The Road to Watercasting

Jon Crowcroft,UCL &

Ian Brown, Hidden Footprints

http://www.hiddenfootprints.com

Hidden Footprints Corporation

New logoJ

Project Goals

Provide Digital Wrongs Management

Relates to Content Distribution and online rights management/licensing/copyright protection

Looking at Broadband Internet of Future with film and game content as well as mp3/napster…

Slide 4

Slide 5

Description

Tracking the trail of the wiley copy-wrongdoer – requires thinking about evidence

Critical problem is not to prevent disclosure, since this is impossible

Rights management is a red-herring and is more about fee collection.

Watermarking

LSBs, compression parameters etc. changed to imperceptibly mark image

Competitive Analysis

Pure watermarking is now fairly common – problems abound

Scaling

Scrubbing

Collusion

Upgrade…

SDMI…..not too clueful J

SDMI

NOT trying to do the impossible ie replace all current audio players with SDMI-compliant "trusted" clients.

NOT trying to target the consumer: they are too many of them, with too few resources, who would get too pissed off at the content providers – bills are already being proposed in Congress that would help Napster and MP3.com because the voters like them...

* being realistic about where content can be controlled -- yes with a small number of users for a limited period of time who can be forced to accept high liability for pirated content (eg cinemas), no with consumers.

Streaming Servers abound, but…

Real, etc have scaling problems

Viz cnn.com

Viz evolution of napster to gnutella

New emergence of intermediaries:

Akamai, Inktomi, and middleware business for them – e.g.

Ffnet, ensim, bandwiz, digital fountain…

Strengths – good at scale and heterogeneity

Weaknesses – still don’t track content

Our Technology

Based on combination of distribution network, and source marking

Source adds more than enough watermarks – similar technique to layered FEC multicast (rlc/digital fountain), with meta data on packets

Distribution network removes different subset of marks for different receivers`

WWW & CDNP

HTTP:

access mechanism

TCP

Client-server:

proxy arrangement possible

Client-side cache:

speeds up multiple access to same page

Proxy cache:

multiple hosts on same network

Content Distribution Nets

Extension of HTTP

To peer-to-peer

Synchronise between proxies/replicas

Load balance etc etc

Can apply out tech., there too.

Or Level 3 multicast

Many-to-many:

many senders and receivers

host group or multicast group

One transmission, many receivers

Optimise transmissions:

e.g. reduce duplication

Class D IP address:

224.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255

not a single host interface

some addresses reserved

Applications:

conferencing

software update/distribution

news distribution

mutli-player games

distributed simulations

Network support:

LAN

WAN (Internet routers)

scoped transmission: IP TTL header field

IP multicast and IGMP

Features of IP multicast:

group of hosts

Class D address

leaf nodes (hosts) and intermediate nodes (routers)

dynamic membership, leaf-initiated join

non-group member can send to group

multicast capable routers

local delivery mechanism

IGMP: group membership control

Multicast: LAN

Need to translate to MAC address

Algorithmic resolution:

quick, easy, distributed

MAC address format:

IANA MAC address allocation

last 23-bits of Class D

not 1-1 mapping

Host filtering required at IP layer

Multicast routing [1]

Multicast routing [2]

Distance vector:

need next hop information

(or use poisoned reverse)

Link state:

construction of all SP trees for all nodes possible

“tie-break” rules required

Multicast routing [3]

Networks with no group members pruned from tree

Must somehow allow tree to re-grow

Soft-state:

timeout – re-flood

downstream nodes prune again

Explicit graft:

downstream nodes join tree

Pragmatic General Multicast

State assumptions about resources allocated to this project

People

Equipment

Locations

Support & outside services

Manufacturing

Sales

Product Breakdown Structure (PBS)

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Slide 23

Generic Router Assist

Highlight any procedural differences from regular projects of this type

Discuss requirements, benefits, and issues of using new procedures

Watermarking and multicast

Sending differently marked data streams to each client rules out multicast.

Even if bandwidth was available, marking algorithms don’t scale.

Watercasting: marking data

Server watermarks and multicasts n versions of each packet, where n ³ tree depth

Routers drop one packet version based on next hop’s IP address

Last-hop router passes on only one packet version based on receiver and router identification key

Example

Source creates 5 versions of each packet

Each router drops one version

Last-hop router passes on one version to client

Implementation

PGM application-layer filters could be used at routers, but have extra security requirements

Reverse SPMs require special support

Client only needs way to obtain security parameters from server - no media tool alteration is necessary

Source requirements

Provide each client with media decryption keys after receiving valid reverse SPM

Store original media, client details and tree topology for as long as content needs to be traced

Tracing traitors

Classify recovered clip’s packets - ACCEDBADABCD

Simulate network behaviour during that period

Calculate users and routers who individually or in collusion are most likely to have produced clip

Watercast Trial

Review high-level schedule milestones here

Current Status

High-level overview of progress against schedule

On-track in what areas

Behind in what areas

Ahead in what areas

Unexpected delays or issues

Related Documents

Marketing plan

Location or contact name/phone

Budget

Location or contact name/phone

Post mortem

Location or contact name/phone

Submit questions

Location or contact name/phone


	Jon Crowcroft,UCL &
	Ian Brown, Hidden Footprints
	http://www.hiddenfootprints.com


	Provide Digital Wrongs Management
	Relates to Content Distribution and online rights management/licensing/copyright protection
	Looking at Broadband Internet of Future with film and game content as well as mp3/napster…


	Tracking the trail of the wiley copy-wrongdoer – requires thinking about evidence
	Critical problem is not to prevent disclosure, since this is impossible
	Rights management is a red-herring and is more about fee collection.


	LSBs, compression parameters etc. changed to imperceptibly mark image


	Pure watermarking is now fairly common – problems abound
	Scaling
	Scrubbing
	Collusion
	Upgrade…
	SDMI…..not too clueful J


	NOT trying to do the impossible ie replace all current audio players with SDMI-compliant "trusted" clients.
	NOT trying to target the consumer: they are too many of them, with too few resources, who would get too pissed off at the content providers – bills are already being proposed in Congress that would help Napster and MP3.com because the voters like them...
	* being realistic about where content can be controlled -- yes with a small number of users for a limited period of time who can be forced to accept high liability for pirated content (eg cinemas), no with consumers.


	Real, etc have scaling problems
		Viz cnn.com
		Viz evolution of napster to gnutella
	New emergence of intermediaries:
		Akamai, Inktomi, and middleware business for them – e.g.
		Ffnet, ensim, bandwiz, digital fountain…
	Strengths – good at scale and heterogeneity
	Weaknesses – still don’t track content


	Based on combination of distribution network, and source marking
	Source adds more than enough watermarks – similar technique to layered FEC multicast (rlc/digital fountain), with meta data on packets
	Distribution network removes different subset of marks for different receivers`


	HTTP:
		access mechanism
		TCP
	Client-server:
		proxy arrangement possible
	Client-side cache:
		speeds up multiple access to same page
	Proxy cache:
		multiple hosts on same network


	Extension of HTTP
	To peer-to-peer
	Synchronise between proxies/replicas
	Load balance etc etc
	Can apply out tech., there too.


	Many-to-many:
		many senders and receivers
		host group or multicast group
	One transmission, many receivers
	Optimise transmissions:
		e.g. reduce duplication
	Class D IP address:
		224.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255
		not a single host interface
		some addresses reserved
	Applications:
		conferencing
		software update/distribution
		news distribution
		mutli-player games
		distributed simulations
	Network support:
		LAN
		WAN (Internet routers)
		scoped transmission: IP TTL header field


	Features of IP multicast:
		group of hosts
		Class D address
		leaf nodes (hosts) and intermediate nodes (routers)
		dynamic membership, leaf-initiated join
		non-group member can send to group
		multicast capable routers
		local delivery mechanism
	IGMP: group membership control


	Need to translate to MAC address
	Algorithmic resolution:
		quick, easy, distributed
	MAC address format:
		IANA MAC address allocation
		last 23-bits of Class D
		not 1-1 mapping
	Host filtering required at IP layer


	Distance vector:
		need next hop information
		(or use poisoned reverse)
	Link state:
		construction of all SP trees for all nodes possible
		“tie-break” rules required


	Networks with no group members pruned from tree
	Must somehow allow tree to re-grow
	Soft-state:
		timeout – re-flood
		downstream nodes prune again
	Explicit graft:
		downstream nodes join tree


	State assumptions about resources allocated to this project
		People
		Equipment
		Locations
		Support & outside services
		Manufacturing
		Sales


	Highlight any procedural differences from regular projects of this type
	Discuss requirements, benefits, and issues of using new procedures


	Sending differently marked data streams to each client rules out multicast.
	Even if bandwidth was available, marking algorithms don’t scale.


	Server watermarks and multicasts n versions of each packet, where n ³ tree depth
	Routers drop one packet version based on next hop’s IP address
	Last-hop router passes on only one packet version based on receiver and router identification key


	Source creates 5 versions of each packet
	Each router drops one version
	Last-hop router passes on one version to client


	PGM application-layer filters could be used at routers, but have extra security requirements
	Reverse SPMs require special support
	Client only needs way to obtain security parameters from server - no media tool alteration is necessary


	Provide each client with media decryption keys after receiving valid reverse SPM
	Store original media, client details and tree topology for as long as content needs to be traced


	Classify recovered clip’s packets - ACCEDBADABCD
	Simulate network behaviour during that period
	Calculate users and routers who individually or in collusion are most likely to have produced clip


	High-level overview of progress against schedule
		On-track in what areas
		Behind in what areas
		Ahead in what areas
	Unexpected delays or issues


	Marketing plan
		Location or contact name/phone
	Budget
		Location or contact name/phone
	Post mortem
		Location or contact name/phone
	Submit questions
		Location or contact name/phone