connect device. The BellSouth cross-connect device may be located within a remote terminal (RT) or a stand-alone cross-box in the field or in the equipment room of a building. The USLD media is a copper twisted pair that can be provisioned as a 2-wire or 4-wire facility. BellSouth will make available the following subloop distribution offerings where facilities exist: USLD – Voice Grade (USLD-VG) Unbundled Copper Subloop (UCSL) USLD – Intrabuilding Network Cable (USLD-INC (aka riser cable))

  • Unbundled Sub-Loop Distribution Intrabuilding Network Cable (USLD-INC) is the distribution facility owned or controlled by BellSouth inside a building or between buildings on the same property that is not separated by a public street or road. USLD-INC includes the facility from the cross connect device in the building equipment room up to and including the point of demarcation at the End User’s premises.

  • When Must Distributions from a Traditional IRA Begin You must begin receiving the assets in your account no later than April 1 following the calendar year in which you reach RMD age.

  • Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation by June 30, 2013. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

  • Distribution of Union Literature (a) The Employer will provide space to the Union during Employee orientation to allow the Union to distribute Union literature related to the orientation of new Union members.

  • Traditional Medicine Cooperation 1. The aims of Traditional Medicine cooperation will be: (a) to build on existing agreements or arrangements already in place for Traditional Medicine cooperation; and (b) to promote information exchanges on Traditional Medicine between the Parties. 2. In pursuit of the objectives in Article 149 (Objectives), the Parties will encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the following activities, including, but not limited to: (a) encouraging dialogue on Traditional Medicine policies and promotion of respective Traditional Medicine; (b) raising awareness of active effects of Traditional Medicine; (c) encouraging exchange of experience in conservation and restoration of Traditional Medicine; (d) encouraging exchange of experience on management, research and development for Traditional Medicine; (e) encouraging cooperation in the Traditional Medicine education field, mainly through training programs and means of communication; (f) having a consultation mechanism between the Parties' Traditional Medicine authorities; (g) encouraging cooperation in Traditional Medicine therapeutic services and products manufacturing; and (h) encouraging cooperation in research in the fields of Traditional Medicine in order to contribute in efficacy and safety assessments of natural resources and products used in health care.

  • Distribution Upgrades The Connecting Transmission Owner shall design, procure, construct, install, and own the Distribution Upgrades described in Attachment 6 of this Agreement. If the Connecting Transmission Owner and the Interconnection Customer agree, the Interconnection Customer may construct Distribution Upgrades. The actual cost of the Distribution Upgrades, including overheads, shall be directly assigned to the Interconnection Customer. The Interconnection Customer shall be responsible for its share of all reasonable expenses, including overheads, associated with owning, operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing the Distribution Upgrades, as set forth in Attachment 6 to this Agreement.

  • DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE OR HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS The Engineer agrees to comply with the requirements set forth in Attachment H, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise or Historically Underutilized Business Subcontracting Plan Requirements with an assigned goal or a zero goal, as determined by the State.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!