Content uploaded by Ranjan Kumar H S
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ranjan Kumar H S on Nov 21, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019
2317
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
Abstract: The most appropriate communication mechanism for
transfer of packets from one source to another is multicast IPv6
communication. Nowadays, multicast communication plays a
major role in a large number of communication applications. In
this multicast communication, the message privacy attains a
highest position. The members of multicast are dynamic so they
permit the host members to enter and depart the cluster without
the permission of remaining group members and, it can't provide
any transfer without the interference of host, this may reduce the
performance. For security enhancement in multicast
communication Group Key Management (GKM) was introduced.
There are three different approaches in GKM and they were
mainly involved to overcome the issues of host mobility in
multicast communication. The challenges that are encountered by
these GKM approaches their requirements and challenges was
also discussed in this paper. Finally, some questions and their
explanations were provided along with it. These GKM approaches
will improve the privacy of multicast communication. So, the
packets can deliver to the group members without any
interference.
Index Terms: Multicast IPv6 communication, Security, GKM,
Centralized, Decentralized, Distributed.
I. INTRODUCTION
The most important building block for secure group
communication (SGC) system is GKM [1]. The rapid
fluctuations that occurred in cluster membership was largely
tolerated by this SGC method. In this communication field,
the members are allowed to leave or join on their own will,
also they can access the basic transmission structure (i.e., the
multicast communication can be provided and revoked with
less system overhead) [35, 37]. The confidentiality over the
communication was ensured by GKM. It was achieved by
creating a secret share key between the cluster members. Such
secret key was referred as “traffic encryption key” (TEK)
which was used for message encryption or decryption process
[33]. The most important challenge is key generation and
re-keying process without enhancing the communication
Revised Manuscript Received on 30 July 2019.
* Correspondence Author
Ranjan Kumar H S*, Department of Computer Science, NMAM
Institute of Technology, Karnataka, India.
Dr. Ganesh Aithal, Dean (Research), Mangalore Institute of
Technology and Engineering, Moodbidri, Karnataka, India.
Dr. Surendra Shetty, Professor and Head, NMAM Institute of
Technology, Karnataka, India.
© The Authors. Published by Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and
Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the
CC-BY-NC-ND license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
overhead and storage [1, 34]. Recently, number of updated
methods were developed for key generation and secure
information sharing among various and within similar groups
[1, 38]. A large quantity of network applications depends on
client–server paradigm, but they include unicast for packet
delivery. But, enormous upcoming applications depend on the
group communication method. Normally, communication
sector needs to transfer packet from a number of authorized
transmitters to a large amount of permitted receivers [2]. The
GKM performance was largely affected by resource
constraints, largely spread mobile devices, and bandwidth
limitation [23].
Due to, the rapid improvement in the field of technology
and internet may affect the growth of both internet and mobile
users. In order to compete with this growth an advanced IPv6
(Internet Protocol version 6) was introduced. The multicast
communication was successfully developed in internet for
best and efficient service delivery for large groups [9]. The
performance of multicast communication in both the media or
content suppliers/distributors and Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) have gained a large popularity. The multicast
communication in IPv6 perform efficiently for delivering
services for group-oriented applications like video
conferencing, video-on-demand (VoD), communicative
group games, etc. from internet to various members [3, 10,
29]. The methods of key management concentrates in
cryptographic key generation, maintenance and distribution
[39].
The major role of multicast communication is to deliver a
message from a single transmitter to a cluster of members.
The task performed by both the group communication and
group creation was found to be similar in the internet field. It
performs more effectively than a unicast method. For each
group, a leader was necessary for managing the group
activities. But in various multicast communication systems, a
key server (KS) or group centre (GC) plays a major role in
group member interaction and management [4].
The important challenge for the designing process of Smart
Grid (SG) was high level security. For secure communication,
the message encryption and decryption was generally
performed by the cryptographic keys. The key establishment
among two parties includes various solutions, and these
solutions were include as a section in the authentication
process. The most popular solution for session key formation
is Diffie-Hellman (D-H) algorithm [5].
Multicast Communication using Different Group
Key Managements
Ranjan Kumar H S, Ganesh Aithal, Surendra Shetty
Multicast Communication Using Different Group Key Managements
2318
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
The scheme of key management also provide its service in
health care system by providing facilities for sensor removal
and addition from the Body area network (BANs), it also
renew the group key if necessary [6]. The existing protocols
of group key agreement (GKA) widely depends on the
map-to-point hash computations and expensive bilinear
pairing. But these schemes were not involved in the e-health
application. The group session was safeguard by developing a
secure scheme for GKM [12].
The securing scheme in group communication means
providing authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality for the
messages that are exchanged between the groups. It also avoid
the interference of third party across the data path of multicast
communication [7]. The most powerful element for the
networking technologies of upcoming generation was IoT
(Internet of Things).
Thus, the multicast communication provide efficient
service by sending the multicast messages to a large number
of receivers. But the unicast may consume large amount of
energy for sending single packet to single receiver [8]. If the
client needs to join the group, the authentication protocol
provide a mutual authentication among both the server and
client. After authentication, several member of the group has
to share a key to the server which was normally designated as
a member's individual key. In order to perform a group
communication, the server needs to group key which was
utilized by the entire members of the group. The high rate of
security was provided by this newly developed group key [9].
The group key in symmetric was commonly referred as TEK,
it was generally introduced in multicast communication to
provide an access for control mechanism. This key was shared
only the authorized members of the group. The new TEK was
delivered by key server to the members of the existing group
during the process of rekeying for old TEK invalidation [10,
34]. The GKM was mainly divided into three types they are
decentralized, distributed, and centralized. Among these
three, Centralized GKM includes existing algorithm of Group
Diffie-Hellman key distribution or Diffie-Hellman (D-H) for
cluster key generation [11, 40].
The outline for this overall review is as follows: the
important objective of this entire review is described in
Section.2. Some additional information about multicast IP
was provided in Section.3 and the in Section.4 the details
about GKM and its classes was included. The challenges of
three classes and some methods that are involved in multicast
communication was also reviewed in this section. Additional
requirements like security, efficiency and service quality of
GKM was reviewed in Section. 5, the challenges that are
encountered by multicast communication was provided in
Section. 6. The summary for this GKM approach was
reviewed in Section. 7. Finally, some review queries and
answers were provided in Section. 8 and the conclusion for
this entire review was presented in Section. 9.
II. OVERVIEW OF MULTICAST IP
The huge amount of existing internet users and the
emerging users obtain large support from IPv6. This IPv6 was
introduced to provide an enormous address space. It contains
wide advantage but some security defects were also identified
in this IPv6 protocol. The biggest challenge of IPv6 is security
for multicast communication. The confidentiality, data
integrity, and authenticity are the main roles of security. This
vision was achieved by proposing various protocols for key
management and this proposed protocols provide huge
support for data encryption by distributing, updating and
generating the key. The defects of high bandwidth usage in
unicast communication was entirely overcome by this
multicast communication. In wireless networks, multicast
plays a major role in various applications like lectures in
school by e-learning, location-based military programs,
video-conferencing, and distance learning [13]. In the
multicast communication field, the common group key was
used by symmetric algorithm for encrypting the actual process
of data transfer. The computation of symmetric algorithm was
found to be lighter so it was widely used in the IoT
applications [32].
IP multicast performs the implementation process of
point-to-multipoint communication. It was performed on the
network infrastructure that were based on IP. The leave and
join messages were provided by the destination nodes (i.e., to
unsubscribe or subscribe from the data flow). The
infrastructure of network was effectively used by IP multicast
by sending the packets from source only once even if it
includes numerous receivers. The packets were simply
duplicated by network routers and provide it to various nodes.
Most widely used communication in WSN was multicast IPv6
because it minimize the radio transmission and memory usage
by increasing the energy efficiency. The multicast
communication in Low power Multicast Protocol and Lossy
Networks (MPL) was provided by the measured
network-wide flooding which was normally directed by
Trickle timers. Basically this governance was performed for
providing a packet transmission for both data-plane and
control packets [14, 15].
The energy usage and bandwidth was improved by the
Multicast forwarding method in various applications. So this
multicast method was widely demanded by this Low power
and Lossy Networks (LLNs) because energy and bandwidth
were found as a major critical factors in this LLN [15]. The
bandwidth and scalability advantage of multicast provide
accurate solution for traffic reduction in mobile network and
also allow the users to share the limited volume and frequency
bands [16]. In WSN, the important aspect of multicast
communication is to increase the efficiency of communication
and minimize the communication overhead. The entire IP
communication was achieved by connecting the WSN with
IPv6 network. It was performed due to the increasing demand
of new WSN applications. This issue was mainly addressed
by low-power Wireless Personal Area Network over IPv6
(6LoWPAN). In 6LoWPAN, the multicast communication
was performed effectively in the absence of information
regarding the node's location [17, 30]. Based on CRT
(Chinese remainder theorem), the centralized GKM scheme
distribute and update the GK of group members with reduced
complexity in computation.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019
2319
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
The minimum amount of computational complexity was
obtained by CRT-based GK management (CRTGKM)
algorithm but it slightly increase the KS storage space [4].
The IPv6 protocol was employed by the advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI) [50] in a mesh-based topology. As this
topology can easily expand the coverage area of network by
performing multicast communication [5].
III. GKM FOR SECURE MULTICAST
COMMUNICATION
The application of multicast is mandatory in the IoT field as
its application was widely used by numerous healthcare,
environmental monitoring, smart cities, and smart homes [8,
42]. In secure-key management, a common method was
involved to maximize the capacity of transmitted packets
encryption or decryption. In a highly dense network, frequent
member leave or join operation may cause some problems in
the encryption and decryption process of entire network [9].
The main objective of GKM is to maintain and set up the
shared secret key between the entire group members [37].
When the alteration occurs in group membership, the high
security was achieved by generating a new key and this key
was provided to the entire members of the group. The
backward security was emerged during the member 'join'
process to prevent the new members from the incoming past
data. Similarly, during member 'leave' the forward security
was generated and forward to all the group members to stop
the data access by the left member [9]. Multicast was
identified as a bandwidth efficient method over the internet to
deliver group-oriented applications [25]. The multicast and
broadcast services were efficiently provided within the cell
and core network by multimedia broadcast/multicast service
(MBMS). The security attacks that are recorded in the
broadcasted multicast services are Denial of service (DoS),
eavesdropping opportunities, impersonation attacks, physical
node capture attacks and others. These security attacks were
happen in wireless networks due to open access [10].
The bandwidth efficiency and network performance
obtained by this multicast was found to be better than the
unicast transmission. So this multicast was widely
implemented in IP (Internet Protocol). The entire group
members were validated by transferring the data packets
along with encrypted messages whereas the cryptographic key
performs the message encryption. This common key was
often referred in different names like group key (GK), session
key or Traffic Encryption Key (TEK). A large number of
methods were introduced in this multicast area to solve the
problems that are obtained during key distribution. The
quantum key distribution (QKD) was introduced by Bennett
and Brassard to reduce the key management problems. The
unrestricted security property was provided by QKD to
protect the privacy and confidentiality of cryptosystem [11,
26].
The important goal of this review is to provide clear
explanation for GKM architecture and classes. GKM was
widely categorized into three types they are, Decentralized
GKM, Distributed GKM, and Centralized GKM protocol.
Here, the details regarding the GKM classes were reviewed
thoroughly.
Group key
management
(GKM)
Centralized De-centralized Distributed
Pair wise
keys Key
hierarchies Membership
driven Time
driven RBC Hierarchies Broadcast IC
metric
Figure 1: Group Key Management and its classes
In this, the review was performed in GKM and its classes
were described properly along with its methods.
A. Centralized Group Key Management
Centralized approach makes the group member flexible
by receiving the group communication from various groups,
due to this it encounters huge scalability problem in wireless
networks. The message required for key update get increased
due to the unconditional increase in dispersed group
members. A single key server was developed along with
multitude request to avoid this additional message
requirement from the entire group members. This single key
server reduce the failure rate of GKM operation. In the
meantime, the position of group member need to be tracked
by introducing a base station as third party in cellular
networks. In the entire wireless network domain, the keying
material gets updated due to the group member movement
[23]. Recently, various Centralized GKM approach introduce
traditional algorithm of Group D-H key distribution or D-H
for cluster key generation. This centralized approach
encounters serious problems due to high communication and
computation cost. This cost increase was due to the
performance of some exponentiation operations like
transmitting messages confidentiality and authentication
between the multicast group members’ and centralized server
[11]. Some of the challenges that are encountered by this
centralized GKM are lack of scalability, operational
inefficiency, and Inability to support multiple membership
change.
a) Lack of scalability: Wireless networks makes the group
member flexible by receiving the group communication
from various groups, due to this it encounters huge
scalability problem in wireless networks. The dispersed
members in wireless network get increased this
significantly increases the amount of rekeying messages.
In the highly dynamic group application, the capacity of
single key server was widely overwhelmed by frequent
rekeying in order to trigger the failure rate of GKM
operation.
b) Operational inefficiency: The group members in the
cellular network was dynamic, so the third party (BS) is
necessary to track the member location. Due to this, the
multicast messages enforces the rekeying messages into
the entire wireless network.
c) Incompetence to support the multiple membership
change: In centralized scheme, the structure of key
management was found to be specific for multicast
session. In each multicast session, a separate key tree
was developed by this particular nature.
Multicast Communication Using Different Group Key Managements
2320
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
When the particular member was enforced to join in multiple
session, this structure register the entire key management
trees with this newly entered group members. For this, the
member needs to store and handle large amount of keys. The
group members and key trees get affected due the wide
membership changes. This changes in wireless network also
generates a huge rekeying messages [18].
There are three phases in the framework of Greatest
Common Divisor (GCD) based centralized approach. The
initial phase is Group Centre Initialization phase, in this
multiple groups were developed at group centre. The Member
Initial Join is the second phase in this approach, where the
join request was send to the group centre by the member and
receives the participation keys via secure channel. The
"Member Leave" is the final phase, this phase handles the
entire operations that are performed after the group member
leaving process (providing forward secrecy). The
computation time during this forward secrecy was found to be
large so this framework highly focuses on this phase (i.e.,
Member Leave phase). The cost for this computation process
was found as a major challenge in the multimedia based
multicast communication [19, 36, and 37]. The two
classification of this centralized GKM are pairwise keys and
key hierarchies.
Pairwise keys
The separate secret key was shared by GKM for key
material management among each group member. A secure
channel was set up by this secret key among GKM and each
group members. This channel establishment was to deliver a
new TEK in a secure form during the changes that occur
within the group membership. The multicast message was
necessary to maintain the backward secrecy,
whereas
nO
rekeying message was assured in forward
secrecy. Here ‘n’ represents the total number of cluster
members. So, this solution was found to be not applicable for
dynamic and large groups [20, 42]. The fusion of signalling
load and rekeying messages between the core network and
members introduce the communication overhead. The
multicast and unicast messages were included in the rekeying
transmission messages [43].
A separate secret key was distributed by the group initiator
(Group Controller (GC)) to each member of the group. This
corresponding key may generate a unicast secure channel
among each member and GC. This key was referred as Key
Encryption Key (KEK) by Wallner as it perform encryption
process in multicast data. It was also designated as Traffic
Encryption Key (TEK). A new TEK was generated by GC
during member leave phase and send this generated key to
each member through a secure channel [21].
Let us assume, the multicast group with 4 members and
they were represented as
4321 ,,, mmmm
. In the initial phase, the
private key was distributed by GC to each group members
4321 ,,, KKKK
correspondingly. The TEK along with
encrypted private key {TEK} Ki was provided to each group
members. In the second step, the TEK gets updated after
member leave phase and the generated TEK was transmitted
to the entire group members. The transmitted messages that
are required for rekeying changes from 'n' to (n−1) [21].
The GKM Protocol (GKMP) [35], in RFC 2094 and 2093.
The Group Key Packet (GKP) was generated by the key
server (KS) along with this GKMP. This generated GKP
contains two keys they are Group KEK (GKEK) and Group
TEK (GTEK). The new GKP distribution was secured by
GKEK and the data traffic was encrypted by GTEK whenever
required.
In this, the KS was supported by the initial member to join
the group for GKP generation with GTEK and GKEK. A new
GKP with novel GTEK for backward secrecy was generated
by key server during the member joining phase. The
generated key encrypted with KEK was then transfer safely to
newly joined member and also transfer this key encrypted
with old GTEK to the other cluster members. Finally, the
GKP was refreshed periodically by the key server and GKEK
distribute it to the other group members.
During the member leave phase, a new GKP was generated
by key server and transfer it to the remaining members
encrypted with shared KEK. In order to perform this, each
leave phase of this GKMP requires re-key messages. Due to
this reason, this solution was not scaled with the highly
dynamic members of large group [21, 34, and 42].
Key hierarchies
The most popular method in this centralized GKM was
logical key hierarchy (LKH) which is introduced by various
study teams during the same time interval. The LKH tree was
maintained by key server and this key tree includes user nodes
and key nodes. The TEK key was involved in the root of the
key tree. The individual keys were considered as leaves that
are associated with each group members. The key server
introduce KEK key also called as intermediate key to deliver
the TEK securely to each group member. For this, each
member should hold the key along their pathway to the root
starting from leaf. For instance, an individual key {KEK1,
KEK12, KEK1234, TEK} is included in member 1 [44, 48].
The messages required for update process was reduced by
KEK, particularly when the member leave from the group.
The alteration in group membership may reduce the key
material update messages for this the entire method was
scaled into the groups having large size. The failure at
particular point was represented by single KS dependency to
attain the bottleneck performance. Therefore, the rekeying
message number is converted from
nO
to
nO log
. At GC,
the storage and computation cost were introduced by LKH.
The required rekeying messages were further reduced by the
One-way Key Derivation (OKD) method by performing local
group key computation using the function of one-way hash.
So, a new key was transfer by GC to the novel group member
and then the total rekeying messages were compressed into a
single message. This LKH is sub-divided into two driven
rekeying categories they are user and server driven rekeying,
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019
2321
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
i. Server driven rekeying: The KS update the keying
material along with KEK and TEK during the member
leave and join phase, then it transmit the key to the
remaining group members. One fine example for this
method is, when the new member User7 enters the
group, the multicast message generates the new key set
{KEK7, KEK567, new TEK} and transmit the new TEK
along with encrypted TEK to each group members. The
communication overhead that maintain the backward
secrecy was represented as,
1log2n
and the messages
that are required to provide forward secrecy is
represented as,
n
2
log2
,
ii. and ‘n’ represent the cluster members number.
iii. User driven rekeying: The KEK calculation was
transferred by SKD, OFT, and ELK without including
the key server to the group members. The required
amount of ancestor KEKs (the entire KEKs throughout
the route to reach the root from leaf) was calculated by
each member by applying the key derivation function
with respect to the pseudo random objectives. The
important benefit of this process is to minimize the rekey
message number from 2log2 to log2 [20].
TEK
KEK
567
KEK
1234
KEK
56 KEK
7
KEK
34
KEK
12
KEK
6
KEK
5
KEK
4
KEK
3
KEK
2
KEK
1
User 1 User2 User3 User4 User5 User6 User7
Figure 2: Logical Key Hierarchy
The LKH rekeying process was further secured by the
Secure and Scalable Rekeying Protocol (S2RP) method. The
rekeying messages were validated to improve the security
with a key-chain and a one-way-hash function. Its
performance was found to be same as that of LKH. The main
advantage is that it improves the efficiency of key
authentication along with key distribution. When performing
the key chain mechanism, only a hash function was required
for key authentication, which makes the authentication
process more efficient for computation purpose.
Table 2: Centralized GKM methods for multicast
communication
Class
Method
Contribution
Centralized
GKM
GKMP [21]
The Group Key Packet (GKP) was
generated by the key server (KS) along
with this GKMP. This generated GKP
contains two keys they are Group KEK
(GKEK) and Group TEK (GTEK). The
new GKP distribution was secured by
GKEK and the data traffic was encrypted
by GTEK whenever required.
LKH [20]
This method can be scaled to larger
group size as the message count required
for key material update was reduced on
any group membership changes.
S2RP [22]
It improves the efficiency of key
authentication along with key
distribution.
LKH++
[23]
This method minimize the amount of
multicast messages that are transmitted
from the centre. The symmetric
cryptography key was also applied by
this scheme to reduce the length of
computational effort and encryption key
length that are essential for user device to
perform message encryption and
decryption, so that the battery can be
saved.
Another improvement of this LKH method was
Topological Key Hierarchy (TKH), as in rekeying message it
reduce the communication cost by performing the mapping
function between the logical key tree and the physical
topology. The advantage of this TKH method is that it reduce
the key numbers that are required to store at the GC [22].
The performance of LKH was improved by LKH++ by
exploring the features of user information and one way hash
function property. These two properties were already
involved in LKH method. Without performing any
communication between the key server and user, the LKH
with shared information set locally generates the new keys.
Likewise, the keys were autonomously computed by the users
from a particular point then move along the pathway to the
LKH root after involving the one-way function. This method
was found to be more suited for the wireless mobile network
as a large keys were stored by each member similar to the
logarithm number of group member. It also reduces the
amount of multicast messages that are transmitted from the
centre. The symmetric cryptography key was also applied by
this scheme to reduce the length of computational effort and
encryption key length that are essential for user device to
perform message encryption and decryption, so that the
battery can be saved. [23].
B. Decentralized Group Key Management
In decentralized GKM each group was divided into number
of subgroups in which they are placed in hierarchical levels.
The constituent level key management was achieved by each
hierarchical level with more than one entity, it was obtained
during the dependency maintenance on the higher level entity.
It was distinguished into two major categories they are the
independent TEK per each subgroup, and the common TEK
per all subgroups [23]. In this method, the rekeying process
was performed better than the centralized approach as it
transmit the key for very few travel in order to reach its
destination. The members roam over the entire wireless
network and obtain the group communication content from
the entire network. The GKM have to integrate authentication
mechanism to verify the members before receiving the keying
materials that are utilized in the target subgroup.
Multicast Communication Using Different Group Key Managements
2322
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
The interference of third party was considered as a major
security threat, this entity then get compromise with the
protocols security property. Thus, the trust impart level to
these entities was consider by this GKM scheme.
Common TEK
In the common TEK method, a single entity performs TEK
generation and distribution for entire group members through
the subgroup managers. Each group member should accept
with the new TEK for any membership changes to achieve
backward and forward secrecy. The membership change may
affect the entire members of the group, so this GKM approach
has high 1-affect-n phenomenon problem.
TEK per each group
The effects of 1-affect-n phenomenon was lighten by
introducing another approach where each subgroup contains
independent TEK. Due to this,
the membership change in subgroup does not disturb the
whole members of the group. The important demerit of this
method is that it affects the data path by translating the data to
the edge of each subgroup when they are transferred from one
subgroup to another. In figure 3, a single group was divided
into five separate groups with own TEK for each subgroup.
The challenges that are faced by this decentralized GKM are,
a) Co-operation with the key management protocol: In
existing methods, this decentralized method propose a
GKM framework without considering the concept of
keying material distribution to the subgroup members.
In order to overcome this, the decentralized approach
have to combine with some other efficient GKM
methods in wireless networks to develop an integrated
solution.
b) Establishing trust relationship: The wireless GKM
protocol have to consider the involvement of third party
entity as a serious security concern in the decentralized
approach. In order to maintain a trust level, the third
party should maintain a form of security association.
c) Authentication integration with GKM: Decentralized
GKM includes number of groups belonging to same or
diverse networks. In order to make group member
flexible to receive group contents, the authentication
process should verify each members before receiving
the keying materials that are involved in target
subgroup. For multiple moves, an efficient mechanism
for group authentication should be considered by the
GKM protocol [18].
Examples: Baal, DEP (Dual Encryption Protocol), SMKD,
IGKMP (Intra Domain GKM Protocol), MARKS, HYDRA,
KRONOS, etc., [24]. Some of these examples were discussed
below,
Figure 3. Decentralized group key management
Scalable Multicast Key Distribution
SMKD method was introduced to utilize the tree that was
constructed by the routing protocol of multicast, Core Based
Tree (CBT). SMKD was proposed with CBT for delivering
the key to the multicast groups. The encryption and
authentication tasks were delegated by SMKD to downstream
the CBT routers.
SMKD depends on the CBT framework, where the
multicast tree was rooted in the main core along with the
secondary core set. This main core apprise the session key by
generating the GTEK, access control list (ACL), and GKEK.
The nodes and secondary cores that are joining the group after
authentication was provided with ACL, GKEK, and GTEK.
The SMKD perform forward secrecy only after recreating the
new group without including the departed member. This
method needs some modifications in IGMP and also consider
that the CBT gets deployed. In CBT, intermediate routers
directly deliver the packets to the group members while
transferring the packets to the Routing Protocol (RP) [31].
This SMKD method depends on the fundamental multicast
RP and believes the intermediate routers that every node
receives similar key same as that of the group controller.
IOLUS system
The entire group gets affected due to the changes that occur
in single membership. This limitation was addressed by the
IOLUS system after including the subgroups that are locally
maintained. The entire multicast groups were divided into
number of subgroups along with individual security keys. In
this each subgroup was considered as a real group, this
subgroup includes own address and keying material and it was
established with appropriate multicast routing protocols.
The session key needs to be replaced after performing
member leave phase in the subgroup, so each member should
maintain its own session key. In this IOLUS protocol, each
group members were arranged in a hierarchy manner to form a
virtual group. Two types of entities were introduced in the
virtual group for various subgroups maintenance and
connection they are GSIs (group security intermediaries) and
GSC (group security controller). Among these two entities,
GSC manages the subgroups that are in the top level whereas
the GSIs is also described as
group security agent (GSAs),
one per subgroup.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019
2323
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
This GSI update the local multicast keys and also manages
the newly created subgroup. After the member leave phase,
this GSI generates new local multicast key and transmit this
generated key to the remaining subgroup members. [21].
M-IOLUS system
In this M-IOLUS system (Micro-grouped IOLUS), each
GSA (subgroup manager) dynamically bring the entire micro
group under its control. This control action was performed for
the communication overhead reduction of keying materials
that gets updated for any change. The members that are
belonging to the same subgroup share the same micro key and
this micro key secure the entire transmitted messages. When
the member decides to leave from the subgroup then it have to
inform its group manager regarding its shift from the old
subgroup to new subgroup. If the member movement happens
within the subgroup then the subgroup key was not altered by
the subgroup manager. The timestamp regarding the mobility
and micro key delivery to the mobile host should be taken into
account by this GSA.
In this method, the mobile members who were already
entered into the subgroup was maintained by GSA. When the
mobile member travels from its subgroup to another group,
the GSA of the new group receives a move message from this
respective mobile member.
The manager of new subgroup authenticates this new
member after receiving the request from the manager of old
subgroup. After authenticating the new member, the new GSA
connected with multicast group provides the group key to
whole group and recently arrived members receive small
group key and finally, update the member table. During leave
phase, the entire subgroup GSA visited by this departed
member should update their keying material in order to avoid
forward secrecy [20].
BALADE system
BALADE is a type of protocol in decentralized scheme
which contains common TEK, it dynamically separates the
entire group into a number of clusters. The local manager was
included in this group to manage each member and the
common key was shared by the particular group member and
manager. The source performs two types of functions they
are, it was considered as a group manager as it generates the
TEK, it also act as a sender to the members for transmitting
the multicast flow that are encrypted. The KEK (session key)
is responsible for securely transfer the TEK to the cluster
managers, so this KEK was commonly distributed among the
group manager and source. The TEK was protected by group
key and it was safely delivered to group members by group
managers. Based on the application, the TEK was updated at
each data semantic.
In case of member mobility from one subgroup to another,
then re-authentication process needs to be perform before it
enters into the multicast group. The re-authentication ticket
was included in each member with password encrypted TEK,
this encryption help the group manager to verify the new
member easily before joining the member into the group [20].
Table 3: Decentralized methods in multicast
communication network
Class
Method
Contribution
Decentralized
GKM
SMKD
SMKD method was introduced to
utilize the tree that was constructed by
the routing protocol of multicast, Core
Based Tree (CBT). SMKD was
proposed with CBT for delivering the
key to the multicast groups. The
encryption and authentication tasks
were delegated by SMKD to
downstream the CBT routers.
IOLUS
In this virtual group two types of
entities were introduced for various
subgroups maintenance and
connection they are GSIs (group
security intermediaries) and GSC
(group security controller).
M-IOLUS
In this method, the mobile members
who were already entered into the
subgroup was maintained by GSA.
During leave phase, the entire
subgroup GSA visited by this departed
member should update their keying
material in order to avoid forward
secrecy
BALADE
BALADE is a type of protocol in
decentralized scheme which contains
common TEK, it dynamically separates
the entire group into a large number of
subgroups. The local manager was
included in this group to manage each
member and the common key was
shared by the particular group member
and manager.
C. Distributed Group Key Management
In distributed scheme, the features of fault tolerance losses
its operational efficiency due to the effects of computation
overhead and communication cost. This schemes performs
TEK computation by involving the asymmetric algorithm for
cryptography key in specific D-H key exchange protocol.
This was fond to be expensive due to the performance of
multiple exponentiation process. These exponentiation
increases the time required for the contributing members to
reach the common TEK and its computation cost was
significantly increased by this introduced asymmetric
cryptography algorithm.
The group key generation was contributed by the cluster
members without the influence of central KS. The workload
was equally shared by the entire members of the group, so the
rekeying process was found to be rapid than the other two
management approaches. Some of the examples for this GKM
method are Octopus, Distributed Logical Key Hierarchy
(DLKH), Conference Key Hierarchy (CKA), Tree based
Group D-H (TGDH), Distributed One-Way Function
(DOFT), Group D-H (GDH Key exchange), and Distributed
Flat Table (DFT).
The GDH method was involved for session group key. The
cluster head and core members contribute to generate a TEK.
The Two Round key agreement Protocol (TRP) was used for
the purpose of intra-cluster communication. The inter cluster
keys were used instead of global key for nearby cluster
communication [24]. One of the most important challenge
encountered by this
Distributed GKM is,
Multicast Communication Using Different Group Key Managements
2324
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
a) Operational inefficiency: In distributed scheme, the
features of fault tolerance sacrifices its operational
efficiency due to the effects of computation overhead
and communication cost. In this scheme, the
involvement of D-H key exchange protocol increase the
computational cost of TEK with respect to its
exponentiation. In addition to this, it takes large time for
entire collaborating members to extent the TEK. The
group size increment may linearly increase the
conjunction time required for key generation. [18].
Ring based
Ring based method develops the virtual ring from the group
member contribution for TEK generation. The algorithm of
Diffie–Hellman (DH) key exchange was used among two
parties in order to agree with the common key and extend it to
the entire group having 'n' members [27]. The intermediary
values were calculated in a distributed manner as well as the
group agrees with the pair of primes (p and α). The initial
values were generated and transfer to the subsequent
members by this starting group members. The cardinal value
and TEK were extracted by the last member was transmit to
other members for TEK extraction. The most primitive
method in this category was GDH and number of studies were
performed for GDH advancement. The main aspect of this
approach is to treat the entire group members equally and if
any one of the group member does not finish the setup, then it
won't affect the entire group member performance. The key
computation requires strict synchronization and it was
estimated serially in multiple rounds [20].
Hierarchical based
The two party DH key exchange method was used by the
group for logical hierarchy tree formation that should agree
with the TEK. The results of LKH was held by group
members for key number reduction. For instance, the
popularly known method in this hierarchical based method is
TGDH, in this each parent node receive their secret key from
its one child and then obtain the blind key from another child
by applying the DH key exchange protocol [28, 47]. Number
of schemes have been presented in this category. The group
member interaction for TEK computation does not depends
on the member quantity or reduced as low as
n
2
log
. The
delay in the computation of parent key from the two children
key may cause some interruption in the key agreement
process, so the group member needs to be synchronized in a
proper way [20]. Likewise, the leader dependence during the
setup time cause some failure at single point. The cluster keys
were computed by the individual key trees and generates two
types of key trees. In the first stage, the group controller was
considered as a root whereas the cluster heads were
considered as group members. In the second stage, the group
member was designated as subgroup member and the cluster
head was referred as root. In hierarchical distributed GKM,
the steps that are used for cluster key generation was shown
below,
1) After performing the cluster formation and CH selection
the two arbitrary private keys
0,aa
and blinded
keys
0,baba
was send by CH to its cluster members.
2) In the meantime, individual private
numbers
N
PNPN ,.....,
1
were generated by each
member. The blinded keys were calculated by each
member using Equation. 1.
PgbK PN
PN mod
(1)
Where
P
and
g
are limits. The cluster member’s unicast
the blinded keys to CH.
1.Broadcast
2. Unicast
3.Multicast
4. Compute CK
Cluster membersCluster head
Figure 4: Timing figure for creating cluster key (CK)
3) The intermediate keys
jK
bK
and
jK
were computed by
CH along with blinded keys and multicast these keys to
all the members of the cluster, where
jK
jK
jK
PN
PN
a
gbK
PbKikPbKjK
mod,mod 1
22
1
1
(2)
4) The CK was calculated by members using the following
equation,
PbaCK jKN mod
0
(3)
In this way, the cluster key was generated and contributed
by the cluster members. This similar process was followed by
inter-cluster and intra-cluster communication for key
generation. The rekeying prevent the backward and forward
secrecy were by performing the membership movement [46].
The normal data transfer process begins after performing the
group key distribution and cluster generation between the
cluster members [24].
Table 4: Methods of GKM classes in multicast
communication
Class
Method
Contribution
Distributed
GKM
Ring based
The contributions of group members
were developed as a virtual ring for TEK
generation. The cardinal value and TEK
were extracted by the last member was
transmit to other members for TEK
extraction.
Hierarchical
based
The popularly known method in this
hierarchical based method is TGDH, in
this each parent node receive their secret
key from one of its child and also obtain
the additional blind key from another
child by applying the DH key exchange
protocol.
IV. GROUP KEY MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENT
Some of the miscellaneous criteria were encountered by
this GKM to achieve efficiency, scalability and security.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019
2325
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
This miscellaneous criteria were very much useful for
various solutions comparison and examination. These
criterions were listed and explained briefly as follows.
A. GKM security requirement
Backward secrecy: The members that are wishing to join
the cluster should not receive any past keying materials [41,
45].
Forward secrecy: The members who were leaving from the
group should not receive any future messages [41, 45].
Resistant to collusion: The present TEK was not deduce
and collude by some other set of fraudulent users.
B. Efficiency requirements
Communication overhead: The key material update
regarding the group membership change does not induce
enormous messages, particularly for dynamic group
members.
Computation overhead: The process of intensive
computation was not induced by the distribution and
generation of traffic cryptographic key at the user and control
manager levels.
Storage overhead: Minimum number of keys were stored
and handled securely by the overall communication entities.
C. Requirement of Service quality
Service availability: The single entity failure in the
architecture of key
management should cease the process of group
communication.
Scalability: This solution should have the capacity to scale
the GKM scope to a largely distributed groups [45].
Reliability: It is vital for the keying material to make sure
that the entire cluster members have obtained the keys in a
suitable manner [23, 45].
V. CHALLENGES OF MULTICAST
COMMUNICATION
This section provides some challenges that outline the
direction for future investigation on multicast communication
with GKM in wireless environment. They are discussed
below:
A. Key manager mobility
The member mobility was tracked at the area manager level
to mitigate the mobility effects. The key managers contains
stable network infrastructure and this corresponding
structures were made available only during the session of
overall group members. The GKM design was found to be
complex as the group members enter inside the network and at
the same time the group managers are also assumed as a
mobile entity. In this, manager mobility performs two
mechanism they are, firstly it relocate the security service
from previous manager to novel manager and secondly, it
selects the manager for particular areas where the old group
manager left out.
B. Based on communication overhead optimize the
group performance
For efficient operation, the performance of group needs to
be optimized in terms of both computation and
communication costs. This optimization mainly occurs during
the sudden visit and leave within the group by mobile
member. The key material update from the overall visited
areas during the identical time intervals acquires significant
overhead, so the unicast messages in secure form is used by
this manager for new key deliver.
C. Member’s congestion in some areas
The same pattern was not followed by the member’s
mobility to reach next destination. Due to this, the subgroup
size increases and also increases the overhead of key
management than the subgroup with few members. In order to
attain high efficiency, it requires an adaptive method to
separate the large subgroup into numerous small subgroups.
Otherwise it combines the adjacent subgroups into single
group for reducing the impacts of both computation and
communication cost [23].
D. IoT as a developing Information based global internet
architecture
The IoT offers infrastructure for dynamic global network
by joining the day-to-day objects and also by inserting
intelligence into the environment. In GKM the future works
were carried out to support the wireless networks
heterogeneity. [20].
VI. SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDY
The summary for GKM classes and its future scope were
provided in this part. To compare GKM classes various
criteria’s were discussed, they are presented below.
Recovery: A perfect GKM needs to be recover from the
failures without reinitializing the whole group. This condition
was widely satisfied by the decentralized GKM and
distributed GKM and high range of availability was achieved
by this two GKM in system failures and network. Because in
these two schemes similar group key was computed by the
entire members. In this, the member failure was ignored as it
does not affect any other members in the group, and the
overall members were treated equally. In the same way, if any
member failure, does not disturb the whole group. However,
the centralized scheme does not perform this recovery
because it depends on single group controller.
Key independence: If the developed key does not
co-operate with further keys, then the presented protocol is
said to be key independent.
Scalability: The centralized method was scaled to huge
amount of group members and large sparse groups. It can also
adapt highly dynamic membership, and frequent key
re-distribution was generally provided by these features. But,
these features were widely end up by both distributed and
decentralized GKM methods [45].
Multicast Communication Using Different Group Key Managements
2326
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
Keys storage: Tree based scheme same as centralized requires
members for storing huge amount of other host keys. But, in
both distributed and decentralized methods the members can
store only its own key.
Dynamic membership: These security service use only the
registered senders and receivers for packet transmission and
reception. The leave and join processes were found to be
frequent and dynamic in multicast communication. The GKM
approach was included with this multicast to make sure that
the past messages were not applicable to the new members
and also to ensure that the members left from the group does
not receive any future or current messages. Particularly,
distributed approach improves the efficiency of key update by
not frequently updating the keys on the members who were
left from the group.
Table 5: Comparison between three approaches of GKM
Evaluation
properties
Centralized
Decentralized
Distributed
Bottleneck
present
absent
Absent
Key
management
Single key
Multiple keys
contributory
Handling
capacity
Easy to
handle
Easy to handle
Difficult
Key structure
Pairwise or
LKH
Pairwise or
LKH
Ring based,
hierarchical
Server
computational
cost
High
Moderate
unpredictable
Client
computational
cost
Low
Low
High
Group size
Scalability
Moderate
High
Low
Reliability
No
Yes
Yes
Key type
symmetric/
Asymmetric
symmetric/
Asymmetric
Asymmetric
Central entity
dependence
Dependent
Independent
Independent
Signalling message: This method was also compared
with numerous messages for key update during member
join/leave, network failure, etc. In order to minimize these
messages various methods based on multicast communication
for key distribution was developed. The group controller
contact each group member for membership validity
verification, this process increase the bandwidth requirement
of centralized GKM [21].
Future scope: The requirement of GKM has increased a lot
due to its merits in encryption and decryption process. But in
recent days, enormous advancement in technology demand
for advanced methods in GKM to perform multicast
communication in encrypted way without any interference.
So, the researchers were working efficiently in this field to
improve the security of messages in multicast communication.
In this review, a large number of GKM methods were
reviewed for multicast communication. Our future scope is to
present a new efficient method in GKM for providing secure
communication among clusters. So, that the packets can be
deliver to client without any third party intrusion in the
multicast network.
VII. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BASED ON THE
STUDY
a. Whether the centralized approach has sufficient
scalability?
b. Why the distributed approach offers the fault tolerance
in multicast communication?
c. Why the computational cost of distributed GKM is high?
d. What are the challenges that affect the performance of
GKM approaches?
e. Why separate authentication scheme required for
decentralized GKM?
f. What are the advantages of using ring based approach in
distributed GKM?
g. What are the merits of KEK in LKH?
Answers for review questions:
h. Centralized approach makes the group member flexible
by receiving the group communication from various
groups, due to this reason, it encounters huge scalability
problem in wireless networks.
i. In distributed scheme fault tolerance was involved and
the features of fault tolerance sacrifices its operational
efficiency due to the effects of computation overhead
and communication cost.
j. The involvement of D-H key exchange protocol in
distributed GKM increases the computational cost of
TEK with respect to its exponentiation. In addition to
this, it takes large time for entire collaborating members
to extent the TEK. The group size increment may
linearly increase the conjunction time required for key
generation.
k. The performance of GKM methods was largely affected
by some factors they are, resource constraints, widely
dispersed mobile devices, and bandwidth limitation.
l. In this decentralized method, the rekeying process was
performed better than the centralized approach as it
transmit the key for very less hops in order to attain its
destination. The members roam over the entire wireless
network and obtain the group communication content
from the entire network. The GKM have to integrate
authentication mechanism to verify the members before
receiving the keying materials that are utilized in the
target subgroup.
m. The significant advantage of this method is that, it treat
the entire group members equally and if any one of the
group member deteriorate to finish the setup, it won't
degrade the entire group member performance. The key
computation requires strict synchronization and it was
estimated serially in multiple rounds.
n. The messages required for update process was reduced
by KEK, particularly when the member leave from the
group. The alteration in group membership may reduce
the key material update messages for this the entire
method was scaled into the groups having large size.
The failure at particular point was represented by single
KS dependency to attain the bottleneck performance.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878 (Online), Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019
2327
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
VIII. CONCLUSION
The issues of multicast communication and some of the
GKM approaches to overcome this issues were reviewed. The
security mechanism is largely needed for multicast IPv6
network to provide a confidential communication among
group members. GKM place its wide footprint in the multicast
communication field by improving the communication
security. GKM includes three types; centralized,
decentralized, and distributed. These three types further more
improve the privacy of multicast communication. In this
review, number of methods that belongs to these three GKM
classes were also reviewed. Some of the challenges that are
faced by this multicast communication was also reviewed and
provided literally. The requirements of these GKM classes
was also reviewed. Finally some of the review questions and
their answers were also provided in this work. These details
were very much useful to obtain a clear details regarding the
performance of GKM in multicast communication. In recent
years, number of experiments were performed in this
multicast IPv6 network for secure communication. The high
range of security was achieved after implementing the GKM
classes.
REFERENCE
1. Piao, Y., Kim, J., Tariq, U. and Hong, M., 2013. Polynomial-based key
management for secure intra-group and inter-group
communication. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 65(9),
pp.1300-1309.
2. Wong, C.K., Gouda, M. and Lam, S.S., 1998, October. Secure group
communications using key graphs. In ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review (Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 68-79). ACM.
3. Mapoka, T.T., 2013. Group key management protocols for secure
mobile multicast communication: A comprehensive
survey. International Journal of Computer Applications, 84(12).
4. Vijayakumar, P., Bose, S. and Kannan, A., 2014. Chinese remainder
theorem based centralised group key management for secure multicast
communication. IET information Security, 8(3), pp.179-187.
5. Nicanfar, H., Jokar, P., Beznosov, K. and Leung, V.C., 2014. Efficient
authentication and key management mechanisms for smart grid
communications. IEEE systems journal, 8(2), pp.629-640.
6. Shen, J., Tan, H., Moh, S., Chung, I., Liu, Q. and Sun, X., 2015.
Enhanced secure sensor association and key management in wireless
body area networks. Journal of Communications and Networks, 17(5),
pp.453-462.
7. Veltri, L., Cirani, S., Busanelli, S. and Ferrari, G., 2013. A novel
batch-based group key management protocol applied to the internet of
things. Ad Hoc Networks, 11(8), pp.2724-2737.
8. Porambage, P., Braeken, A., Schmitt, C., Gurtov, A., Ylianttila, M. and
Stiller, B., 2015. Group key establishment for enabling secure multicast
communication in wireless sensor networks deployed for IoT
applications. IEEE Access, 3, pp.1503-1511.
9. Karthick, S. 2018. TDP: A Novel Secure and Energy Aware Routing
Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. In International Journal of
Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 11(2), pp. 76-84..
10. Sathish, T., Periyasamy, P., Chandramohan, D., Nagabhooshanam, N..,
2018. Modelling K-nearest neighbour technique for the parameter
prediction of cryogenic treated tool in surface roughness
minimization. International Journal of Mechanical and Production
Engineering Research and Development, 2018(special), pp.705-710.
11. Metwaly, A.F., Rashad, M.Z., Omara, F.A. and Megahed, A.A., 2014.
Architecture of multicast centralized key management scheme using
quantum key distribution and classical symmetric encryption. The
European Physical Journal Special Topics, 223(8), pp.1711-1728.
12. Yang, Y., Zheng, X., Liu, X., Zhong, S. and Chang, V., 2018.
Cross-domain dynamic anonymous authenticated group key
management with symptom-matching for e-health social system. Future
Generation Computer Systems, 84, pp.160-176.
13. Mehdizadeh, A., Hashim, F., Abdullah, R.S.A.R., Ali, B.M., Othman,
M. and Khatun, S., 2014. Multicast-unicast data delivery method in
wireless IPv6 networks. Journal of network and systems
management, 22(4), pp.583-608.
14. Lorente, G.G., Lemmens, B., Carlier, M., Braeken, A. and Steenhaut, K.,
2017. BMRF: Bidirectional multicast RPL forwarding. Ad Hoc
Networks, 54, pp.69-84.
15. Abdel Fadeel, K.Q. and El Sayed, K., 2015, May. ESMRF: enhanced
stateless multicast RPL forwarding for IPv6-based low-Power and lossy
networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on IoT challenges in
Mobile and Industrial Systems (pp. 19-24). ACM.
16. Nguyen, T.T. and Bonnet, C., 2014. Considerations of IP multicast for
load balancing in Proxy Mobile IPv6 networks. Computer
Networks, 72, pp.113-126.
17. Wang, X., 2015. Multicast for 6LoWPAN wireless sensor
networks. IEEE Sensors Journal, 15(5), pp.3076-3083.
18. Mapoka, T.T., 2013. Group key management protocols for secure
mobile multicast communication: A comprehensive
survey. International Journal of Computer Applications, 84(12).
19. Vijayakumar, P., Bose, S. and Kannan, A., 2013. Centralized key
distribution protocol using the greatest common divisor
method. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 65(9),
pp.1360-1368.
20. Daghighi, B., Kiah, M.L.M., Shamshirband, S. and Rehman, M.H.U.,
2015. Toward secure group communication in wireless mobile
environments: Issues, solutions, and challenges. Journal of Network and
Computer Applications, 50, pp.1-14.
