Dynamic Group Key Management Protocol

  • Ghassan Chaddoud
  • Isabelle Chrisment
  • André Schaff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2052)


If multicast communication appears as the most efficient way to send data to a group of participants, it presents also more vulnerabilities to attacks and requires services such as authentication, integrity and confidentiality to transport data securely. In this paper, after introducing the research work related to securing multicast communication, we present the protocol Baal as a solution to the scalability problems of key management in dynamic multicast group and show how Baal resolves the user’s revocation problem. This protocol is based on distributed group key management by local controllers within sub-networks. 1 In the Canaanite’s mythology, Baal is a generic semetic name meaning Master. He is the storm’s god victorious against Mot, death’s god.


Local Controller Group Controller Priority Number Local Router Multicast Communication 
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.
    Canetti, R. and Pinkas, B. and Garay, J. and Micciancio, D. and Noar, M. and Itkis, G.: Multicast Security: A Taxonomy and Efficient Authentication. Internet draft (work in progress): draft-canetti-secure-multicast-taxonomy-00.txt (May 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mittra, S.: Iolus: A Framework for Scalable Secure Multicasting, in proceedings of ACM/SIGCOMM’97, Cannes, FRANCE (September 1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blundo, C. and Santis, A. and Herzberg, A. and Kutten, S. and Vaccaro, U. and Yung, M.: Perfectly-Secure Key Distribution for Dynamic Conferences, Advances in Cryptology: proceedings of Crypto92, E. F. Brickell, Ed., LNCS 740, Springer-Verlag (1992) 471–486Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fiat, A. and Noar, M.: Broadcast Encryption, Advances in Cryptology: proceedings of Crypto93, D. R. Stison, Ed., LNCS 773, Springer-Verlag. 480–491Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wong, C. and Gouda, M. and Lam, S.: Secure Group Communications using Key Graphs, in proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’98, Vancouver, British Columbia (Septembre 1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hardjono, T. and Cain, B. and Doraswamy, N.: A Framework for Group Key Management for Multicast Security, Internet draft (work in progress): draft-ietfipsec-gkmframework-01.txt (August, 1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balenson, D. and McGrew, D. and Sherman, A.: Key Management for Large Dynamic Groups: One-way Function Trees and Amortized Initialization, Internet draft (work in progress): draft-balenson-groupkeymgmt-oft-00.txt (February 1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hardjono, T. and Cain, B. and Monga, I.: Intra-Domain Group Key Management Protocol, Internet draft (work in progress): draft-ietf-ipsec-intragkm-00.txt (August 1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wallner, D. and Harder, E. and Agee, R.: Key Management for Multicast: Issues and Architecture, Internet draft (work in progress): draft-wallner-key-arch-01.txt, (September 1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steiner, M. and Tsudik, G. and Wainder, M.: Deffie-Hellmen Key Distribution Extended to Group Communication, 3rd ACM conference on Computer and Communication Security, New Delhi India (March 1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burmester, M. and Desmedt, Y.G.: Efficient and Secure Conference-Key Distribution, Secure Protocol, M. Lomas, Ed., LNCS 1189, Springer-Verlag (1997) 119–130Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGrew, David A. and Sherman, Alan T.: Key Establishment in Large Dynamic Groups using One-way Function Trees, TIS Labs at Network Associates, Inc. Gleenwood, Maryland (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atkinson, R. and Kent, S.: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol, Request For Comments rfc-2401, Network Working Group (November 1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ballardie, T.: Scalable Multicast Key Distribution, Request For Comments rfc-1949, Network Working Group (May 1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harney, H. and Mucknhirn, C.: Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Specification, Request For Comments rfc-2093, Network Working Group (July 1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harney, H. and Mucknhirn, C.: Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Architecture, Request For Comments rfc-2093, Network Working Group (July 1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chaddoud, G. and Chrisment, I. and Schaff, A.: Secure Multicaasting Survey, in proceedings of SEC2000, the 15th Internatioanl Conference on Information Security, Beijing China (August 2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chaddoud, G. and Chrisment, I. and Schaff, A.: Baal: Securisation des communications de groupes dynamiques, in proceedings of CFIP’2000: Colloque Francphone sur l’Ingenierie des Protocoles, Toulouse France (October 2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freier, A. and Karlton, P. and Kocher, P.: The SSL Protocol Version 3.0,, March 1996.
  20. 20.
    Cain, B. and Deering, S. and Kouvelas I. and Thyagarajan, A.: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3, Internet draft (work in progress): draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-04.txt (June 2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harkins, D. and Carrel, D.: The Internet Key Exchange (IKE), Request For Comments rfc-2104, Network Working Group (November 1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghassan Chaddoud
    • 1
  • Isabelle Chrisment
    • 2
  • André Schaff
    • 1
  1. 1.LORIA - University of Nancy IFrance
  2. 2.LORIA - University of Nancy IIVandoeuvre-Les-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations