Abstract:
A method of inter-area rekeying of encryption keys in secure mobile muiticast communications, in which a Domain Group Controller Key Server (Domain GCKS) distributes Traffic Encryption Keys (TEK) to a plurality of local Group Controller Key Servers (local GCKS), and said local Group Controller Key Servers forward said Traffic Encryption Keys, encrypted using Key Encryption Keys (KEK i , KEK j ) that are specific to the respective local Group Controller Key Server (local GCKS i , GCKS j ), to group members, said local Group Controller Key Servers (GCKS i , GCKS j ) constituting Extra Key Owner Lists (EKOL i , EKOL j ) for group key management areas (area i , area j ) that distinguish group members (MM i , MM j ) possessing Key Encryption Keys (KEK i , KEK j ) and situated in the corresponding group key management area (area i , area j ) from group members (MM ij ) possessing Key Encryption Keys (KEK i ) that were situated in the corresponding group key management area (area i ) but are visiting another area (area j ).

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
       [0001]     This invention relates to rekeying in secure mobile multicast communications and, more specifically to inter-area rekeying of encryption keys.  
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0002]     The emergence of new Internet applications such as video-conferencing, e-learning and many other applications which are based on group communications experience new challenges such as support of user mobility. A new type of Internet solution is being specified to allow users to communicate with multiple remote hosts while moving in the Internet. In the perspective of deploying multiparty-based applications, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has defined the IP multicast model [S. Deering, “Host Extension for IP Multicasting”, Internet RFC 1112, August 1989]. This model allows any user to send Data Traffic in a single copy of its message to a group of hosts knowing only their group address, or more exactly their multicast address: members join the group by subscription without the sender needing (nor being able) to use the individual group members&#39; unicast addresses. The sender&#39;s message is then optimally duplicated by multicast routers on the path towards the receivers.  
         [0003]     Unfortunately, the IP Multicast model was originally specified without security support. This issue remains an obstacle for a broader deployment of IP multicast, especially for security-sensitive applications such as Pay-Per-View, private conferences and military communications, for example, where data confidentiality in a dynamic membership context is necessary. Furthermore, the mobility of users complicates the IP multicast security problem.  
         [0004]     While general aspects of the multicast security issues [for example T. Hordjono and B. Weis, “The Multicast security (MSEC) Architecture”, Internet draft, draft-ietf-msec-arch-04.txt, November 2003] and group encryption key management issues [for example Mark Baugher and al., “The Group Domain of Interpretation”, Internet RFC 3574, July 2003] have been broadly addressed through multiple works and studies, the impact of member&#39;s mobility has not been widely considered. The expression ‘intra-group mobility’ is used herein to refer to movement of member between administrative areas (‘inter-autonomous-system mobility’), without leaving or joining a group. The group is normally defined by the multicast address to which the member has subscribed. However, in some circumstances, it would be desirable for a mobile member to remain part of a group defined by the Traffic Encryption Key while changing multicast address.  
         [0005]     Such mobility complicates the IP multicast security problem. In fact, inter-autonomous-systemobility confuses the group membership dynamism since mobile members not only wish to join or leave the multicast group, but may also wish to move within the group between networks or areas while remaining (from a group membership viewpoint) in the secure session. However, member&#39;s movement between networks or areas may compromise data secrecy. This would normally require expensive rekeying (the generation of new keying materials) for the existing members in order to ensure data secrecy (Forward and Backward Secrecies). Such a constraint is due to the fact that the underlying group key management service was only designed for stationary members [M. Baugher, R. Canetti, L. Doneti, and F. Lindholm, “Group Key Management Architecture”, Internet draft, draft-ietf-msec-gkmarch-06.txt, September 2003].  
         [0006]     The Multicast Security (msec) Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifies a common architecture for secure multicast communications [T. Hordjono and B. Weis, “The Multicast security (MSEC) Architecture”, Internet draft, draft-ietf-msec-arch-04.txt, November 2003]. This architecture defines a security entity used for delivery and management of cryptographic keys in secure groups. Such an entity is called the Group Controller Key Server (GCKS). The algorithms that manage the distribution, rekeying (‘updating’), and revocation of the group keys are known as group key management protocols. The challenge of any key management protocol is to generate and distribute new keys such that the data remains secure while the overall impact on system performance is minimized. There are two basic designs of group key management model: a centralized design and a distributed design.  
