Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 527–540 | Cite as

Advanced secure multimedia services for digital homes

  • Rodrigo RomanEmail author
  • Javier Lopez
  • Olivier Dugeon
  • Marc Lacoste
  • Pierre Yves Plaza
  • Marta Bel


Our society is becoming increasingly more IT-oriented, and the images and sounds that reflect our daily life are being stored mainly in a digital form. This digital personal life can be part of the home multimedia contents, and users demand access and possibly share these contents (such as photographs, videos, and music) in an ubiquitous way: from any location and with any device. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we introduce the Feel@Home system, whose main objective is to enable the previously mentioned vision of an ubiquitous digital personal life. Second, we describe the security architecture of Feel@Home, analyzing the security and privacy requirements that identify which threats and vulnerabilities must be considered, and deriving the security building blocks that can be used to protect both IMS-based and VPN-based solutions.


Digital home Content sharing Multimedia Security Privacy 



This work has been partially supported by the Feel@Home project. The authors would like to thank all members of the Feel@Home consortium for their much appreciated help on this paper, with special thanks to Benoit Michau for his insight on IMS security.


  1. Bechler, M., Hof, H. J., Kraft, D., Rahlke, F., & Wolf, L. (2004). A cluster-based security architecture for ad hoc networks. In Annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies (INFOCOM’04) (pp. 2393–2403).Google Scholar
  2. Benjumea V., Choi, S., Lopez, J., & Yung, M. (2007). Anonymity 2.0—X.509 extensions supporting privacy-friendly authentication. In Cryptology and network security conference (CANS’07) (pp. 265–281).Google Scholar
  3. Benjumea, V., Lopez, J., & Troya, J. (2006). Anonymous attribute certificates based on traceable signatures. Internet Research, 16(2), 120–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhargav-Spantzel, A., Camenisch, J., Gross, T., & Sommer, D. (2007). User centricity: A taxonomy and open issues. Journal of Computer Security, 15(5), 493–527.Google Scholar
  5. Camenisch, J., & Lysyanskaya, A. (2001). Efficient non-transferable anonymous multi-show credential system with optional anonymity revocation. In International conference on advances in cryptology (EUROCRYPT’01) (pp. 93–118).Google Scholar
  6. Chintada, S., Sethuramalingam, P., & Goffin, G. (2008). Converged services for home using a SIP/UPnP software bridge solution. In 5th IEEE consumer communications and networking conference (CCNC’08) (pp. 790–794).Google Scholar
  7. Credentica (2007). U-prove SDK overview. White Paper.Google Scholar
  8. DCSSI-France (2004). EBIOS—Expression of needs and identification of security objectives.Google Scholar
  9. ETSI TISPAN WG5 (2010). LS to 3GPP regarding remote access to CPNs. Retrieved from
  10. HGI, Home Gateway Initiative (2008). Home Gateway requirements: Residential profile.Google Scholar
  11. IBM (2010). Idemix (Identity Mixer): Pseudonymity for e-transactions. Retrieved from
  12. IEEE Computer Society (1998). IEEE std 830-1998, IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications. ISBN 0-7381-0332-2.Google Scholar
  13. IETF PKIX Working Group (2010). Retrieved from
  14. ISO/IEC (2005). ISO/IEC 15408-1:2005. Information technology— Security techniques—Evaluation criteria for IT security.Google Scholar
  15. IST PRIME Project (2005). Privacy and identity management for Europe. White Paper.Google Scholar
  16. Jaatun, M., & Tøndel, I. (2008). Covering your assets in software engineering. In 3rd international conference on availability, reliability and security (ARES’08) (pp. 1172–1179).Google Scholar
  17. Kiayias, A., Tsiounis, Y., & Yung, M. (2004). Traceable signatures. In Conference on advances in cryptology (EUROCRYPT’04) (pp. 571–589).Google Scholar
  18. Lacoste, M. (2009). Architecting adaptable security infrastructures for pervasive networks through components. In International conference on future generation communication and networking (FGCN’09) (pp. 275–292).Google Scholar
  19. Mannan, M., & van Oorschot, P. (2008). Privacy-enhanced sharing of personal content on the Web. In International World Wide Web conference (WWW’08) (pp. 487–496).Google Scholar
  20. Mas, I., Berggren, V., Jana, R., Murray, J., & Rice, C. (2008). An IMS-based architecture for interactive, personalized IPTV. IEEE Communications Magazine, 46(11), 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Netfilter/iptables Project (2010). Retrieved from
  22. OECD (1980). Guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data.Google Scholar
  23. The CELTIC Feel@Home Project (2010). Retrieved from
  24. Tøndel, I., Jaatun, M., & Meland, P. (2008). Security requirements for the rest of us: A survey. IEEE Software, 25(1), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Hartskamp, M., et al. (2008). PnP QoS architecture. UPnP forum.Google Scholar
  26. Zheleva, E., & Getoor, L. (2009). To join or not to join: The illusion of privacy in social networks with mixed public and private user profiles. In International World Wide Web conference (WWW’09) (pp. 531–540).Google Scholar
  27. Zhou, L., & Haas, Z. (1999). Securing ad hoc networks. IEEE Network, 13(6), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Roman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Javier Lopez
    • 1
  • Olivier Dugeon
    • 2
  • Marc Lacoste
    • 3
  • Pierre Yves Plaza
    • 4
  • Marta Bel
    • 4
  1. 1.University of MalagaMalagaSpain
  2. 2.France TelecomLannionFrance
  3. 3.France TelecomParisFrance
  4. 4.Telefonica I+DMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations