This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2017.2671406, IEEE
Communications Letters
On Reducing Intercept Probability for Unsubscribed Video Layers
using Network Coding
Mohammad S. Karim, Mohammad Esmaeilzadeh and Parastoo Sadeghi
Abstract—In this paper, we use random linear network coding
(RLNC) to deliver a two layered video sequence to two wireless
subscribers such that a high-paying subscriber receives the
highest quality and a low-paying subscriber receives the basic
quality. We first derive closed-form expressions for the proba-
bility of the low-paying subscriber intercepting sufficient coded
packets to experience the highest video quality. We consider
both feedback-aided and feedback-free transmissions. We then
propose a resource allocation framework that minimizes the
intercept probability subject to deadline and subscribed video
quality constraints. We finally show the tightness between the
theoretical and simulation results, and illustrate the protection
achieved by RLNC for subscription based layered video delivery.
Index Terms—Network coding, layered video, intercept prob-
ability, subscription based video delivery.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Video streaming in smart phones is projected to double
in each year [1]. This rapid growth of video traffic creates
numerous challenges for the service providers to meet the
quality of service requirements of their subscribers. Within
this broad problem space, we consider a network topology
wherein a wireless sender wants to deliver a two layered video
sequence to two subscribers. Such layered video has a hard
deadline and imposes a decoding order on the layers [2]–[4].
Moreover, a subscriber experiences the basic video quality if
it decodes only the first layer and the highest video quality if
it decodes both layers. Particularly, we address the problem of
secure delivering a two layered video sequence from a service
provider perspective such that (i) the subscribers decode one or
two video layers depending on their subscription levels, and
(ii) with a high probability a low-paying subscriber cannot
view the highest quality video.
Secure packet delivery over a wireless network is a chal-
lenging problem due to its broadcast nature. As a result,
a low-paying subscriber who does not have access to the
second video layer can overhear the packet transmissions and
potentially experience the highest video quality. To prevent
such unauthorized access, physical layer security that exploits
the channel conditions is an emerging solution [5], [6]. Further,
random linear network coding (RLNC) that algebraically
mixes different packets provides protection of a video trans-
mission as a subscriber needs to collect sufficient number of
coded packets before retrieving all packets simultaneously [3].
A body of works [7]–[9] showed that network coding
combined with physical layer security provides protection
of packet delivery, increases robustness to packet losses and
simplifies scheduling. In particular, the authors in [8] exploited
fountain coding, channel fading and power control to ensure a
higher packet reception rate at the legitimate user and reduce
the intercept probability of the eavesdropper. The authors
in [9] continued the work in [8] and derived the intercept
The authors are with the Research School of Engineering, Australian
National University, ACT 2601, Australia ({mohammad.karim, moham-
mad.esmaeilzadeh, parastoo.sadeghi}@anu.edu.au).
1089-7798 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Layer 1 Layer 2
window 1 window 2
Layer 1 Layer 2 Bob
Layer 1
²B
Alice
²E Eve
Fig. 1: Alice wants to send the first video layer to Eve and
both video layers to Bob.
probability of the eavesdropper by considering the field size
of RLNC, feedback and fixed number of transmissions.
In contrast to [7]–[9], we address the following question:
‘How can we design a network coding framework that allows
a low-paying subscriber to view the basic video quality while
preventing it from receiving the highest video quality?’ As a
result, we first derive closed-form expressions for the proba-
bility of intercepting the unsubscribed video layers by taking
into account the hard deadline and in-order layer decoding
constraints. We consider both feedback-aided and feedback-
free transmissions in order to identify the protection gain
achieved by a feedback message. We finally propose a resource
allocation framework that minimizes the intercept probability
subject to a deadline and subscribed video quality constraints.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND PARAMETERS
We consider a wireless sender, Alice, that wants to multicast
a two layer H.264/SVC video sequence to two subscribers,
Bob and Eve. This video sequence imposes a hierarchical
order on decoding the layers such that the second layer, i.e.,
enhancement layer, can be decoded only if all the packets of
this layer and the first layer, i.e., base layer, are successfully
received [4]. The base layer provides a basic video qual-
ity while the enhancement layer further improves the video
quality. As shown in Fig. 1, Alice wants to send the first
layer to both subscribers, and the enhancement layer only
to the higher paying subscriber, Bob. However, Eve tries to
eavesdrop the second layer for experiencing a better video
quality. Alice can send one packet in each time slot and the
packet is subject to an independent Bernoulli erasure at Bob
and Eve with probability ǫB and ǫE , respectively. Note that
the analysis of this paper can be extended to a large number of
subscribers and video layers if (i) the unauthorized subscribers
are likely to experience worse channel gain compared to
legitimate subscribers and (ii) an additional number of video
layers requested by the legitimate subscribers needs to be
protected from the unauthorized subscribers.