         [0007]     In the centralized design, there is a single GCKS that manages the keying material for all the group members.  
         [0008]     In a distributed architecture the GCKS entity interacts securely with other GCKS entities to provide more scalable group management services, and hence to avoid signaling overhead and system bottleneck in the case of a large number of group members, which are more likely in the case of a centralized architecture. The manager of the entire group—the domain—is called the Domain GCKS. The domain is divided into administrative regions called areas. The area may be constructed on either a physical or a logical basis. For example, an area may represent a Corporate Network, or may contain a set of users that belong to a common logical group or coalition, independently of their physical location. Each area is managed by an area GCKS, a ‘local GCKS’. The present invention relates to the distributed architecture.  
         [0009]     In order to ensure the confidentiality of multicast application data, the Domain GCKS generates and distributes to all group members a common key called a Traffic Encryption Key (TEK). This key is used by the multicast source to encrypt data traffic, and by receivers to decrypt source&#39;s data. In a distributed scheme, when the Domain GCKS generates the data key (TEK), it multicasts it securely to each area&#39;s local Group Controller Key Server (GCKS). The local GCKS is responsible for distributing the TEK to members within its area in a secure fashion using a specific key called: Key Encryption Key (KEK). These keys are used by the local GCKS to encrypt the TEK and subsequent KEK versions (local rekeying). The means by which the local GCKS distributes keys in a secure fashion may include a unicast or multicast secure channel, a logical hierarchy of keys or an extension of the server hierarchy. This framework is depicted in  FIG. 1  of the accompanying drawings.  
         [0010]     The group is dynamic, so that when a new member joins the group, the TEK must be changed to ensure that the newly joining member cannot decrypt previous communications; this requirement is called Backward Secrecy. In the same way, whenever a member leaves the group session, the TEK must be changed—rekeyed—to ensure that the leaving member cannot decrypt further communications using the TEK it held before leaving the session; such a requirement is called Forward Secrecy. In addition, during a secure multicast session, keys will have a predetermined lifetime and will be periodically refreshed according to particular intervals. This ensures that no keying material remains valid for more than a fixed period of time.  
         [0011]     In more detail, when a new member joins the group through a given area it sends the local GCKS a signalling message to request the Group Traffic Encryption Key (TEK) as well as the local KEK. The local GCKS then creates and multicasts a new KEK to all the existing members of its area encrypted with the previous KEK. The new KEK is also unicast to the new member using a secure channel established using suitable mechanisms such as those based on a shared key or member&#39;s public key. Once the new KEK is distributed in the relevant area, the Domain GCKS multicasts the new TEK to all local GCKSs and then each local GCKS (GCKS i , GCKS j  and so on) forwards the new TEK to group members in their respective areas in one multicast distribution using the respective KEKs (KEK i , KEK j  and so on). The process of updating the keying material when a new member joins the group ensures backward secrecy. As a result, the new member cannot have access to an unchanged KEK to decrypt the previous TEK that was encrypted with an unchanged KEK, and thus cannot obtain data transmitted prior to its arrival.  
         [0012]     When a member leaves the multicast group, all the valid keys it held just before leaving the session must be changed by notifying its local GCKS. In this case, the member&#39;s local GCKS will create and distribute a new KEK to the remaining area members. The proposed solutions for inter-area rekeying we will review here suggest using a unicast secure channel to distribute the new KEK to each remaining member, instead of multicasting, since for both scalability and performance reasons, the GCKS does not have an encryption key shared only with all the remaining members (that is to say all except the leaving member), and hence the GCKS could not use multicast to send the new KEK only to the remaining members. Once the new KEK is distributed, the Domain GCKS generates and distributes a new TEK to all the local GCKSs. Each local GCKS then forwards securely the new TEK to all its area members using the KEK. This method ensures forward secrecy. That is, a leaving member cannot decrypt future group communications in any area because it does not have the required keying materials (i.e. the new TEK and the new KEK).  
         [0013]     In summary, the group key management service is required to ensure the following features in respect of all group members, even for group members that move intra-group between different areas in the domain—inter-area mobility: 
        Confidentiality: Only group members can read the multicast traffic.     Backward secrecy: Every time a new member joins the group, the Traffic Encryption Key (TEK) must be changed for all group members to ensure that the new member cannot decrypt previously transmitted data traffic.     Forward secrecy: When any group member leaves the multicast group, the TEK must be changed for the remaining group members to ensure that the leaving member cannot decrypt subsequent data traffic.        
 
         [0017]     The situation for intra-group inter-area mobility is illustrated in  FIG. 2 , in which a current group member MM ij  initially in the area managed by GCKS i  moves intra-group to the area managed by GCKS j , a current group member MM ji  initially in the area managed by GCKS j  moves intra-group to the area managed by GCKS i , and a current group member MM kj  initially in the area managed by GCKS k  moves intra-group to the area managed by GCKS j .  
         [0018]     It will be appreciated that each area may contain one or more Autonomous Systems (ASs) such as Corporate Networks that may represent a distinct organization with its own physical network. The ASs may also be limited by geographical constraints. Problems have arisen with proposed mechanisms for rekeying, due to security policies, key latency and risks of traffic interruptions and over-frequent inter-area signalling.  
         [0019]     One known proposal, referred to as a Static Rekey (SR) approach is illustrated in  FIG. 3  [C. Zhang and al., “Comparison of Inter-Area Rekeying Algorithms for Secure Wireless Group Communications”, IFIP WG 7.3 International Symposium on Computer Performance Modeling, Measurement and Evaluation, September 2000]. In this proposal, the local GCKS i  maintains the KEK i  unchanged when a mobile member MM ij  moves intra-group to a new area. That is, the mobile member MM ij  will continue receiving the KEK i  originating from its GCKS i . To achieve this, the GCKS i  may use inter-area multicast to distribute updates of KEK i  for members out of the area. Otherwise, it may use a forwarding node, such as the Home Agent in the case of Mobile IP.  
         [0020]     This approach is straightforward and does not require the mobile member MM ij  to register with the new local GCKS j  whenever it moves to a new area j . In addition, movement of the member MM ij  between the two areas affects neither the members of the previous area nor those of the new one. However, the Static Rekey approach may not work in case where the mobile member moves to a network that belongs to a new administrative area where the security policy restricts the traffic and the interactions with foreign areas. This may be the case when the entire network consists of a coalition composed of loosely connected ASs (e.g., in cooperative military), for example, or when the keys are multicast to the members. Moreover, with the Static Rekey Approach the distribution of keying material to members MM ij  out of their areas may suffer latencies or may even fail. Such problems are especially constraining in applications that depend on a rapid dissemination of secure information such as military operations, for example.  
         [0021]     In order to reduce both these latencies and inter-AS Signaling, new approaches have been defined proposing mapping the logical area structure directly onto the physical topology of the network. In addition, these approaches propose moving the key changes as close as possible to the members, shifting existing trust relationships to the current location of the mobile member to support future key exchange and eliminating the member&#39;s dependence on a distant security server.  
         [0022]     If the inter-area movement of the mobile member MM ij  were simply considered as a leave from the old area GCKS i  followed by a join to the new area GCKS j , this case would be assimilated to that of a member joining and/or leaving the group altogether. This would introduce an interruption of data transmission as well as additional computations whenever the mobile member transfers between areas. In addition, new TEKs may be generated twice due to the movement of the member MM ij  if the Domain GCKS considers that the entering member is both a member leaving and a member joining the group.  
