Classification Framework for Fair Content Tracing Protocols

  • Geong Sen Poh
  • Keith M. Martin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5703)


Fair content tracing (FaCT) protocols have been proposed by many authors to allow content tracing based on digital watermarking to be performed in a manner that does not discriminate either the client who downloads content or the distributor who provides content. We propose a general design framework for fair content tracing (FaCT) protocols. This framework provides a means to address the ad hoc design issues arising for many existing protocols, several of which have been broken through poor design. We then classify existing FaCT protocols based on this framework, which allows for a more systematic approach to FaCT protocol analysis. We further provide general comparisons and evaluation criteria for FaCT protocols.


Content Distribution Digital Watermark Watermark Information Fair Exchange Digital Signature Scheme 
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.
    Asokan, N., Schunter, M., Waidner, M.: Optimistic Protocols for Fair Exchange. In: Proceedings of 4th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 7–17 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, C., Mathuria, A.: Protocols for Authentication and Key Establishment. Information Security and Cryptography Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brassard, G., Chaum, D., Crepeau, C.: Minimum Disclosure Proofs of Knowledge. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 37(1988), 156–189 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox, I.J., Miller, M.L., Bloom, J.A., Fridrich, J., Kalker, T.: Digital Watermarking and Steganography, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deng, M., Preneel, B.: Attacks On Two Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocols And An Improvement For Revocable Anonymity. In: IEEE International Symposium on Electronic Commerce and Security - ISECS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katzenbeisser, S. (ed.): List of potential applications interested by s.p.e.d. D3.1, Philips Research (Philips), for Signal Processing in the Encrypted Domain (SPEED) Project, IST-2006-034238, Information Society Technologies (2007),
  7. 7.
    Fan, C.-I., Chen, M.-T., Sun, W.-Z.: Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocols with Off-line Trusted Parties. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering (MUE 2007), pp. 1035–1040. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goi, B.-M., Phan, R.C.-W., Chuah, H.-T.: Cryptanalysis of Two Non-anonymous Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocols for Content Protection. In: Gervasi, O., Gavrilova, M.L. (eds.) ICCSA 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4705, pp. 951–960. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rackoff, C.: The knowledge complexity of interactive proof-systems. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 291–304 (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibrahim, I.M., Nour El-Din, S.H., Hegazy, A.F.A.: An Effective and Secure Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocol. In: Third International Symposium on Information Assurance and Security (IAS 2007), pp. 21–26. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Federal information processing standards (fips 180-2). Secure Hash Standard (2001),
  12. 12.
    Ju, H.S., Kim, H.-J., Lee, D.-H., Lim, J.-I.: An anonymous buyer-seller watermarking protocol with anonymity control. In: Lee, P.J., Lim, C.H. (eds.) ICISC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2587, pp. 421–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lei, C.-L., Yu, P.-L., Tsai, P.-L., Chan, M.-H.: An Efficient and Anonymous Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocol. IEEE Trans. on Image Processing 13(12), 1618–1626 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leung, A., Poh, G.S.: An Anonymous Watermarking Scheme for Content Distribution Protection using Trusted Computing. In: SECRYPT 2007 - International Conference on Security and Cryptography, pp. 319–326. INSTICC Press (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Memon, N., Wong, P.W.: A Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocol. IEEE Trans. on Image Processing 10(4), 643–649 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paillier, P.: Public-key Cryptosystems Based on Composite Degree Residuosity Classes. In: Stern, J. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1592, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pfitzmann, B., Schunter, M.: Asymmetric Fingerprinting. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 84–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pfitzmann, B., Waidner, M.: Anonymous Fingerprinting. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poh, G.S., Martin, K.M.: A Framework for Design and Analysis of Asymmetric Fingerprinting Protocols. In: International Workshop on Data Hiding for Information and Multimedia Security attached to IAS 2007, pp. 457–461. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poh, G.S., Martin, K.M.: An Efficient Buyer-Seller Watermarking Scheme Based on Chameleon Encryption. In: Kim, H.J., Katzenbeisser, S., Ho, A.T.S. (eds.) IWDW 2008. LNCS, vol. 5450. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poh, G.S., Martin, K.M.: On the (In)security of Two Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocols. In: SECRYPT 2008 - International Conference on Security and Cryptography, pp. 253–260 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qiao, L., Nahrstedt, K.: Watermarking schemes and protocols for protecting rightful ownerships and customer’s rights. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 9(3), 194–210 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Adleman, L.: A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems. Commun. of the ACM 2(2), 120–126 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadeghi, A.-R., Schneider, M.: Electronic Payment Systems. In: Becker, E., Buhse, W., Günnewig, D., Rump, N. (eds.) Digital Rights Management. LNCS, vol. 2770, pp. 113–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trusted Computing Group (TCG). Trusted computing group website (accessed, February 2009),
  26. 26.
    Tomlinson, A.: Application and Business Security: Payment and e-commerce applications. Lecture Notes IY5601, MSc. of Information Security, Information Security Group, Royal Holloway, University of London (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams, D.M., Treharne, H., Ho, A.T.S.: Using a Formal Analysis Technique to Identify an Unbinding Attack on a Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocol. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Workshop on Multimedia and Security (MM & Sec. 2008). ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Williams, D.M., Treharne, H., Ho, A.T.S., Walker, A.: Formal Analysis of Two Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocols. In: Anthony, T.S., Kim, H.J., Katzenbeisser, S., Ho, A.T.S. (eds.) IWDW 2008. LNCS, vol. 5450. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu, Y., Pang, H.: A Lightweight Buyer-Seller Watermarking Protocol. In: Advances in Multimedia 2008, vol. 905065, 7 pages (2008) doi:10.1155/2008/905065Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geong Sen Poh
    • 1
  • Keith M. Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Security GroupUniversity of LondonEghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations