Overview and Motivation Sample Clauses

Overview and Motivation. ‌ A continuous group key agreement (CGKA) protocol allows a long-lived dynamic group to agree on a continuous stream of fresh secret group keys. In CGKA new parties may join and existing members may leave the group at any point mid-session. In contrast to standard (dynamic) GKA, the CGKA protocols are asynchronous in that they make no assumptions about if, when, or for how long members are online.4 Moreover, unlike, say, broadcast encryption, the protocol may not rely on a (trusted) group manager or any other designated party. Due to a session’s potentially very long life-time (e.g., years), CGKA protocols must ensure a property called post-compromise forward security (PCFS). PCFS strengthens the two standard notions of forward security (FS) (the keys output must remain secure even if some party’s state is compromised in the future) and post-compromise security (PCS) (parties recover from state compromise after exchanging a few messages and the keys become secure again) in that it requires them to hold simultaneously. CGKA as a stand-alone primitive was introduced by Xxxxx et al. in [5]. The authors analyzed (a version of) the TreeKEM CGKA protocol [11], a core component in the scalable end-to-end secure group messaging (SGM) protocol MLS, currently under development by the eponymous Messaging Layer Security working group of the IETF [9]. A SGM protocol is an asynchronous (in the above sense) protocol enabling a dynamic group of parties to exchange messages over the Internet. While such protocols initially relied on a service provider acting as a trusted third party, nowadays end-to-end security is the norm, and the provider merely acts as an untrusted delivery service. SGM protocols are expected to (simultaneously) provide post-compromise forward security for messages defined analogously to CGKA.5 The proliferation of SGM protocols in practice has been extensive with more than 2 billion users today. The primary bottleneck for greater scalability of CGKA/SGM protocols is the communication and computational complexity of performing a group operation (e.g. agree on a new group key, add a party, etc.). Almost all protocols, in particular all those used in practice today, have complexity Ω(n) for groups of size n (e.g. [34, 37, 28]). This is an unfortunate side effect of them being built black-box on top of 2-party secure messaging (SM) protocols. The first (CGKA) protocol to break this mold, thereby achieving “fair-weather” complexity of O(log(n)), is the ART...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Overview and Motivation. A continuous group key agreement (CGKA) protocol allows a long-lived dy- namic group to agree on a continuous stream of fresh secret group keys. In s Research supported by the Zurich Information Security and Privacy Center (ZISC). CGKA new parties may join and existing members may leave the group at any point mid-session. In contrast to standard (dynamic) GKA, the CGKA protocols are asynchronous in that they make no assumptions about if, when, or for how long members are online.4 Moreover, unlike, say, broadcast encryption, the pro- tocol may not rely on a (trusted) group manager or any other designated party. Due to a session’s potentially very long life-time (e.g., years), CGKA protocols must ensure a property called post-compromise forward security (PCFS). PCFS strengthens the two standard notions of forward security (FS) (the keys output must remain secure even if some party’s state is compromised in the future) and post-compromise security (PCS) (parties recover from state compromise after exchanging a few messages and the keys become secure again) in that it requires them to hold simultaneously. The first CGKA protocol was introduced by Xxxx-Xxxxxx et al. in [15] al- though CGKA as a (term and) generic stand-alone primitive was only later introduced by Xxxxx et al. in [4]. To motivate the new primitive [4] puts forth the intuition that CGKA abstracts the cryptographic core of an “MLS-like” approach to SGM protocol design in much the same way that CKA (the 2- party analogue of CGKA) abstracts the asymmetric core of a double-ratchet based 2-party secure messaging protocol [1]. Indeed, MLS’s computational and communication complexities, support for dynamic groups, it’s asynchronous na- ture, trust assumptions and it’s basic security guarantees are naturally inherited from the underlying TreeKEM CGKA sub-protocol. Finally, we believe that the fundamental nature of key agreement and the increasing focus on highly dis- tributed practical cryptographic protocols surely allows for further interesting applications of CGKA beyond SGM. In [4] the authors analyzed (a version of) the TreeKEM CGKA protocol [12]; the core cryptographic component in the scalable end-to-end secure group mes- saging (SGM) protocol MLS, currently under development by the eponymous Messaging Layer Security working group of the IETF [10]. An SGM protocol is an asynchronous (in the above sense) protocol enabling a dynamic group of parties to privately exchange messages over the Internet. ...
Sample 1
Overview and Motivation 
Sample 1

Related to Overview and Motivation

  • Overview (a) The Employer is committed to maintaining a stable and skilled workforce, recognising its contribution to the operation of the Employer. As such, full time direct and ongoing employment is a guiding principle of this Agreement.

  • Ongoing Review and Revisions As set forth in Section 35.7, the Parties have agreed to the coordination and exchange of data and information under this Agreement to enhance system reliability and efficient market operations as systems exist and are contemplated as of the Effective Date. The Parties expect that these systems and the technology applicable to these systems and to the collection and exchange of data will change from time to time throughout the term of this Agreement. The Parties agree that the objectives of this Agreement can be fulfilled efficiently and economically only if the Parties, from time to time, review and, as appropriate, revise the requirements stated herein in response to such changes, including deleting, adding, or revising requirements and protocols. Each Party will negotiate in good faith in response to such revisions the other Party may propose from time to time. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall require any Party to reach agreement with respect to any such changes, or to purchase, install, or otherwise implement new equipment, software, or devices, or functions, except as required to perform this Agreement.

  • Peer Assistance and Review Program 1. MCEA and MCPS agree to jointly operate a Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program. The PAR Program is a mechanism for maintaining systemwide quality control and ensuring that all MCPS teachers responsible for teaching students are functioning at or above the high MCPS standards of performance. It provides intensive assistance for any teacher who has not yet achieved that standard or who falls below acceptable standards. Assistance and review are provided to both experienced MCPS teachers in need of significant improvement and teachers in their first year of teaching.

  • Program Overview A. Goals of the Choice Neighborhoods Program. The Choice Neighborhoods Program employs a comprehensive approach to neighborhood transformation. The program transforms neighborhoods of concentrated poverty into mixed-income neighborhoods of long-term viability by revitalizing severely distressed public and/or assisted housing; improving access to economic opportunities; and investing and leveraging investments in well-functioning services, effective schools and education programs, public assets, public transportation, and improved access to jobs. Choice Neighborhoods ensures that current residents benefit from this transformation by preserving affordable housing in the neighborhood or providing the choice to move to affordable housing in another neighborhood of opportunity. The purpose of this grant is to implement a Transformation Plan that has been developed through a local planning process and furthers the goals of the Choice Neighborhoods Program. The core goals of Choice Neighborhoods are:

  • Forecasting Manager and Sprint PCS will work cooperatively to generate mutually acceptable forecasts of important business metrics including traffic volumes, handset sales, subscribers and Collected Revenues for the Sprint PCS Products and Services. The forecasts are for planning purposes only and do not constitute Manager's obligation to meet the quantities forecast.

  • Excellence excellence is the result of always striving to do better. This is represented by constant improvements to the way in which we deliver our services, which results in a high performing health service. • Respect – we demonstrate respect through our actions and behaviours. By showing each other respect, in turn we earn respect. • Integrity – integrity is doing the right thing, knowing it is what we do when people aren’t looking that is a true reflection of who we are. • Collaboration – collaboration represents working together in partnership to achieve sustainable health care outcomes for our community with a shared understanding of our priorities. • Accountability – together we have a shared responsibility for ensuring the best health care outcomes for our community. This is a reminder that it is not only our actions, but also the actions we do not do, for which we are accountable. Brief Summary of Duties (in order of importance)

  • Authorized User Overview and Mini-Bid Process Project Based IT Consulting Services Contracts enable Authorized Users to use a competitive Mini-bid Process to acquire Services on an as-needed basis, for qualified IT Projects. Project Based IT Consulting Services may include, but will not be limited to projects requiring: analysis, data classification, design, development, testing, quality assurance, security and associated training for Information Technology based applications. See section 1.3 Out of Scope Work for a listing of projects expressly excluded from the scope of this Contract. An Authorized User Agreement for Project Based IT Consulting Services will be governed first by the terms and conditions specified in the OGS Centralized Contract and second by terms and conditions added to the Authorized User Statement of Work. Additional terms and conditions shall not conflict with or modify the terms and conditions of the OGS Centralized Contract. NYS Executive Agencies must adhere to all internal processes and approvals including, as required, approval from NYS Office of Information Technology Services. Other Authorized Users must adhere to their own internal processes and approvals. In accordance with Appendix B, section 28, Modification of Contract Terms, an Authorized User may add additional required terms and conditions to this Mini-Bid and resultant Authorized User Agreement only if such terms and conditions (1) are more favorable to the Authorized User and (2) do not conflict with or supersede the OGS Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Examples of additional terms and conditions include: • Expedited delivery timeframe; • Additional incentives, such as discount for expedited payment/Procurement Card use; and • Any additional requirements imposed by the funding source or Federal law.

  • Assistance and Cooperation After the Closing Date, each of Seller and Purchaser shall:

  • Staffing Consultant will designate in writing to Authority its representative, and the manner in which it will provide staff support for the project, which must be approved by Authority. Consultant must notify Authority’s Contract Representative of any change in personnel assigned to perform work under this Contract, and the Authority’s Contract Representative has the right to reject the person or persons assigned to fill the position or positions. The Authority’s Contract Representative shall also have the right to require the removal of the Consultant’s previously assigned personnel, including Consultant’s representative, provided sufficient cause for such removal exists. The criteria for requesting removal of an individual will be based on, but not limited to, the following: technical incompetence, inability to meet the position’s qualifications, failure to perform, poor attendance, ethics violation, unsafe work habits, or damage to Authority or other property. Upon notice for removal, Consultant shall replace such personnel with personnel substantially equal in ability and qualifications for the positions and shall submit the proposed replacement personnel qualification and abilities to the Authority, in writing, for approval.

  • Operational All expenses for running and operating all machinery, equipments and installations comprised in the Common Areas, including elevators, diesel generator set, changeover switch, pump and other common installations including their license fees, taxes and other levies (if any) and expenses ancillary or incidental thereto and the lights of the Common Areas and the road network.

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