         [0023]     Another known proposal, referred to as an Immediate Rekey (IR) approach is illustrated in  FIG. 4  [B. DeCleene, L. Dondeti, S. Griffin, T. Hardjono, D. Kiwior, J. Kurose, D. Towsley, S. Vasudevan, and C. Zhang, “Secure Group Communications for Wireless Networks”, Proceedings of Military Communications Conference, IEEE MILCOM, Communications for Network-Centric Operations: Creating the Information Force. Vienna, October 2001, pp. 113-117]. The Immediate Rekey algorithm defines new semantics that address member&#39;s mobility. In fact, when a group member MM ij  moves to a new area, it sends a signaling message to the previous GCKS i  as well as the visited GCKS j . The areas GCKS i  and GCKS j  then update their local KEKs. No TEK rekey is required since the member MM ij  proves its group membership to the new local GCKS j  using specific information called credentials, for example in the manner described in S. Griffin, B. DeCleene, L. Dondeti, R. Flynn, D. Kiwior, and A. Olbert, “Hierarchical Key Management for Mobile Multicast Members. Accordingly, the data transmission continues uninterrupted.  
         [0024]     This approach is simple from a key management point of view. In addition, it separates the case of intra-group mobile members from that of members entering or leaving the group by maintaining the TEK unchanged when a current group member moves between areas. However, it implies systematic rekeying of the local KEKs KEK i  and KEK j  for all group members within the areas affected by the handover of the mobile member MM ij . Thus, the efficiency of this approach is seriously affected in the case of group members with a high inter-area mobility.  
         [0025]     Yet another known proposal, referred to as a First Entry Delayed Rekey+Periodic (FEDRP) approach is illustrated in  FIG. 5  [C. Zhang and al., “Comparison of Inter-Area Rekeying Algorithms for Secure Wireless Group Communications”, IFIP WG 7.3 International Symposium on Computer Performance Modeling, Measurement and Evaluation, September 2000]. The FEDRP approach is like the IR approach in the use of semantics of transfer between areas. It enhances this approach, however, since no local rekeying occurs in the previous area. That is, when the member MM ij  moves intra-group from area i  to area j , it sends one signalling message to GCKS i  and one signalling message to GCKS j . GCKS i  then adds the member MM ij  to a list of members that have left the area by intra-group mobility without leaving the group and still hold a valid area key KEK i  for a limited period of time. This list is called an Extra Key Owner List (EKOL). It is reset when and if a member holding a valid area key KEK i , in area i  or visiting another area, leaves the group and when the timer of the validity period expires. In some cases, the mobile member MM ij  may accumulate multiple KEKs that correspond to different areas it has been in. If the mobile member MM ij  returns to an area it has previously visited, the local GCKS checks if this member is on the local EKOL list. If this is the case, it will be removed from the list and no rekeying will be needed. In this case, the mobile member MM ij  receives (optionally) the current KEK i  using a secure channel. However, if the member MM ij  is not present in the list, a new KEK i  is generated and sent in one multicast distribution to current area members using the previous KEK i , and in a unicast transmission using a secure channel to the mobile member MM ij .  
         [0026]     In order to ensure forward secrecy, when a mobile member MM ij  visiting another area leaves the group session, all the KEKs it holds must be changed for all the group members holding those KEKs within the affected areas and, in addition, all the EKOL lists holding those KEKs are reset. The KEK i  that the member holds out of area i  may also be changed under specific conditions related to EKOL i  (especially expiration of the key validity period).  
         [0027]     The FEDRP approach improves significantly the inter-area rekeying by keeping the KEK i  of the previous area GCKS i  unchanged. However, the FEDRP approach suffers from systematic rekeying when the mobile member enters a new area GCKS j  for the first time. That is, when the member MM ij  moves to the new area GCKS j  its mobility is supported in the previous area GCKS i , but not in the visited area GCKS j . In addition, during the session duration, it is more probable that a member enters a given area for the first time than for more than one time. As a result, when a member moves between areas, it is highly probable that a local rekeying occurs in the visited area.  
         [0028]     It is desirable to provide a lightweight mechanism that optimizes the computation for mobile members while reducing the impact of their movement on group rekeying  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0029]     The present invention provides a method of and apparatus for inter-area rekeying of encryption keys in secure mobile multicast communications as described in the accompanying claims. 
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0030]     is a schematic diagram of the architecture of a distributed group key management system, showing Traffic Encryption Key distribution  
         [0031]     is a schematic diagram of the group key management system of, showing inter-area movement of group members,  
         [0032]     is a schematic diagram of the group key management system of, showing a known rekeying method for inter-area movement of group members,  
         [0033]     is a schematic diagram of the group key management system of, showing another known rekeying method for inter-area movement of group members,  
         [0034]     is a schematic diagram of the group key management system of, showing yet another known rekeying method for inter-area movement of group members,  
         [0035]     is a schematic diagram of a group key management system of the kind shown and for inter-area movement of group members in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, given by way of example, is a flow chart of an example of a rekeying process when a member joins an area in the system of,  
         [0036]     is a flow chart of an example of a rekeying process when a member leaves an area in the system of, and  
         [0037]     is a flow chart of an example of a traffic key reception process in the system of.  
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS  
       [0038]     Embodiments of the present invention shown in the drawings enable a reduction in the computational capabilities needed for both the key server and area members to support encryption/decryption operations due to membership dynamism (group join/leave) and member&#39;s frequent mobility, by separating member&#39;s mobility treatment from group membership dynamism, and by amortizing the movement impact over the TEK validity period. In addition embodiments of the present invention provide the following features. 
        Reduced impact of members mobility on group rekeying: the key management system, by separating member&#39;s mobility treatment from group membership dynamism (group join/leave), facilitates movement of mobile members between administrative areas while remaining (from a group membership viewpoint) in the group. In addition, when the mobile member leaves the group, the rekeying process reacts with a limited additional impact on the remaining group members. This residual impact is typically due to the accumulated information that the leaving mobile member got from the different areas it visited.     Reduced computational requirements for mobile members: mobile members have generally very limited resources (e.g. memory space, and computational power). Hence, it is useful to minimize for mobile members both the memory space requirements (e.g. number and size of stored keys) and computations (those involving cryptographic algorithms in particular).     Trust in Mobile members: the group key management system foresees a level of trust to attribute to mobile members because they may move across different managed areas, and accumulate information about local security services of the different areas they visit. In particular, for some applications, such as military communications, the mobile member must be prevented from continuing to hold valid keying material that it got from a specific security server when the mobile member is out of the management area of that server for more than a given period.        
 
         [0042]     More particularly, embodiments of the present invention provide the following enhancements: 
        avoiding rekeying the members of the visited area each time a mobile member enters it;     amortizing the impact of member&#39;s movement over the TEK lifetime;     providing a conditional self-generation of local keys for mobile members to reduce signalling between the local GCKS and its members;     saving resource consumption using derived key-based rekeying for mobile group members.        
 
         [0047]     This mechanism enables the impact of member&#39;s movement on area member rekeying and that of the visited area in particular to be reduced significantly. It separates the rekeying of mobile members from membership dynamism (group join/leave) without affecting the KEK rekeying process. This is achieved by introducing a specific key called Visitor Encryption Key (VEK), which is provided to mobile members when they move to a new area.  
         [0048]     In more detail, as shown in  FIG. 6 , when the mobile member MM ij  moves form area i  to area j , it sends a signalling message to GCKS i  of the area it is leaving as well as a signalling message to GCKS j  of the area in which it is arriving to notify them about its mobility. The signalling messages may be implemented as in FEDRP and IR, using credentials, for example as described in S. Griffin, B. DeCleene, L. Dondeti, R. Flynn, D. Kiwior, and A. Olbert, “Hierarchical Key Management for Mobile Multicast Members”. Once MM ij  is in the new area j , the GCKS j  sends the Visitor Encryption Key VEK j  rather than the KEK j  to the mobile member using a secure channel. This key VEK j  acts similarly to a KEK within this area j  but is not used by members MM j  already in the area j  and possessing the current KEK j .  
         [0049]     There are two types of owner lists for the GCKSs: EKOL (for example similar to that described in B. DeCleene, L. Dondeti, S. Griffin, T. Hardjono, D. Kiwior, J. Kurose, D. Towsley, S. Vasudevan, and C. Zhang, “Secure Group Communications for Wireless Networks”, Proceeding of Military Communications Conference, IEEE MILCOM, Communications for Network-Centric Operations: Creating the Information Force. Vienna, October 2001, pp. 113-117) and in addition a Visitor-Key Owner List ‘VKOL’ that distinguishes between group members MM i  situated in the respective group key management area i  and group members MM ij  that were situated in the respective group key management area i  area i  but are visiting another area area j . In this embodiment of the present invention, Visitor-Key Owner Lists (such as VKOL i ) contain the list of members still holding a valid VEK (such as VEK i ) but which have subsequently left the key area (area i ) in which they obtained the VEK. It is within the scope of the present invention, however, to modify the system to function in other ways, for example so that the Visitor-Key Owner Lists (such as VKOL i ) contain the list of members still holding a valid VEK (such as VEK i ) and which are still in the key area (area i ) in which they obtained the VEK. This may assume that GCKS i  can distinguish between members holding VEK i  and are out of area i  from those that are in. For example, when the VKOL i  is reset (as described below) only members with VEK i  and that are out of area i  will be removed.  
         [0050]     The flow charts shown in FIGS.  7  to  9  show in more detail examples of the processes that the local GCKS performs in the embodiment of  FIG. 6  when a new member enters or leaves the area. The processes shown include Group join and leave, as well as movement of a current group member between two areas.  
         [0051]     In the embodiment of the invention shown in  FIG. 6 , when a mobile member MM ij  moves intra-group from area i  to area j , the following processes will be triggered: 
        if this mobile member MM ij  holds a VEK i , the GCKS i  places the member in the VKOL i  list.     if the mobile member MM ij  holds a KEK i , the GCKS i  places that member in the EKOL i  list.        
 
         [0054]     In both cases, the GCKS i  triggers a validity period (as in FEDRP) for the local key VEK i  or KEK i  that the mobile member MM ij  holds. Subsequently, if the mobile member returns to area i  during the validity period, the GCKS i  removes this member from the list and no local rekeying occurs (optionally, GCKS i  provides the entering member with the current TEK). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to rekey area members when a mobile member returns to a previously visited area. However, if the mobile member remains out of the area i  and the period expires, the local GCKS i  resets the owner list EKOL i  or VKOL i  and distributes a new local key (KEK i  or VEK i ) to each concerned local member using a secure channel.  
         [0055]     Once the mobile member MM ij  enters the area j , we may distinguish two cases: 
        If there are no VEK j -members, the GCKS j  generates a VEK j  key (rather than a new KEK j ) and sends it (optionally, along with the current TEK) to the visiting member MM ij  in a secure channel, and the KEK j  remains unchanged.     If VEK j -members exist, the GCKS j  checks first whether the current VEK j  was used to encrypt the previous TEK. If it is not the case, the GCKS j  will provide the entering mobile member MM ij  the current VEK j . Otherwise, the GCKS j  will provide the entering mobile member MM ij  a new VEK j  derived from the current value of VEK j  (preferably using a one-way hash function, for instance: VEK New =Hash(VEK current )). During the validity period of the current TEK, the local GCKS j  may not derive more than once a new VEK j  value whatever the number of new mobile members that enter GCKS j &#39;s area j  during the TEK validity period, since the visited GCKS j  is unaware when the visiting mobile member MM ij  joined the group in a different area.        
 
         [0058]     Note that in all cases, no local rekeying (KEK j  or VEK j ) is triggered whenever a mobile current group member MM ij  moves between two areas. Besides, both Backward and Forward secrecies are ensured. Hence, this embodiment of the present invention separates fully member&#39;s intra-group mobility from group membership dynamism (group join/leave).  
         [0059]     When a new member (as opposed to a current group member entering the area by intra-group mobility) joins the group via a given area i  where there are VEK-members, the local GCKS i  will distribute a new KEK i  to all the area members encrypted separately with the current KEK i  and the current VEK i . As a result, all the current area members will then hold the new KEK i . The KEK i  is distributed by unicast to the new member as well using a secure channel. Next, the Domain GCKS multicasts securely the new TEK to all the area GCKSs. Each area GCKS then multicasts the new TEK to all the group members using the local area keys (local KEKs, and local VEKs when and where there are VEK-members).  