Let k = [k1 , k2 ] represent the number of packets in the
video sequence, with k1 and k2 being the number of packets in
the first and the second layers, respectively. The minimum de-
lay requirement imposes a deadline constraint of N time slots
for delivering k1 + k2 packets. Similar to the works in [2], [4],
we use a non-overlapping window strategy and, subsequently,
focus on quantifying the intercept probability reduction using
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2017.2671406, IEEE
such window-based RLNC. We acknowledge that considering
overlapping window (i.e., coding over different video layers) is
another interesting option, whose theoretical performance can
be quantified in a similar fashion as this paper but with higher
complexity. As shown in Fig. 1, there are two windows for a
two layer video sequence. While the first window ω1 includes
all k1 first layer packets, the second window ω2 includes all
k2 second layer packets. We employ RLNC to form a coded
packet over window ω1 or window ω2 . With the usage of
large field sizes, we assume that coded packets constructed
from packets of a coding window are all linearly independent.
Therefore, Bob or Eve need to collect k1 and k2 coded packets
from windows ω1 and ω2 to decode all packets of the first and
the second layers, respectively.
Definition 1. A transmission schedule nT = [nt1 , nt2 ] defines a
set of N T coded packets such that nt1 ≥ k1 and nt2 ≥ k2 coded
packets are generated from ω1 and ω2 windows, respectively,
and nt1 + nt2 = N T ; N T ≤ N . Further, NT is the set of all
feasible transmission schedules, i.e., nT ∈ NT .
Indeed, a schedule nT is feasible when the following three
constraints are satisfied: (i) nt1 ≥ k1 , (ii) nt2 ≥ k2 , and (iii)
nt1 + nt2 ≤ N . Similar to [7]–[9], we consider a physical layer
security condition of ǫB < ǫE , which can be satisfied by power
control, adaptive modulation, artificial noise or channel pre-
compensation. Further, we study systems with feedback-aided
transmission (FT) and feedback-free transmission (NT). In the
FT system, Bob generates a single acknowledgement message
using a dedicated feedback channel when it decodes both
video layers. In the NT system, there is no acknowledgment
message in N time slots. In both systems, we achieve secure
video delivery if Eve cannot decode the second layer.
III. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS FOR A T WO L AYER V IDEO
We quantify the physical layer security by the intercept
probability that Eve decodes the second layer. To derive this
probability, we first define the probability that a subscriber
i ∈ {B, E} with erasure probability ǫi decodes k packets after
receiving nr packets from nt coded packet transmissions as:
(P t
n nt nr nt −nr
; nt ≥ k


t
Pi (k, n ) = nr =k nr (1 − ǫi ) (ǫi )
0 ; nt < k
(1)
We for now consider point-to-point communications be-
tween Alice and a subscriber i, where Alice broadcasts
n¯t1 ≤ nt1 and n¯t2 ≤ nt2 following schedule nT . Here,
n¯t1 ∈ [0, 1, ..., nt1 ], which is used to compute the binomial
distribution, i.e., the probability that a subscriber decodes k1
first layer video packets if it receives k1 or k1 + 1 or,..., or
nt1 coded packets. Using (1), we define the probability that
subscriber i decodes the first layer, i.e., k1 first layer packets,
from n¯t1 first layer coded packet transmissions as:
F1,i (k1 , k2 , n¯t1 , n¯t2 ) = Pi (k1 , n¯t1 ).
Having the constraint of second layer decoding is subject to
first layer decoding, we define the probability that subscriber
i decodes the second layer, i.e., k1 first layer packets and
k2 second layer packets, from n¯t1 first layer coded packet
transmissions and n¯t2 second layer coded packet transmissions:
F2,i (k1 , k2 , n¯t1 , n¯t2 ) = Pi (k1 , n¯t1 ) × Pi (k2 , n¯t2 ).
1089-7798 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Communications Letters
For notational simplicity, in addition to k and nT defined
earlier, we use n̄T = [n¯t1 , n¯t2 ]. Then, the expressions in
(2) and (3) can be equivalently written as F1,i (k, n̄T ) and
F2,i (k, n̄T ), respectively.
A. Feedback-aided Transmission (FT) System
Bob can decode both layers and generate a feedback mes-
sage after k1 + k2 ≤ n¯t1 + n¯t2 ≤ nt1 + nt2 time slots. Since the
coded packets from windows ω1 and ω2 can be transmitted
in a random order, a feedback generation implies that Bob
decodes all packets of either the first layer or the second layer
in the (n¯t1 + n¯t2 )-th time slot, which allows him to immediately
decode both video layers. The probabilities of such events are:
g 1 (k, n̄T ) = PB (k2 , n¯t2 ){PB (k1 , n¯t1 ) − PB (k1 , n¯t1 − 1)}
g 2 (k, n̄T ) = PB (k1 , n¯t1 ){PB (k2 , n¯t2 ) − PB (k2 , n¯t2 − 1)}
With these two events, we define the probability that Bob
decodes both video layers in exact (n¯t1 + n¯t2 )-th time slot as:
2
X n¯t
f2,B (k, n̄T ) = g ℓ (k, n̄T ) ¯t ℓ ¯t (4)
n1 + n2
ℓ=1
n¯t
where n¯t +ℓn¯t is the probability that the transmission in the
1 2
(n¯t1 + n¯t2 )-th time slot is from the ℓ-th layer.
Now, to derive the intercept probability, we consider two
cases. (Case 1:), the probability PBE (k, nT ) that both Bob
and Eve decode the second layer (and of course the first
layer). This is possible if Bob decodes the second layer in
the (n¯t1 + n¯t2 )-th time slot and Eve decoded the second layer
earlier or decodes the second layer concurrently with Bob.
Using expressions (4) and (3), and considering all feasible
transmissions of n¯t1 and n¯t2 , we define the probability:
PBE (k, nT )
n1 t
n2t nt1
nt2

X X n¯t1 n¯t2
= f (k, n̄T )F2,E (k, n̄T ),
nt1 +nt2
2,B
(5)
n¯t1 =k1 n¯t2 =k2 n¯t +n¯t
1 2
The probability (5) is computed as the summation of all
feasible cases with n¯t1 from window ω1 and n¯t2 from window
ω2 , where Bob decodes exactly at (n¯t1 + n¯t2 )-th time slot (and
immediately generates a feedback) and Eve decodes within
(n¯t1 + n¯t2 ) time slots (and is able to intercept the unauthorized
layer). (Case 2:) the probability PE (k, nT ) that Eve decodes
the second layer but Bob fails to decode the second layer
after transmitting the complete schedule of nt1 and nt2 coded
packets. Using (3), we define the probability:
PE (k, nT ) = F2,E (k, nT ) × (1 − F2,B (k, nT )). (6)
Finally, we define the intercept probability as the sum of
(2) the aforementioned two events’ probabilities as follows:
PF T T T T
int (k, n ) = PBE (k, n ) + PE (k, n ). (7)
B. Feedback-free Transmission (NT) System
In NT system, Alice transmits a complete schedule of nt1
and nt2 coded packets. Therefore, the intercept probability is
(3) equal to the probability that Eve decodes the second layer
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2017.2671406, IEEE
within nt1 + nt2 time slots. Using expression (3), we define the
intercept probability as:
PN T T T
int (k, n ) = F2,E (k, n ).
IV. R ESOURCE A LLOCATION F RAMEWORK (RAF)
∗
We determine the optimal schedule nT ∈ NT that
minimizes the intercept probability subject to a deadline and
subscribed video quality constraints using the following RAF:
Pint (k, nT )
min
nT ∈NT
subject to F1,B (k, nT ) ≥ σ1 , F1,E (k, nT ) ≥ σ1
T ∗
F2,B (k, n ) ≥ σ2
where objective (9) minimizes the decoding probability of the
second layer at Eve over all feasible schedules NT , constraint
(10) ensures that the decoding probability of the first layer at
Bob and Eve meets a pre-defined threshold σ1 separately, and
constraint (11) ensures that the decoding probability of the
second layer at Bob meets a pre-defined threshold σ2 . Here,
σ2 < σ1 as the second layer decoding probability is dependent
on the first layer decoding probability. Note that the resource
allocation function is unsolvable when there exists no feasible
schedule nT ∈ NT satisfying the aforementioned constraints.
Indeed, the number of allowable time slots N needs to be
sufficiently large as compared to the required number of coded
packets since the transmissions are subject to channel erasures.
We now describe a proposition that leads to the solution of
the RAF problem.
Proposition 1. The intercept probability PN T T
int (k, n ) is a
non-decreasing function of the number of first layer packet
transmissions nt1 and the number of second layer packet
transmissions nt2 such as:
PN T t t NT t t
int (k1 , k2 , n1 , n2 ) ≤ Pint (k1 , k2 ,n1 + θ1 , n2 + θ2 );
θ1 ≥ 0, θ2 ≥ 0. (12)
Proof. For a given schedule nT = [nt1 , nt2 ], let us consider
additional θ1 ≥ 0 and θ2 ≥ 0 transmissions for the first
layer and the second layer, respectively, and the resulting
nt1 + θ1 and nt2 + θ2 transmissions. Using expression (1), we
can infer that P(k1 , nt1 ) ≤ P(k1 , nt1 + θ1 ) and P(k2 , nt2 ) ≤
P(k2 , nt2 + θ2 ). According to expression (3), the increase
of probabilities P(k1 , nt1 + θ1 ) and P(k2 , nt2 + θ2 ) also
increases the second layer decoding probability at Eve, i.e.,
F2,E (k1 , k2 , nt1 , nt2 ) ≤ F2,E (k1 , k2 , nt1 + θ1 , nt2 + θ2 ). Indeed,
a higher probability F2,E (k1 , k2 , nt1 + θ1 , nt2 + θ2 ) causes a
higher intercept probability.
With Proposition 1, we now describe the solution of the
RAF problem for NT system using the following theorem:
Theorem 1. The optimal solution of the RAF problem in NT
system, if admissible, is achieved by first minimizing the num-
ber of first layer packet transmissions nt1 and then minimizing
the number of second layer packet transmissions nt2 subject to
deadline and subscribed video quality constraints as follows:
∗
nt1 = arg min{nt1 ∈ [k1 , N − k2 ] | F1,B (k, nT ) ≥ σ1 ,
F1,E (k, nT ) ≥ σ1 }. (13)
∗ ∗
nt2 = arg min{nt2 ∈ [k2 , N − nt1 ] | F2,B (k, nT ) ≥ σ2 }.
(14)
1089-7798 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Communications Letters
∗
Proof. Let us consider nt1 as the minimum number of first
layer packet transmissions, within the range [k1 , N − k2 ], for
which constraint (10) holds. We note that the range starts
(8)
with k1 transmissions, which results from the exact number
of the first layer packet transmissions, and ends with N − k2
transmissions, which results from the number of allowable
first layer packet transmissions given only k2 transmissions
are allocated to second layer. If the number of first layer
∗
coded packets is nt1 − 1, intercept probability will decrease as
∗
(9) per Proposition 1. However, nt1 − 1 transmissions will fail to
∗
satisfy constraint (10). As a result, nt1 ∈ [k1 , N − k2 ] is the
(10) optimum number of first layer packet transmissions. Similarly,
∗ ∗
(11) for a given nt1 , we can show that nt2 ∈ [k2 , N − nt1 ] is the
optimum number of second layer packet transmissions. 
Remark 1. In the case of FT system, we also select a schedule
∗ ∗
with nt1 first layer coded packets and nt2 second layer
coded packets following Theorem 1. However, if Bob does not
∗ ∗
generate a feedback after nt1 and nt2 transmissions, Alice
starts transmitting packets from the successor set of packets.
∗
To determine nt1 in (13), we start with nt1 = k1 and search
∗
until nt1 = N − k2 . Then, to determine nt2 in (14), we start
∗
with nt2 = k2 and search until nt2 = N − nt1 . We finally
provide the following theorem to demonstrate that a FT system
offers a protection gain compared to a NT system.
Theorem 2. If the system is FT, the probability of intercepting
the second layer by Eve is no larger than the intercept
probability of NT system, i.e.,
PF T T NT T
int (k, n ) ≤ Pint (k, n ). (15)
∗
Proof. Let us consider that nt1 first layer coded packets
∗
and nt2 second layer coded packets are selected following
∗
Theorem 1. If there is no feedback arrival at Alice, all nt1
∗
and nt2 packets will be transmitted to satisfy constraints
(10) and (11), respectively. However, if Alice receives an
acknowledgment in the (n¯t1 + n¯t2 )-th time slot, i.e., n¯t1 ≤ nt1
∗
and n¯t2 ≤ nt2 , the reduction in the number of first and
∗
second layer packet transmissions are nt1 − n¯t1 and nt2 − n¯t2 ,
∗ ∗
respectively. According to Proposition 1, a reduction in the
first or second layer packet transmissions results in a reduction
in the intercept probability, and concludes the proof. 
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS OVER A R EAL V IDEO
We use H.264/SVC Foreman video sequence, which is in
common intermediate format, i.e. 352 × 288, and has 300
frames with rate 30 frames per second [4]. We encode the

sequence using JSVM H.264/SVC codec while considering
temporal scalability and a group of pictures (GOP) structure
‘IBBBPBPP’ of 8 frames. Each GOP is encoded into two
video layers. We consider each packet consists of 1500 bytes,
where 100 bytes are used for header information and 1400
bytes are used for video data. The average number of packets
in the first and the second layers over 38 GOPs are 10.66 and
3.71, respectively. For a GOP, given that it has 8 frames, the
video rate is 30 frames per second, the transmission rate is
α bits per second and a packet length is 1500 × 8 bits, the
8α
deadline is calculated as: N = 1500×8×30 .
Fig. 2 shows the optimum number of first and second layer
∗ ∗
coded packets nt1 and nt2 determined by Theorem 1 against
different channel erasure probabilities ǫB and ǫE . Here, the
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2017.2671406, IEEE
Communications Letters

probability increases when both Bob and Eve have similar

30 4.4 channel erasure probabilities. However, the channel gains of
25 4.2
both Eve and Bob can be adjusted by power control, adaptive
modulation, artificial noise or channel pre-compensation [5],
∗

∗
nt1

nt2
20 4
[8]. Moreover, if Alice can estimate the instantaneous channel
15 3.8 quality, she can transmit packets from the first layer when Eve
10 3.6 has better channel condition than Bob. On the other hand, if
0.1 0.1 Bob has better channel condition than Eve, she can transmit
0.5 0.5
0.05 0.05 packets from the second layer. As expected, [9] suffers from
ǫB 0.3 ǫB 0.3
0 ǫE 0 ǫE high intercept probability due to encoding all packets together
0.1 0.1
∗ ∗ and transmitting these coded packets in a rateless fashion to
Fig. 2: nt1 and nt2 , determined by Theorem 1, against meet the threshold σ1 of decoding the first layer at Eve.
different channel erasure probabilities ǫB and ǫE . Finally, we can see the benefit of using a single feedback
message in reducing the intercept probability over feedback-
9:; <6=>75-63, free transmissions. For example, for ǫB = 0.05 and ǫE = 0.2,
?:; <6=>75-63,
9:; 5,578-6057 the intercept probability reduces from 0.48 to 0.27 when the
?:; 5,578-6057
?:; 5,578-6057 @(A
system changes from NT to FT. We also consider peak signal
"
B,03C.C; 5,578-6057 to noise ratio for measuring the intercepted video quality
!) and observe that Eve enhances its video quality by only
+,-./0.1- 2/3454676-8

0.64 and 1.4 dB in FT and NT systems respectively, for

!*
!%
!#
! (
! '
!
! &
! $
! "
Fig. 3: Intercept probability against different channel erasure
probabilities ǫB and ǫE .
deadline is N = 45 time slots, the threshold for decoding the
first layer at Bob and Eve separately is σ1 = 0.9, and the
threshold for decoding the second layer at Bob is σ2 = 0.75.
∗
From this figure, we observe that nt1 is only dependent on ǫE
because of the condition ǫB < ǫE and both Bob and Eve have
∗
the same σ1 for decoding the first layer. Moreover, nt2 is only
dependent on ǫB as Bob needs to decode the second layer with
σ2 . As expected, the number of transmissions increases with
the increase in erasure probabilities.
Fig. 3 shows the intercept probability achieved by the
derived analytical expressions and simulation results for both
FT and NT systems against different erasure probabilities ǫB
and ǫE . For the aforementioned N , σ1 and σ2 values, Alice
∗ ∗
broadcasts nt1 first layer coded packets and nt2 second layer
coded packets as shown in Fig. 2. To obtain the simulation
results, we generate 103 realizations and count the number of
occurrences when Eve decodes the second layer and average
over all realizations to calculate the intercept probability. Fig. 3
also shows the intercept probability obtained by the analytical
expression of [9] which considers a single layer video, and an
uncoded broadcast scheme which transmits an uncoded packet
in each time slot following the order of packets.
From this figure, we can see the tightness between analytical
expressions of (7) and (8) and simulation results. We can also
observe that intercept probability reduces when Bob channel
condition gets better compared to Eve channel condition. For
example, for ǫE = 0.2, the intercept probability PN T
int reduces
from 0.6 to 0.4 when the erasure probability of Bob channel
changes from ǫB = 0.09 to ǫB = 0.05. Note that the intercept
ǫB = 0.09, ǫE = 0.5. This is acceptable given the highest
video quality is 34.67 dB with decoding both layers.
VI. C ONCLUSION
!"
We used RLNC to deliver a layered video to two wireless
!#
!$
subscribers with different quality of subscription. We derived
!% closed-form expressions for the intercept probability of the
!& low-paying subscriber in experiencing the highest video qual-
ity in both FT and NT systems. We proposed a framework that
minimizes the intercept probability subject to a deadline and
subscribed video quality constraints. Simulation and analytical
results showed that RLNC is sufficient to achieve a high level
of protection for layered video delivery given the legitimate
subscriber has better channel condition than the eavesdropper.
Future research direction is to extend the framework to a
network, where Alice can estimate the instantaneous channel
quality and, Bob and Eve have similar channel conditions.
R EFERENCES
[1] CISCO, “Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic
forecast update, 2015–2020,” 2016.
[2] A. Tassi, I. Chatzigeorgiou, and D. Vukobratovic, “Resource-allocation
frameworks for network-coded layered multimedia multicast services,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 141–155, 2015.
[3] N. Thomos, E. Kurdoglu, P. Frossard, and M. Van der Schaar, “Adaptive
prioritized random linear coding and scheduling for layered data delivery
from multiple servers,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 893–
906, 2015.
[4] M. Esmaeilzadeh, P. Sadeghi, and N. Aboutorab, “Random linear
network coding for wireless layered video broadcast: General design
methods for adaptive feedback-free transmission,” 2014. [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1841
[5] Y.-S. Shiu, S. Y. Chang, H.-C. Wu, S. C.-H. Huang, and H.-H. Chen,
“Physical layer security in wireless networks: a tutorial,” IEEE Wireless
Commun., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 66–74, 2011.
[6] J. K. Tugnait, “Using artificial noise to improve detection performance
for wireless user authentication in time-variant channels,” IEEE Wireless
Commun. Lett., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 377–380, 2014.
[7] M. Adeli and H. Liu, “On the inherent security of linear network coding,”
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1668–1671, 2013.
[8] H. Niu, M. Iwai, K. Sezaki, L. Sun, and Q. Du, “Exploiting fountain
codes for secure wireless delivery,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 18, no. 5,
pp. 777–780, 2014.
[9] A. S. Khan, A. Tassi, and I. Chatzigeorgiou, “Rethinking the intercept
probability of random linear network coding,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1762–1765, 2015.

1089-7798 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.