Advanced Transition/Cluster Key Management Scheme for End-System Multicast Protocol

Ayman El-Sayed

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menouf, Egypt.

DOI: 10.4236/ijcns.2012.55038                

Abstract

The recent growth of the World Wide Web has sparked new research into using the Internet for novel types of group communication, like multiparty videoconferencing and real-time streaming. Multicast has the potential to be very useful, but it suffers from many problems like security. To achieve secure multicast communications with the dynamic aspect of group applications due to free membership joins and leaves in addition to member's mobility, key management is one of the most critical problems. So far, a lot of multicast key management schemes have been proposed and most of them are centralized, which have the problem of "one point failure" and that the group controller is the bottleneck of the group. In order to solve these two problems, we propose a Key Management Scheme, using cluster-based End-System Multicast (ESM). The group management is between both 1) the main controller (MRP, Main Rendezvous Point) and the second controllers (CRP, Cluster RP), and 2) the second controllers (CRPs) and its members. So, ESM simplifies the implementation of group communication and is efficient ways to deliver a secure message to a group of recipients in a network as a practical alternative to overcome the difficulty of large scale deployment of traditional IP multicast. In this paper, we analyze different key management schemes and propose a new scheme, namely Advanced Transition/Cluster Key management Scheme (ATCKS) and find it has appropriate performance in security.

Keywords

Multicast Protocol; End-System Multicast; Application-Level Multicast; Security; Group Key Management

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	A. El-Sayed, “A New Approach for Centralized EndSystem Multicast Protocol,” International Journal of Information Acquisition, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2006, pp. 77-84.
[2]	W. Yiu and S. Chan, “SOT: Secure Overlay Tree for Application-Layer Multicast,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications ICC04, Paris, 20-24 June 2004, pp. 1451-1456.
[3]	L. Mathy, R. Canonico and D. Hutchison, “An Overlay Tree Building Control Protocol,” Proceeding of the 3rd International COST264 Workshop, Networked Group Communication (NGC 2001), London, 2001, pp. 76-87.
[4]	Y.-H. Chu, S. Rao and H. Zhang, “A Case for End System Multicast,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, Special Issue on Networking Support for Multicast, Vol. 20, No. 8, 2002, pp. 1-12.
[5]	A. Chakrabarti and G. Manimaran, “A Case for Mesh-Tree-Interaction in End System Multicasting,” Networking 2004, LNCS 3042, 2001, pp. 186-199.
[6]	V. Roca and A. El-Sayed, “A Host-Based Multicast (HBM) Solution for Group Communications,” 1st IEEE International Conference on Networking, Colmar, 9-13 July 2001, pp. 610-619.
[7]	A. El-Sayed, “Semi-Centralized Approach for End-System Multicast Protocol,” Menoufyia Journal of faculty of Electronic Engineering Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2005.
[8]	M. A. D. Kaafar, T. Turletti and W. Dabbous, “A Locating-First Approach for Scalable Overlay Multicast,” 14th IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service, 2006, pp. 2-11.
[9]	L. Mathy, N. Blundell, A. El-Sayed and V. Roca, “Impact of Simple Cheating in Application-Level Multicast,” IEEE Infocom, 2004.
[10]	D. Li, Y. Cui, K. Xu and J. Wu, “Impact of Receiver Cheating on the Stability of ALM Tree,” Proceedings of IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, St. Louis, Vol. 2, 2005, pp. 667-671.
[11]	M. Alkubeily, H. Bettahar and A. Bouabdallah, “Impact of Cheating and Non-Cooperation on the Stability and the Performances of Application Level Multicast Sessions,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Assurance and Security, Naples, 8-10 September 2008, pp. 141-146,.
[12]	M. Alkubeily, H. Bettahar and A. Bouabdallah, “MDA-ALM: Membership Duration Aware Applicationlevel Multicast,” Proceedings of the 1st International Global Information Infrastructure Symposium Closing the Digital Divide, Marrakech, 2-5 July 2007, pp. 120-127.
[13]	S. Shetty, P. Galdames, W. Tavanapong and Y. Cai, “Detecting Malicious Peers in Overlay Multicast Streaming,” Proceedings of the 31st IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks, Tampa, 14-16 November 2006, pp. 499-506.
[14]	A. El-Sayed, “Avoidance Algorithms for an Overlay Multicast Protocol against Cheating,” 17th International Conference on Computer Theory and Applications, Alexandria, 1-3 September 2007.
[15]	H. Ragab, A. Bouabdallah, H. Bettahar and Y. Challal, “Key Management for Content Access Control in a Hierarchy,” International Journal of Computer Networks, Vol. 51, No. 11, 2007, pp. 3197-3219.
[16]	Y. Challal and H. Seba, “Group Key Management Protocols: A Novel Taxonomy,” International Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2005, pp. 105-118.
[17]	H. Bettahar, M. Alkubeily and A. Bouabdallah, “TKS: A Transition Key Management Scheme for Secure Application Level Multicast,” International Journal of Security and Networks, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2009, pp. 210-222.
[18]	F. R. Yu, H. Tang, P. C. Mason, F. Wang, “A Hierarchical Identity Based Key Management Scheme in Tactical Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2010, pp. 258-267.
[19]	R. C. Gangwar, “Secure and Efficient Group Key Agreement Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Network,” International Journal of Research and Reviews in Computer Science, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2011.
[20]	C. Abad, I. Gupta and W. Yurcik, “Adding Confidentiality to Application-Level Multicast by Leveraging the Multicast Overlay,” Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Assurance in Distributed System and Networks, Columbus, 2005, pp. 5-11.
[21]	A. El-Sayed, “A New Secure Group Management and Communication in End-System Multicast Protocol,” International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2010, pp. 302-310.