         [0060]     When any group member leaves the multicast group (as opposed to a current area member leaving the area by intra-group mobility), all the area keys it holds are changed within the affected areas. In this way, for a given area i , the GCKS i  sends either a new KEK i  or a new VEK i  (depending on which local key the leaving member holds) to the concerned members of the area i  using a secure channel with each member, which may be any secure channel except that based on the compromised encryption key (current VEK/KEK), for example a unicast channel. Next, the Domain GCKS multicasts securely the new TEK to all the area GCKSs. Each area GCKS then multicasts the new TEK to all the group members using the local area keys (local KEKs, and local VEKs when and where there are VEK-members) In circumstances where it is desired for a mobile member to be able to change multicast address while keeping the same Traffic Encryption Key TEK, it is unnecessary to send the mobile member a new TEK or to rekey the TEK.  
         [0061]     If the rekey is a KEK i  rekey, all the local members will be sent the new KEK i  and the local VKOL list is reset (previous members who visited the area i  are absent will no longer hold a valid VEK i ); in this case, any group members still in the area i  that hold a VEK i  will switch to the new KEK i . Once in place, the local GCKS i  distributes the new TEK in one multicast transmission using the local keys.  
         [0062]     However there is no need to change the KEK i s of the area i  if the leaving member held only the VEK i . Hence, we save resource consumption since the local KEK i  remains unchanged. In fact, in prior art approaches, when a member leaves the group session, a new local KEK is distributed individually for each remaining area member before a new TEK is multicast to these members. For some applications, the multicast traffic is interrupted until the new TEK will be distributed. This may increase session interruption latency particularly when the number of remaining area members is important. With this embodiment of the present invention, when the member leaving area i  holds a VEK i  and not a KEK i , the session interruption latency is significantly reduced whether or not the number of KEK i -members in the affected area i  is significant. Such a gain of processing time is particularly valuable in real-time applications.  
         [0063]     For both group join and leave cases, the EKOL i  as well as the VKOL i  lists on which the leaving member is listed are reset when the new local key is distributed to area i  members.  
         [0064]     In summary, in this embodiment of the present invention, the VEK i  can be considered as a temporary key, since the members holding such a key in a given area will switch to the new KEK i  when a KEK i  rekeying occurs (after a group join or periodic rekeying). Any additional processing that management of the VEK i  may introduce in the GCKS i  is negligible.  
         [0065]     It is within the scope of the present invention, however, to modify the system to function in other ways with respect to VEK management, for example, so that a new member receives an updated VEK rather than an updated KEK. Another modification would suggest that when a member holding a VEK i  leaves the group, the GCKS i  may distribute a new KEK i  (rather than updating VEK i  as described in our basic mechanism) for all the remaining area members using a secure channel with each of those members. Similarly, when a member leaves the group via area i  while holding a KEK i , GCKS i  may securely unicast a new KEK i  for KEK i -members only, and VEK i  remains unchanged for VEK i -members. In this case, VKOL i  list will not be reset. In another option, when a member joins the group via area i , GCKS i  may multicast a new KEK i  encrypted with KEK i  only, and VEK i  remains unchanged for VEK i -members. In this case, VKOL i  list will not be reset.  
         [0066]     Each time the local GCKS i  needs to forward a new TEK (TEK rekey) within its area i  that includes VEK i -members, it multicasts the new TEK separately encrypted with KEK i  and VEK i . To achieve this, the local GCKS i  checks first if it has obtained the current VEK i  by derivation from the previous one since the previous TEK forwarding.  
         [0067]     If so, the local GCKS i  notifies the VEK i -members (within the TEK distribution message) that the new TEK they are receiving is encrypted with a new VEK i  (derived from the previous one see above). The VEK i -members then decrypt this new TEK using the derived VEK i  (the members obtain the new VEK i  by applying the same function to the previous VEK i  as the one that was applied by the GCKS i  server).  
         [0068]     If no derived VEK i  value has been generated since the previous TEK forwarding, it means that the VEK i  has not been changed since then. Thus, the GCKS i  encrypts the TEK i  with the current value of the VEK i  and multicast it to VEK i -members, notifying them not to obtain a derived VEK i .