An efficient group key agreement protocol for secure P2P communication

Abstract

The efficient design of a distributed group key management for a peer to peer (P2P) network with minimal computation complexity in dynamic secure group communication is a challenging issue. This is because of the absence of a centralized coordinator. In order to provide this facility, a self-composed distributed group key management framework is proposed for secure P2P communication. In this proposed work, group key computation is performed using Chinese remainder theorem and secure communication is performed through RSA encryption algorithm. This self-composed key management is a one round protocol in which a shared group key is generated using the public key of each individual user, and it is derived from the respective private key. The main advantage of the group key management scheme proposed in this paper is that it reduces the computation complexity of the peer users to O(1). This reduction in computation complexity is achieved by performing one addition and multiplication operation during a single member join and one subtraction operation during a single member leave operation. The proposed algorithm has been implemented and analyzed with well-known existing distributed group key management protocols and observed that it reduces the computation complexity significantly.

Self-Healing Group Key Distribution Facilitating Source Authentication Using Block Codes

“…Vijayakumar et al [29] proposed an efficient key distribution scheme for the Internet pay-TV systems, using only simple computations; the Internet pay-TV key distribution schemes are similar to our scenarios where the service providers need to refresh the group keys for a set of dynamic groups of legitimate users, but there are some key differences between the two scenarios: (1) there is only one message source (the service provider) in the Internet pay-TV key distribution schemes; (2) due to the nature of the grouping of the services, the systems usually adopt some kinds of key hierarchy or tree structures to tackle the key distribution. Vijayakumar et al [30] proposed a Chinese Remainder eory-based distributed group key management scheme which supports the dynamic membership change for the unstructured peer-to-peer networks; the scheme reduces the computational complexity in each user side by slightly increasing the storage space of the peer users. e authors in [31] proposed a new Greatest Common Divisor-based key distribution protocol which aims at reducing the computational complexity and the amount of information stored in the Group Center and the group members; the self-healing function and the message source authentication function were not considered in the requirements.…”

“…For example, the scheme [29] is designed for the pay-TV system where the group key updating is triggered by both its membership change and its subscription change, while the key updating of most of other schemes being triggered periodically or being triggered by membership change; the scenario also motivates its design of the hierarchical key structure; it does not need to consider the source authentication since there is only one message source in the pay-TV systems. e scheme [30] is designed for the P2P networks, where the group key management is partially distributed; even though the scheme might seem computationally efficient, we notice that the number of group member is predetermined, the number affects the initial public parameters, and the size of one single encryption expands linearly as the number increases. It is interesting that there are a group of schemes [32] that aim at providing the mutual-healing function which facilitates a node recover the lost keys from the group manager or from its neighbors.…”

“…e Columns 4 and 5, respectively, list the computational overheads of the GM and one member for recovering the group keys. In the table, the schemes [26,30,31] require the less computational overheads for recovering the keys; however, we note two points: (1) there exist many implicit communication overheads for securely transmitting membership authorization/authentication messages in [30];…”

“…(3) j denotes the jth session (could be replaced with O(m)); J denotes the number of sessions with joining users (could be replaced with O(m)), where m is the maximum number of sessions; Q denotes the number of neighbors around the request node. (4) T h denotes the computational cost for one hashing; T mul denotes the cost for one modular multiplication; T add denotes the cost for one modular addition/subtraction; T matrix m denotes the computational cost for one matrix multiplication, which is O(n 2.3737 )T mul ; T matrix gen denotes the cost for one new matrix generation, which is O(n3.3737 ); T exp denotes the cost for one exponentiation operation; T inv denotes the cost for one modulo inversion operation; T div denotes the cost for one modulo division operation; T η denotes the cost for one η() which is the group key broadcast message generation[30]; T s denotes the cost for one asymmetric signature generation; T v denotes the cost for one asymmetric signature verification; T e /T d denotes the cost for one asymmetric encryption/decryption; T dec denotes the cost for one symmetric encryption/ decryption; T GCD denotes the cost for one Greatest Common Divisor operation.…”

Blockchain‐Based Dynamic Group Key Agreement Protocol for Ad Hoc Network

“…A self-authentication and deniable efficient group key agreement protocol is proposed in Refs. [16,17]. The scheme establishes a group between road side units and vehicles by using self-authentication without certification authority.…”