Pseudonym Generation Scheme for Ad-Hoc Group Communication Based on IDH

  • Mark Manulis
  • Jörg Schwenk
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3313)


In this paper we describe the advantages of using iterative Diffie-Hellman (IDH) key trees for mobile ad-hoc group communication. We focus on the Tree-based Group Diffie-Hellman (TGDH) protocol suite, that consists of group key agreement protocols based on IDH key trees. Furthermore, we consider the anonymity of members during group communication over a public broadcast channel that provides untraceability of messages. The main goal of the proposed pseudonym generation scheme is to allow group members to generate their own pseudonyms that can be linked to their real identities only by a democratic decision of some interacting group members. The real identities are bound to public keys used in the group key agreement. The communication and computation costs as well as the security of the scheme can be optimized with respect to the characteristics of involved mobile devices.


Mobile Device Leaf Node Secret Share Real Identity Public Share 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bansal, N., Liu, Z.: Capacity, delay and mobility in wireless ad-hoc networks. In: Infocom 2003. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, C., Wille, U.: Communication complexity of group key distribution. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM Press, NY (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burmester, M., Desmedt, Y.: A secure and efficient conference key distribution system. In: De Santis, A. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1994. LNCS, vol. 950, pp. 275–286. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camenisch, J., Stadler, M.: Efficient group signature schemes for large groups (extended abstract). In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim, Y., Perrig, A., Tsudik, G.: Simple and fault-tolerant key agreement for dynamic collaborative groups. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security 2000, pp. 235–244. ACM Press, NY (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, Y., Perrig, A., Tsudik, G.: Communication-efficient group key agreement. In: Information Systems Security, Proc. of the 17th International Information Security Conference, IFIP SEC 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, Y., Perrig, A., Tsudik, G.: Tree-based group key agreement. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 7(1), 60–96 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steiner, M., Tsudik, G., Waidner, M.: Key agreement in dynamic peer groups. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 11(8) (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Manulis
    • 1
  • Jörg Schwenk
    • 1
  1. 1.Network and Data Security Group, Department of Electrical Engineering & Information Sciences, IC 4/158Ruhr-UniversitätBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations