Problem statement: As group key management extended into the area of large dynamic networks, complex issues emerged involving the many operations that run over several network topologies. The issues that occurred due to multipl e topologies were also compounded by differing views of the network, taken at different time slice s or positions within the network. This was especia lly complex when figuring in mobile, ad-hoc networks. View synchrony is the current operational technique, or assumption, applied to group key exch ange protocols. However, before this analysis view synchrony was just that, an assumption and the lite rature for group key exchange lacked an inquiry into what could happen when view synchrony was removed. Current group key management protocols rely on view synchrony and yet all protocols vary i n requisite operational descriptions and performanc e measures. In this study, a framework for group key management protocol operations and performance measures was defined and examined how that framework could be used to compare and contrast existing protocols with and, more importantly, with out view synchrony. Approach: Current literature lacked categories by which to quantify the performa nce metric of the protocols. This study first defined the dynamic key operations that all protoco ls share. By these definitions, group key management protocols were directly compared. Once definitions existed, this study assembled a list of costs that every protocol requires to establish and share keys across the dynamic group. These results provided an understanding of view synchrony 's role and whether or not it should be solely relied on in these current protocols. Results: The prior conclusion that view synchrony was an integral part of all group key management protocols was shattered, when seen through the lens of communication costs and assumptions in wireless ad-hoc networks. View synchrony, as an assumed part of all group key management was previously inc onsistently portrayed. The ability to see this before did not exist because a framework upon which to evaluate the costs did not exist. Now, literature can proceed with clearly defined underst andings of what values exist in group key management protocols. Conclusion/Recommendations: Better communication in group key management will be a benefit to the entire field. N ow that costs can be analyzed, procedure and security can be improved and protocols can be imple mented for wireless ad-hoc networks. In addition, it led two authors of this study to creat e a new protocol, DTEGK, to maximize the most efficient communication, as view synchrony was hind ering the effectiveness of previous protocols. Without the hindrance of view synchrony and a quantitative list of defined communication costs, protocols can also now be exte nded into the wireless, ad-hoc realm of group key management.
[1]
James Alves-Foss,et al.
An effcient secure authenticated group key exchange algorithm for large and dynamic groups
,
2000
.
[2]
Yvo Desmedt,et al.
Efficient and Secure Conference-Key Distribution
,
1996,
Security Protocols Workshop.
[3]
Gene Tsudik,et al.
Communication-Efficient Group Key Agreement
,
2001,
SEC.
[4]
Gene Tsudik,et al.
Simple and fault-tolerant key agreement for dynamic collaborative groups
,
2000,
CCS.
[5]
Whitfield Diffie,et al.
New Directions in Cryptography
,
1976,
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.
[6]
Uta Wille,et al.
Communication complexity of group key distribution
,
1998,
CCS '98.
[7]
Gene Tsudik,et al.
Key Agreement in Dynamic Peer Groups
,
2000,
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..
[8]
Pierre Paradinas,et al.
Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Information security: Trusted information: the new decade challenge
,
2001
.
[9]
Jim Alves-Foss,et al.
SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE OF GROUP KEY AGREEMENT PROTOCOLS ∗
,
2006
.
[10]
Gene Tsudik,et al.
Group key agreement efficient in communication
,
2004,
IEEE Transactions on Computers.
[11]
Jim Alves-Foss,et al.
Network Simulation of Group Key Management Protocols
,
2008
.
[12]
Gene Tsudik,et al.
Tree-based group key agreement
,
2004,
TSEC.
[13]
Gene Tsudik,et al.
Diffie-Hellman key distribution extended to group communication
,
1996,
CCS '96.
[14]
Jim Alves-Foss,et al.
A communication-computation efficient group key algorithm for large and dynamic groups
,
2007,
Comput. Networks.
[15]
Serge Vaudenay,et al.
Authenticated Multi-Party Key Agreement
,
1996,
ASIACRYPT.
[16]
Nancy A. Lynch,et al.
Specifying and using a partitionable group communication service
,
2001,
TOCS.