Probabilistic Methods in Multicast Key Management

  • Ali Aydin Selçuk
  • Deepinder Sidhu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1975)


The Logical Key Hierarchy (LKH) scheme and its derivatives are among the most efficient protocols for multicast key management. Traditionally, the key distribution tree in an LKH-based protocol is organized as a balanced binary tree, which gives a uniform O(log n) complexity for compromise recovery for an n-member group. In this paper, we study improving the performance of LKH-based key distribution protocols by organizing the LKH tree with respect to the members’ rekeying probabilities instead of keeping a uniform balanced tree. We propose two algorithms which combine ideas from data compression with the special requirements of multicast key management. Simulation results show that these algorithms can reduce the cost of multicast key management significantly, depending on the variation of rekey characteristics among group members.


Multicast Group Insertion Algorithm Broadcast Encryption Compromise Event Multicast Message 
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]
    K. Almeroth and M. Ammar. Collection and modeling of the join/leave behavior of multicast group members in the mbone. In High Performance Distributed Computing Focus Workshop (HPDC’96), August 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K. Almeroth and M. Ammar. Multicast group behavior in the internet’s multicast backbone (mbone). IEEE Communications, 35(6), June 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Ballardie. Scalable multicast key distribution, May 1996. Internet RFC 1949.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    T. C. Bell, J. G. Cleary, and I. H. Witten. Text Compression. Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Burmester and Y. Desmedt. A secure and efficient conference key distribution system. In Alfredo De Santis, editor, Advances in Cryptology-Eurocrypt’94, pages 275–286. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Canetti, J. Garay, G. Itkis, D. Micciancio, M. Naor, and B. Pinkas. Multicast security: A taxonomy and some efficient constructions. In Infocomm’99 Conference, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Fiat and M. Naor. Broadcast encryption. In Douglas R. Stinson, editor, Advances in Cryptology-CRYPTO’ 93, pages 480–491. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T. Hardjono, B. Cain, and N. Doraswamy. A framework for group key management for multicast security, February 2000. Internet draft (work in progress).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    H. Harney, C. Muckenhirn, and T. Rivers. Group key management protocol specification, July 1997. Internet RFC 2093.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. E. Knuth. Dynamic Huffman coding. Journal of Algorithms, 6:163–180, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. M. Law and W. D. Kelton. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Luby and J. Staddon. Combinatorial bounds for broadcast encryption. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT’ 93. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. A. McGrew and A. T. Sherman. Key establishment in large dynamic groups using one-way function trees. Technical Report 0755, TIS Labs, May 1998. A revised version to appear in the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Mittra. Iolus: A framework for scalable secure multicasting. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM’97 Conference, September 1997.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Poovendran and J. S. Baras. An information theoretic analysis of rooted-tree based secure multicast key distribution schemes. In Advances in Cryptology-Crypto’99. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Saeednia and R. Safavi-Naini. Efficient identity-based conference key distribution protocols. In Proceedings of Information Security and Privacy Conference, ACISP’98. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Steiner, G. Tsudik, and M. Waidner. CLIQUES: A new approach to group key agreement. In International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pages 380–387. IEEE Computer Society, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Wallner, E. Harder, and R. Agee. Key management for multicast: Issues and architectures, July 1997. Internet draft (work in progress).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    C. K. Wong, M. Gouda, and S. S. Lam. Secure group communication using key graphs. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM’98 Conference, September 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Aydin Selçuk
    • 1
  • Deepinder Sidhu
    • 1
  1. 1.Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research Department of Computer Science and Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Maryland Baltimore CountyBaltimore, MDUSA

Personalised recommendations