21. Baddi, Y. and El Kettani, M.D.E.C., 2013, April. Key management for
secure multicast communication: A survey. In 2013 National Security
Days (JNS3) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
22. Cheikhrouhou, O., 2016. Secure group communication in wireless
sensor networks: a survey. Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, 61, pp.115-132.
23. Daghighi, B., Kiah, M.L.M., Iqbal, S., Rehman, M.H.U. and Martin, K.,
2017. Host mobility key management in dynamic secure group
communication. Wireless Networks, pp.1-19.
24. Gomathi, K., Parvathavarthini, B. and Saravanakumar, C., 2017. An
efficient secure group communication in MANET using fuzzy trust
based clustering and hierarchical distributed group key
management. Wireless Personal Communications, 94(4),
pp.2149-2162.
25. Baddi, Y. and El Kettani, M.D.E.C., 2018, October. Optimal Shared
Multicast Tree Based Solution for Group Key Management in Mobile
IPv6. In 2018 IEEE 5th International Congress on Information Science
and Technology (CiSt) (pp. 567-572). IEEE.
26. Pourbabak, H., Chen, T. and Su, W., 2019. Emerging data encryption
methods applicable to Energy Internet. In The Energy Internet (pp.
181-199). Woodhead Publishing.
27. Harn, L., Hsu, C.F. and Li, B., 2018. Centralized group key
establishment protocol without a mutually trusted third party. Mobile
Networks and Applications, 23(5), pp.1132-1140.
28. Cohn-Gordon, K., Cremers, C., Garratt, L., Millican, J. and Milner, K.,
2018, October. On ends-to-ends encryption: Asynchronous group
messaging with strong security guarantees. In Proceedings of the 2018
ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
(pp. 1802-1819). ACM.
29. Baddi, Y. and Ech-cherif El Kettani, M.D., 2018, May. OSM-GKM
Optimal Shared Multicast-Based Solution for Group Key Management
in Mobile IPv6. In International Conference on Networked Systems (pp.
255-269). Springer, Cham.
30. Khan, M.A. and Salah, K., 2018. IoT security: Review, blockchain
solutions, and open challenges. Future Generation Computer Systems,
82, pp.395-411.
31. Islam, S., Muslim, N. and Atwood, J.W., 2018. A survey on multicasting
in software-defined networking. IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, 20(1), pp.355-387.
32. Basu, S.S. and Tripathy, S., 2019. Securing Multicast Group
Communication in IoT-Enabled Systems. IETE Technical Review,
36(1), pp.83-93.
33. Ali, M. and Salim, B.M., 2019. An Efficient Group Key Management
Using Clustering Algorithm for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. In Third
International Congress on Information and Communication Technology
(pp. 107-118). Springer, Singapore.
34. Rafaeli, S. and Hutchison, D., 2003. A survey of key management for
secure group communication. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),
35(3), pp.309-329.
Multicast Communication Using Different Group Key Managements
2328
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
& Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number B2701078219/19©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B2701.078219
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org
35. Rafaeli, S. and Hutchison, D., 2002. Hydra: A decentralised group key
management. In Proceedings. Eleventh IEEE International Workshops
on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises
(pp. 62-67). IEEE.
36. Zhang, Q. and Wang, Y., 2004, December. A centralized key
management scheme for hierarchical access control. In IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference, 2004. GLOBECOM'04. (Vol. 4, pp.
2067-2071). IEEE.
37. Eltoweissy, M., Heydari, M.H., Morales, L. and Sudborough, I.H., 2004.
Combinatorial optimization of group key management. Journal of
Network and Systems Management, 12(1), pp.33-50.
38. Ali, S., Rauf, A., Islam, N., Farman, H., Jan, B., Khan, M. and Ahmad,
A., 2018. SGKMP: A scalable group key management protocol.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, pp.37-42.
39. Vijayakumar, P., Chang, V., Deborah, L.J. and Kshatriya, B.S.R., 2018.
Key management and key distribution for secure group communication
in mobile and cloud network.
40. Jaiswal, P. and Tripathi, S., 2018. Cryptanalysis of olimid’s group key
transfer protocol based on secret sharing. Journal of Information and
Optimization Sciences, 39(5), pp.1129-1137.
41. Islam, S.H., Obaidat, M.S., Vijayakumar, P., Abdulhay, E., Li, F. and
Reddy, M.K.C., 2018. A robust and efficient password-based
conditional privacy preserving authentication and group-key agreement
protocol for VANETs. Future Generation Computer Systems, 84,
pp.216-227.
42. Abdmeziem, M.R. and Charoy, F., 2018. Fault-tolerant and Scalable
Key Management Protocol for IoT-based Collaborative Groups. In
Security and Privacy in Communication Networks: SecureComm 2017
International Workshops, ATCS and SePrIoT, Niagara Falls, ON,
Canada, October 22–25, 2017, Proceedings 13 (pp. 320-338). Springer
International Publishing.
43. Iqbal, S., Kiah, M.L.M., Zaidan, A.A., Zaidan, B.B., Albahri, O.S.,
Albahri, A.S. and Alsalem, M.A., 2019. Real-time-based E-health
systems: Design and implementation of a lightweight key management
protocol for securing sensitive information of patients. Health and
Technology, 9(2), pp.93-111.
44. Pareek, G. and Purushothama, B.R., 2018. Provably secure group key
management scheme based on proxy re-encryption with constant public
bulletin size and key derivation time. Sādhanā, 43(9), p.137.
45. Yousefpoor, M.S. and Barati, H., 2018. Dynamic key management
algorithms in wireless sensor networks: A survey. Computer
Communications.
46. Janani, V.S. and Manikandan, M.S.K., 2019. A Genetic-Based
Distributed Stateless Group Key Management Scheme in Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks. In Integrated Intelligent Computing, Communication
and Security (pp. 233-241). Springer, Singapore.
47. Ali, M. and Salim, B.M., 2019. An Efficient Group Key Management
Using Clustering Algorithm for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. In Third
International Congress on Information and Communication Technology
(pp. 107-118). Springer, Singapore.
48. Kung, Y.H. and Hsiao, H.C., 2018. GroupIt: Lightweight Group Key
Management for Dynamic IoT Environments. IEEE Internet of Things
Journal, 5(6), pp.5155-5165.
49. Athmani, S., Bilami, A. and Boubiche, D.E., 2019. EDAK: An Efficient
Dynamic Authentication and Key Management Mechanism for
heterogeneous WSNs. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92,
pp.789-799.5.
50. Benmalek, M., Challal, Y., Derhab, A. and Bouabdallah, A., 2018.
VerSAMI: Versatile and Scalable key management for Smart Grid AMI
systems. Computer Networks, 132, pp.161-179.
