4.7 Article

Two-Multicast Channel With Confidential Messages

Journal

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIFS.2021.3055031

Keywords

Encoding; Decoding; Receivers; Random variables; Compounds; Interference channels; US Government; Multicasting; compound channel; confidential messages; randomness constraint; stochastic encoder; wire-tap channel

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1527387, 1955401]
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  3. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [1527387] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  5. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations [1955401] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper analyzes secrecy rates for a channel in which two transmitters simultaneously multicast to two receivers in the presence of an eavesdropper. Achievable rates are calculated and inner and outer bounds are derived, showcasing the minimal randomness necessary to achieve secrecy in different channel scenarios.
Motivated in part by the problem of secure multicast distributed storage, we analyze secrecy rates for a channel in which two transmitters simultaneously multicast to two receivers in the presence of an eavesdropper. Achievable rates are calculated via extensions of a technique due to Chia and El Gamal and the method of output statistics of random binning. Outer bounds are derived for both the degraded and non-degraded versions of the channel, and examples are provided in which the inner and outer bounds meet. The inner bounds recover known results for the multiple-access wiretap channel, broadcast channel with confidential messages, and the compound MAC channel. An auxiliary result is also produced that derives an inner bound on the minimal randomness necessary to achieve secrecy in multiple-access wiretap channels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available