Video encryption based on data partitioning and scalable coding — A comparison

  • Thomas Kunkelmann
  • Uwe Horn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1483)


Many of today's multimedia applications require confidential video transmission over the Internet. Appropriate encryption methods require a high computational complexity and are likely to become a performance bottleneck within software-only applications. To reduce the computational encryption effort, partial video encryption methods have been proposed in the past. Promising approaches are based on data partitioning where the encoded video stream is partitioned into two streams, one containing the most important data, the other one containing the least important data. Encrypting the most important data only can reduce the required computational complexity to 10 – 50 % compared to encryption of the whole data stream. Besides the known standardized DCT based video codecs, scalable codecs become more and more popular. Scalable codecs have the advantage that no additional effort is needed to obtain the required data partitioning. In this paper, a novel approach to partial video encryption based on data partitioning applicable to every DCT-based video codec is presented. It is compared to base layer encryption of a video stream encoded with a scalable codec based on a spatio-temporal resolution pyramid. Besides partial encryption, transparent encryption is discussed as well.


Video Stream Stream Cipher Scalable Video Code Scalable Video Video Codec 
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.
    B. Schneier. Applied Cryptography. John Wiley, New York, 2nd edition, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.B. Maples and G.A. Spanos. Performance study of a selective encryption scheme for the security of networked real-time video. In Proc. 4th Int'l Conference on Computer and Communications, Las Vegas, NV, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Tang. Methods for encrypting and decrypting MPEG video data efficiently. In Proc. 4th ACM Int'l Multimedia Conference, Boston, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Kunkelmann and R. Reinema. A scalable security architecture for multimedia communication standards. In Proc. 4th IEEE Int'l Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, Ottawa, Canada, Jun. 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Kunkelmann, R. Reinema, R. Steinmetz, and T. Blecher. Evaluation of different video encryption methods for a secure multimedia conferencing gateway. In Proc. 4th COST 237 Workshop, Lisboa, Portugal, Dec. 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B.M. Macq and J.J. Quisquater. Cryptology for digital TV broadcasting. Proc. of the IEEE, 83(6):944–957, Jun. 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. J. LeGall. MPEG: A video compression standard for multimedia applications. Comm. ACM, 34(4):46–58, Apr. 1991.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ITU-T. Recommendation H.261: Video codec for audiovisual services at px64 kbit/s, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ITU-T. Recommendation H.263: Video coding for low bit rate communication, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Girod. Scalable video for multimedia systems. Computers & Graphics, 17(3):269–276, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    U. Horn and B. Girod. Scalable video coding for the Internet. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 29(15):1833–1842, Nov. 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. J. LeGall. The MPEG video compression algorithm. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 4(2):129–140, Apr. 1992.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Girod. Motion-compensating prediction with fractional-pel accuracy. IEEE Trans, on Communications, 41(4):604–612, Apr. 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Qiao and K. Nahrstedt. A new algorithm for MPEG video encryption. In Proc. 1st Int'l Conf. on Imaging Science, Systems and Technology, Las Vegas, NV, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Agi and L. Gong. An empirical study of secure MPEG video transmissions. In ISOC Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security, San Diego, CA, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Meyer and F. Gadegast. Security mechanisms for multimedia data with the example MPEG-1 video., 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/ IEC. International Standard 13818-2: Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: Video, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Chadda, G. Wall, and B. Schmidt. An end-to-end software-only scalable video delivery system. In Proc. NOSSDAV'95, Apr. 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Hoffman and M. Speer. Hierarchical video distribution over Internet-style networks. In Proc. ICIP'96, volume I, pages 5–8, Lausanne, Sep. 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Tan, E. Chang, and A. Zakhor. Real time software implementation of scalable video codec. In Proc. ICIP'96, volume I, pages 17–20, Lausanne, Sep. 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M.K. Uz, M. Vetterli, and D.J. LeGall. Interpolative multiresolution coding of advanced television with compatible subchannels. IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 1(1):86–99, Mar. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Vetterli and K.M. Uz. Multiresolution coding techniques for digital television: A review. Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing, 3:161–187, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Girod, U. Horn, and B. Belzer. Scalable video coding with multiscale motion compensation and unequal error protection. In Y. Wang, S. Panwar, S.-P. Kim, and H. L. Bertoni, editors, Multimedia Communications and Video Coding, pages 475–482. Plenum Press, New York, Oct. 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    U. Horn and B. Girod. Performance analysis of multiscale motion compensation techniques in pyramid coders. In Proc. ICIP'96, volume III, pages 255–258, Lausanne, Sep. 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M.J.B. Robshaw. Stream ciphers. Technical Report TR-701, RSA Laboratories, Jun. 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Mathew and J.F. Arnold. Layered coding using bitstream decomposition with drift correction. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 7(6):882–891, Dec. 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Kunkelmann
    • 1
  • Uwe Horn
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science Information Technology Transfer OfficeDarmstadt University of TechnologyDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Media CommunicationGMD - German National Research Center for Information TechnologySankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations