Cascaded Events Sample Clauses

Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable, it is natural to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. (In fact, cascaded events and their impact on group protocols are often considered in group communication literature, but, alas, not often enough in the security literature.) A cascaded event occurs, in its simplest form, when one membership change occurs while another is being handled. Event here means any of: join, leave, partition, merge or a combination thereof. For example, a partition can occur while a prior partition is being dealt with, resulting in a cascade of size two. In principle, cascaded events of arbitrary size can occur if the underlying network is highly volatile. As discussed before, STR protocol requires at most two rounds. One might wonder why robustness against cascaded failure is important for only a 2-round protocol. We give couple of examples that illustrate (potential) failure of the STR protocol. Suppose a network partition breaks a group into groups and . The sponsor needs to compute missing keys and bkeys. While computing these keys, another partition breaks into two other groups (containing ) and . Based on the partition protocol description, the members in group still wait for the message from to process the previous partition. Suppose a merge event happens whereby groups and to form a single group . The sponsors and in each group broadcast their tree information. In the next round, while a sponsor computes the missing bkeys, a member originally in group leaves the group. If the leaving member is the sponsor, the STR protocol cannot proceed for every other member is waiting for the message from this member. The protocols described above cannot cope with these situations. However, we can modify the protocol in Fig. 9 to handle such cascaded events. We claim that the STR protocol is self-stabilizing, i.e., robust against cascaded network events. This is quite rare as most multi-round cryptographic protocols are not geared towards handling of such events. In general, self-stabilization is a very desirable feature since lack thereof requires extensive and complicated protocol ”coating” to either 1) shield the protocol from cascaded events, or 2) ▇▇▇▇▇▇ it sufficiently to make the protocol robust with respect to cascaded events (essentially, by making it re-entrant). The high-level pseudocode for the self-stabilizing protocol is shown in Fig. 10. The changes from Fig. 9 are minimal (lines 15 – ...
View SourceView Similar (5)
Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable, it is natural to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. (In fact, cascaded events and their impact on group and multi-round protocols are often considered in group communication literature, but, alas, not often enough in the security literature.) A cascaded event occurs, in a simplest form, when one membership change occurs while another is being handled. Here event means any of: join, leave, partition, merge or any combination thereof. For example, a partition can occur while a prior partition is being dealt with, resulting in a cascade of size two. In principle, cascaded events of arbitrary size can occur if the underlying network is highly volatile. We claim that the TGDH partition protocol is self-stabilizing, i.e., robust against cascaded network events. This property is notable and rare as most multi-round cryptographic protocols are not geared towards handling of such events. In general, self-stabilization is a very desirable feature since lack thereof requires extensive and complicated protocol “coating” to either: 1) shield the protocol from cascaded events, or 2) ▇▇▇▇▇▇ it sufficiently to make the protocol robust with respect to cascaded events (essentially, by making it re-entrant). The high-level pseudocode for the self-stabilizing protocol is shown in Figure 11. The changes from Figure 10 are minimal (lines 18 – 19 are added). Instead of providing a formal proof of self-stabilization we demonstrate it with an example. Figure 12 shows an example of a cascaded partition event. The first part of the figure depicts a partition of , , and from the prior group of ten members . This partition normally requires two rounds to complete the key agreement. As described in Section 5.4, every member constructs the same tree after completing the initial round. The middle part shows the resulting tree. In it, all non-leaf nodes except must be recomputed as follows: 1. First, and both compute , and compute while and compute . All bkeys are broadcasted by each sponsor and . 2. Then, as all broadcasts are received, and compute and . The bkeys are broadcasted by the sponsor . 3. Finally, all broadcasts are received and and compute . Suppose that, in the midst of handling the first partition, another partition (of and ) takes place. Note that, regardless of which round (1,2,3) of the first partition is in progress, the departure of and does not affect the keys (and bkeys) in the sub...
View SourceView Similar (3)
Cascaded Events. Since network disruptions are random and unpredictable it is natural to consider the possibility of so-called cascaded membership events. (In fact, this is typically done in group communication literature, but, alas, not often enough in the security literature.) A cascaded event occurs when a join, leave, merge or partition takes place while a prior event is being handled. We claim that the TGDH partition protocol is self-stabilizing, i.e., robust against cascaded network events. This is quite rare as most multi-round cryptographic protocols are not geared towards handling of such events. In general, self-stabilization is a very desirable feature since lack thereof requires extensive and complicated protocol ”coating” to either 1) shield the protocol from cascaded events, or 2) ▇▇▇▇▇▇ it sufficiently to make the protocol robust with respect to cascaded events (essentially, by making it re-entrant). The high-level pseudocode for the self-stabilizing protocol is shown in figure 11. The changes from fig- ure 10 are minimal. Instead of providing a formal proof of self-stabilization (which we omit due to submission page limitations) we demonstrate it with an example. Figure 12 shows an example of a cascaded partition event. The first part of the figure depicts a partition of M1, M4, and M7 from the prior group of ten members [M1::M10]. This partition normally requires two rounds to complete the key agreement. As described in section 5.4, every receive msg (msg type = membership event) construct new tree while there are missing blinded keys if (I can compute any missing keys) /* sponsor? */ compute missing blinded keys broadcast new blinded keys endif receive msg if (msg type = broadcast) update current tree else (msg type = membership event) construct new tree endwhile /* as many as possible */ /* including own broadcast */ <0,0> <0,0> <1,0> <1,1> <1,0> <1,1> <2,0> <2,1> <2,2> M8 <2,3> <2,0> M2 <2,1> <2,2> M9 <2,3> M10 <3,0> <3,1> <3,2> <3,3> <3,6> <3,7> <3,2> <3,3> <0,0> <1,0> <1,1> <2,0> <2,1> <2,2> <2,3> <3,0> <3,1> <3,2> <3,3> <3,4> <3,5> <3,6> <3,7> M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M2 M3 M5 M6 M9 M10 M5 M6 M1 M2 M4 M5 member constructs the same tree after completing the initial round. The middle part shows the resulting tree. In it, all non-leaf nodes except Kh2;3i must be recomputed as follows: 1. First, M2 and M3 both compute Kh2;0i, M5 and M6 compute Kh2;1i while M8; M9 and M10 compute Kh1;1i. All blinded keys are broadcasted by each sponsor M2; M5 and M8. 2. Then, a...
View Source

Related to Cascaded Events

  • Environmental Events The Borrower will, and will cause MCRC and each of their respective Subsidiaries to, promptly give notice in writing to the Administrative Agent (i) upon the Borrower’s, MCRC’s or such Subsidiary’s obtaining knowledge of any material violation of any Environmental Law affecting any Real Estate or the Borrower’s, MCRC’s or such Subsidiary’s operations or the operations of any of their Subsidiaries, (ii) upon the Borrower’s, MCRC’s or such Subsidiary’s obtaining knowledge of any known Release of any Hazardous Substance at, from, or into any Real Estate which it reports in writing or is reportable by it in writing to any Governmental Authority and which is material in amount or nature or which could materially adversely affect the value of such Real Estate, (iii) upon the Borrower’s, MCRC’s or such Subsidiary’s receipt of any notice of material violation of any Environmental Laws or of any material Release of Hazardous Substances in violation of any Environmental Laws or any matter that may be a Disqualifying Environmental Event, including a notice or claim of liability or potential responsibility from any third party (including without limitation any federal, state or local governmental officials) and including notice of any formal inquiry, proceeding, demand, investigation or other action with regard to (A) the Borrower’s, MCRC’s or such Subsidiary’s or any other Person’s operation of any Real Estate, (B) contamination on, from or into any Real Estate, or (C) investigation or remediation of off-site locations at which the Borrower, MCRC or such Subsidiary or any of its predecessors are alleged to have directly or indirectly disposed of Hazardous Substances, or (iv) upon the Borrower’s, MCRC’s or such Subsidiary’s obtaining knowledge that any expense or loss has been incurred by such Governmental Authority in connection with the assessment, containment, removal or remediation of any Hazardous Substances with respect to which the Borrower, MCRC or such Subsidiary or any Partially-Owned Entity may be liable or for which a lien may be imposed on any Real Estate; provided any of which events described in clauses (i) through (iv) above would have a Material Adverse Effect or constitute a Disqualifying Environmental Event with respect to any Unencumbered Property.

  • Subsequent Taxable Events If, within 10 years from the date on which the relevant Participating TO's Interconnection Facilities are placed in service, (i) the Interconnection Customer Breaches the covenants contained in Article 5.17.2, (ii) a "disqualification event" occurs within the meaning of IRS Notice 88-129, or (iii) this LGIA terminates and the Participating TO retains ownership of the Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, the Interconnection Customer shall pay a tax gross-up for the cost consequences of any current tax liability imposed on the Participating TO, calculated using the methodology described in Article 5.17.4 and in accordance with IRS Notice 90- 60.

  • Closing Events At the Closing, each of the respective parties hereto shall execute, acknowledge and deliver (or shall cause to be executed, acknowledged, and delivered) any agreements, resolutions, rulings, or other instruments required by this Plan to be so delivered at or prior to Closing, together with such other items as may be reasonably requested by the parties hereto and their respective legal counsel in order to effectuate or evidence the transaction contemplated hereby.

  • Material Changes; Undisclosed Events, Liabilities or Developments Since the date of the latest audited financial statements included within the SEC Reports, except as set forth on Schedule 3.1(i), (i) there has been no event, occurrence or development that has had or that could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, (ii) the Company has not incurred any liabilities (contingent or otherwise) other than (A) trade payables and accrued expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practice and (B) liabilities not required to be reflected in the Company’s financial statements pursuant to GAAP or disclosed in filings made with the Commission, (iii) the Company has not altered its method of accounting, (iv) the Company has not declared or made any dividend or distribution of cash or other property to its stockholders or purchased, redeemed or made any agreements to purchase or redeem any shares of its capital stock and (v) the Company has not issued any equity securities to any officer, director or Affiliate, except pursuant to existing Company stock option plans. The Company does not have pending before the Commission any request for confidential treatment of information. Except for the issuance of the Securities contemplated by this Agreement or as set forth on Schedule 3.1(i), no event, liability, fact, circumstance, occurrence or development has occurred or exists or is reasonably expected to occur or exist with respect to the Company or its Subsidiaries or their respective businesses, prospects, properties, operations, assets or financial condition that would be required to be disclosed by the Company under applicable securities laws at the time this representation is made or deemed made that has not been publicly disclosed at least 1 Trading Day prior to the date that this representation is made.

  • Triggering Events The events referred to in Sections 3(f) and 5(a) hereof are as follows: