Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Securing Immersive 360 Video Streams through Attribute-Based Selective Encryption

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that HTTP-ABE with viewport-aware selective frame encryption cuts cache CPU by up to 63% compared with HTTPS while keeping unauthorized viewport video below VMAF 5.

desk verdict Useful system paper with a real measured CPU win for ABE-based selective encryption of tiled 360 video, but the security-degradation claim rests on a VMAF methodology the paper never explains. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04466 v1 pith:2JQCBZ2K submitted 2025-05-07 cs.MM cs.CReess.IV

Mohammad Waquas Usmani , Susmit Shannigrahi , Michael Zink This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MMcs.CReess.IV
keywords 360-degreevideostreamingattribute-basedencryptionselectiveviewport-adaptiveDASHtiledcachingVMAF
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the security layer for 360° video can move from transport-layer TLS to content-level attribute-based encryption (ABE), applied selectively to frames and tiles, so that intermediate caches no longer have to terminate TLS, decrypt, and re-encrypt every segment. It claims that for tiled 360° DASH streaming, HTTP-ABE cuts cache CPU usage by up to 63% compared with HTTPS, keeps client-visible VMAF comparable to HTTPS, and—in the viewport-aware Major-P variant—degrades unauthorized viewing to VMAF below 5 in most tested videos. A sympathetic reader would care because the high bitrates and many parallel tile requests of immersive video make TLS termination at caches expensive; if this holds, CDNs could serve protected 360° content from caches without per-connection crypto work, at the cost of a modest increase in rebuffering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is selective frame encryption driven by a modified MPD: each tile's filename carries an encryption-level suffix (allI or allI+P), the DASH client reads it and decrypts exactly the targeted frames before playback. The paper names this two-dimensional because it combines frame-type selection (I/P/B) with tile relevance to the viewport, where the major tile is the one covering the largest area of the viewport and minor tiles are the remaining three. On the wire, caches see only opaque ABE ciphertext; MP4 metadata and offsets are deliberately left untouched, which the paper says makes encrypted segments unplayable unless correctly decrypted.

What would settle it

Inspect the Section 4.1 pipeline directly: if the 'encrypted viewport videos' are first decrypted with authorized keys to make them playable, VMAF should be approximately 100, contradicting Fig. 5a; if instead the ciphertext bytes are fed to VMAF, the metric could not run on a decodable video. A concrete check is to rerun the pipeline with logging of whether decryption is invoked before VMAF, or to compute VMAF separately on encrypted and on decrypted segments and compare the two.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a two-dimensional selective encryption method for H.264/AVC tiled 360° video: in the frame dimension, only I-frames, I+P frames, or all frames are encrypted by parsing NAL units and reinserting ciphertext in place; in the spatial dimension, tiles covering the largest viewport area receive the heavier I+P encryption while peripheral tiles receive I-only encryption. The authors claim this preserves the ABE property that caches store and forward ciphertext without cryptographic operations, and their measurements on CloudLab show HTTP-ABE consumes up to 63% less CPU than HTTPS at caches, achieves comparable or better hit rates for the uniform All-I+P variant, and keeps VMAF statistically similar for legitimate clients. For unauthorized viewing, they report VMAF below 5 for Full, All-I+P, and Major-P, while Major-allI leaks up to VMAF 30; encryption overhead and runtime scale the other way, making Major-P the stated middle ground.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the VMAF scores in Fig. 5a actually measure what an unauthorized viewer would see, even though the paper says encrypted segments are unplayable without decryption; if the clips were decrypted before scoring, the scores would be near 100, not below 5.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CDN caches for 360° DASH can serve encrypted content without TLS termination, shifting crypto cost from every cache hop to a one-time ABE setup at the origin and decryption at the client.
  • Shorter segments (2 s vs 4 s) make HTTP-ABE increasingly attractive relative to HTTPS because cache CPU for HTTPS roughly doubles while ABE stays flat.
  • Uniform All-I+P encryption improves cache hit rates and read-while-write hits, while viewport-aware Major-P causes fragmentation because the same tile can be cached at different encryption levels depending on whether it is requested as major or minor.
  • Client rebuffering is higher under HTTP-ABE than HTTPS, driven by origin–cache bandwidth limits and the size overhead of ABE ciphertext; removing that bottleneck should reduce it.
  • The results suggest ABE-based selective encryption is a fit for live 360° streaming, where short segments and many concurrent viewports amplify TLS overhead.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the viewport-aware Major-P idea could combine with viewport prediction to decide encryption level ahead of the user's head motion, converting a static major/minor split into a predicted-per-frame decision.
  • My inference: the same two-dimensional selection should transfer to HEVC/AV1, whose frame hierarchies differ, but the cache-fragmentation penalty for viewport-dependent encryption levels is likely to persist and may need cache-key unification.
  • My inference: if the VMAF degradation numbers hold up under a clarified methodology, a practical deployment could tune encryption level per title or per scene—static content like the yoga video degrades near zero even with I-only encryption, so motion complexity could drive the policy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an architecture for streaming tiled 360-degree video over HTTP using Attribute-Based Encryption (ABE) with selective frame encryption, including a viewport-adaptive scheme (Major-P) that encrypts more frames in the dominant viewport tile. The authors prototype the system, evaluate content degradation via VMAF, and compare cache/server CPU, hit rate, VMAF, and rebuffering against HTTPS in small-scale and hierarchical CloudLab testbeds. They report up to 63% reductions in cache CPU, improved hit rates in some cases, and comparable VMAF, at the cost of higher rebuffering.

Significance. If the results hold, the work offers a practical alternative to TLS termination in CDNs for immersive video, with a clear efficiency/security trade-off. The paper includes a working prototype, uses real head-movement data for the HELP video in streaming experiments, and reports measured (not derived) CPU and hit-rate figures. However, the security-degradation evaluation (Fig. 5a) is not methodologically reproducible from the text, and the streaming experiments use limited data (one video, two runs per configuration), so the quantitative claims should be treated with caution until these are addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 5a] The paper does not describe how VMAF was computed for 'encrypted viewport videos.' Section 3.2 states that encrypted segments are unplayable unless decrypted because MP4 container metadata and offsets are left unmodified while frame size headers are updated. VMAF requires two decoded frame sequences. If the encrypted videos were decrypted before scoring, ABE is lossless and the scores should be near 100, contradicting Fig. 5a; if they were not decrypted, the decoder path (e.g., forced decoding, error concealment) must be specified. Without this, the central security claim that Major-P and All I+P degrade unauthorized viewing to VMAF below 5 is unsupported. Please provide the exact pipeline and, if necessary, revise the claim.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figs. 6-10] The streaming evaluation is based on a single video (Google Spotlight Stories: HELP) and only two independent runs per cache configuration (13 runs in the small-scale setup, 14 in the large-scale setup). The reported 95% confidence intervals appear to be computed over per-second pidstat samples within runs rather than over independent experiment repetitions, which overstates statistical certainty. The CPU-reduction and hit-rate claims would be more convincing with additional independent runs and an explicit statement of how many runs the intervals reflect, along with a discussion of the single-video limitation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The viewport-adaptive scheme is referred to as 'Major-allP' in Sect. 4.1, 'MajorP' in Sect. 4.2/4.3, and 'Major-P' in the abstract and conclusions; please unify the terminology.
  2. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'All I+P' is ambiguous: it should be clarified as 'all I-frames and all P-frames in every tile are encrypted,' to distinguish it from the viewport-dependent Major-allP scheme.
  3. [Section 4.2.2] The 'rebuffering ratio' metric is mentioned but never explicitly defined; please state whether it is the ratio of rebuffering time to total playback time, or some other normalization.
  4. [Section 4.2.1] The sentence 'We averaged viewport coverage across users for both 2-second and 4-second segments to generate per-segment tile selections' is unclear, since tile selections are discrete; please explain how averaging was performed and how the resulting MPD files were constructed.
  5. [Section 4.3.1] The VMAF metric in Fig. 7b/10b (comparing streamed quality against the highest-quality stream) is a different methodology from the degradation VMAF in Fig. 5a (comparing encrypted vs. unencrypted viewport videos); the distinction should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CPU, hit-rate, and QoE results are measured against an external HTTPS baseline; the VMAF-on-encrypted-video degradation claim has a methodology gap, but no step reduces to its own input.

full rationale

I walked the paper's claimed derivation chain. The architecture and the general idea of ABE-over-HTTP are inherited from the authors' prior work [29], but every headline number in this paper is independently measured on CloudLab against an HTTPS baseline: cache CPU usage via pidstat, hit rates from ATS logs, origin CPU, rebuffering from client logs, and client-side VMAF. None of these are derived from a fitted parameter or from [29]; the 63% L2-cache CPU reduction and the hit-rate comparisons are empirical outcomes of the experimental runs. The selective-encryption schemes (Major-P, All I+P, Full, Major-allI) are design choices, not fitted inputs, and their degradation is reported as measured VMAF output, not as a quantity that is equal to its definition by construction. I found no equation or definition that reduces to its own input; no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction; and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to forbid alternatives. The self-citations [29] and [23] supply context and prior architecture, but the central claims would stand on the measurements alone. The one flagged weakness is a reproducibility gap, not circularity: Section 4.1 reports VMAF for 'encrypted viewport videos' even though Section 3.2 says encrypted segments are deliberately unplayable without correct decryption. Either the video was decrypted before scoring (which would make VMAF near 100, contradicting Fig. 5a) or a forced-decode/error-concealment path is unspecified. This is a missing-methodology concern, not a construction-level equivalence, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the 'encryption level' field in the MPD is a protocol extension, not an invented entity. The main assumptions are about tool correctness, the playability behavior of modified MP4 streams, and the validity of VMAF as a security-degradation proxy.

free parameters (5)
  • Zipf exponent s = 1.5
    Chosen to model realistic content popularity in the client workload; affects cache hit rates and CPU load. It is a controlled modeling choice, not fitted to the paper's data.
  • Poisson arrival rate lambda = 20 (small-scale), 10 (large-scale)
    Chosen to set client start times; influences congestion and rebuffering. Different values would shift absolute QoE numbers, though the HTTPS comparison is controlled.
  • Bandwidth ratio on origin-cache link = one-third of client-facing capacity
    Imposed to create contention; directly shapes CPU and hit-rate differences between protocols.
  • Keyframe interval and scene threshold = 60 frames, threshold 40
    Encoding parameters that fix I-frame frequency, which determines how much of the bitstream selective encryption touches.
  • ABE attribute count = single-attribute policy
    Simplifies encryption and decryption cost; the authors cite [23] for linear growth with attributes, so results may not transfer to multi-attribute policies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CPABE Toolkit correctly implements Bethencourt-Sahai-Waters CP-ABE.
    The paper relies on [6,7] for cryptographic correctness; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption Encrypting selected NAL units while leaving MP4 sample metadata unchanged makes the video unplayable without decryption.
    Stated in Sect 3.2 without a direct verification; also inconsistent with the VMAF procedure in Sect 4.1 if the encrypted stream is scored directly.
  • domain assumption VMAF is a valid measure of unauthorized-viewing degradation for 360 video.
    Supported by [21] for quality, but using low VMAF as a proxy for security assumes no attacker can exploit unencrypted P/B frames or side channels.
  • ad hoc to paper The manually selected 'visually engaging areas' in Sect 4.1 represent real user viewports.
    Used to choose major and minor tiles for the offline quality experiments; real head traces are only used later in the streaming experiments.
  • domain assumption Averaging viewport coverage across 40 head traces yields representative per-segment tile selections.
    In Sect 4.2.1, averaged tile selections are encoded into the MPD; this smooths out per-user variation and may affect which tile is 'major'.
  • domain assumption tc-based bandwidth emulation on CloudLab approximates real CDN network conditions.
    Used in both experimental setups; the paper does not validate against a production CDN.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Securing Immersive 360 Video Streams through Attribute-Based Selective Encryption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JQCBZ2K

@misc{pith2026250504466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Securing Immersive 360 Video Streams through Attribute-Based Selective Encryption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JQCBZ2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04466}
}
read the original abstract

Delivering high-quality, secure 360{\deg} video content introduces unique challenges, primarily due to the high bitrates and interactive demands of immersive media. Traditional HTTPS-based methods, although widely used, face limitations in computational efficiency and scalability when securing these high-resolution streams. To address these issues, this paper proposes a novel framework integrating Attribute-Based Encryption (ABE) with selective encryption techniques tailored specifically for tiled 360{\deg} video streaming. Our approach employs selective encryption of frames at varying levels to reduce computational overhead while ensuring robust protection against unauthorized access. Moreover, we explore viewport-adaptive encryption, dynamically encrypting more frames within tiles occupying larger portions of the viewer's field of view. This targeted method significantly enhances security in critical viewing areas without unnecessary overhead in peripheral regions. We deploy and evaluate our proposed approach using the CloudLab testbed, comparing its performance against traditional HTTPS streaming. Experimental results demonstrate that our ABE-based model achieves reduced computational load on intermediate caches, improves cache hit rates, and maintains comparable visual quality to HTTPS, as assessed by Video Multimethod Assessment Fusion (VMAF).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 360◦ Video Streaming Process Equirectangular Projection: To encode spherical video data using standard video codecs, a spherical view must be projected onto a two-dimensional plane. The most widely used method is equirectangular projection [11, 33], mapping the spherical surface onto a rectangular grid. This allows compatibility with conventional video formats and codecs while preserving spatial relationships crucia… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System Architecture 3.1 HTTP+ABE for Secured Streaming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Frame-based selective encryption using ABE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tile-based selective frame encryption. For peripheral viewport tiles, we encrypt only I-frames, achieving notable degradation in quality with reduced computational effort [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of different selective encryption schemes under ABE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of cache performance metrics for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of origin server CPU usage and client side QoE metrics for small-scale experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CPU usage of L1 and L2 caches for different cache sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hitrate of L1 and L2 caches for different cache sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of origin server CPU usage and client side QoE metrics for large-scale experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ABE-VVS: Attribute-Based Encrypted Volumetric Video Streaming

    cs.CR 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Encrypting only X coordinates of point clouds with attribute-based encryption can obfuscate volumetric video while reducing encryption/decryption time and server/cache CPU load in streaming.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    Mohammad Waquas Usmani, Susmit Shannigrahi, and Michael Zink. 2025. Se- cure the Stream, Not the Hosts: Attribute-Based Encryption for DRM Enabled Video Streaming. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (Stellenbosch, South Africa) (MMSys ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 190–200. doi:10.1145/3712676.3714450

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Enhancing Selective Encryption for H.264/AVC Using Advanced Encryption Standard

    Mohamed Abomhara, Omar M. Zakaria, Othman O. Khalifa, A. A. Zaidan, and B. B. Zaidan. 2022. Enhancing Selective Encryption for H.264/AVC Using Ad- vanced Encryption Standard. CoRR abs/2201.03391 (2022). arXiv:2201.03391 https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03391

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Adhikari, Yang Guo, Fang Hao, Volker Hilt, Zhi-Li Zhang, Matteo Varvello, and Moritz Steiner

    Vijay K. Adhikari, Yang Guo, Fang Hao, Volker Hilt, Zhi-Li Zhang, Matteo Varvello, and Moritz Steiner. 2015. Measurement Study of Netflix, Hulu, and a Tale of Three CDNs. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 23, 6 (2015), 1984–

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Agi and L

    I. Agi and L. Gong. 1996. An empirical study of secure MPEG video transmissions. In Proceedings of Internet Society Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems Security. 137–144. doi:10.1109/NDSS.1996.492420

    work page arXiv 1996

  5. [4]

    Apache. 2024. Apache HTTP Server Project . Retrieved 2024 from https://httpd. apache.org/

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Apache. 2024. Apache Traffic Server. Retrieved 2024 from https://trafficserver. apache.org/

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    John Bethencourt. 2011. Using the cpabe Toolkit . Retrieved 2024 from https: //acsc.cs.utexas.edu/cpabe/tutorial.html

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    John Bethencourt, Amit Sahai, and Brent Waters. 2007. Ciphertext-Policy Attribute-Based Encryption. In 2007 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP ’07). 321–334. doi:10.1109/SP.2007.11

    doi:10.1109/sp.2007.11 2007

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    die.net. 2024. pidstat - Report statistics for Linux tasks. https://linux.die.net/man/ 1/pidstat

    2024

  2. [9]

    die.net. 2024. tc - show / manipulate traffic control settings . https://linux.die.net/ man/8/tc

    2024

  3. [10]

    Dmitry Duplyakin, Robert Ricci, Aleksander Maricq, Gary Wong, Jonathon Duerig, Eric Eide, Leigh Stoller, Mike Hibler, David Johnson, Kirk Webb, Aditya Akella, Kuangching Wang, Glenn Ricart, Larry Landweber, Chip Elliott, Michael Zink, Emmanuel Cecchet, Snigdhaswin Kar, and Pra...

    2019

  4. [11]

    Mario Graf, Christian Timmerer, and Christopher Mueller. 2017. Towards Band- width Efficient Adaptive Streaming of Omnidirectional Video over HTTP: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM on Multimedia Systems Conference (Taipei, Taiwan) (MMSys’17...

    2017

  5. [12]

    https://developer.apple.com/ streaming/

    Apple Inc. 2024. Apple HTTP Live Streaming. "https://developer.apple.com/ streaming/"

    2024

  6. [13]

    ITU-T. 2021. H.264 : Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services . https://handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/14659

    2021

  7. [14]

    Parikshit Juluri, Venkatesh Tamarapalli, and Deep Medhi. 2015. SARA: Segment aware rate adaptation algorithm for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW) . 1765–

    2015

  8. [15]

    Umakant Kulkarni, Yufeng Chen, Patrick Melampy, and Sonia Fahmy. 2023. Toward QoE-based Routing Path Selection. In 2023 IEEE 24th International Con- ference on High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR) . 114–119. doi:10.1109/ HPSR57248.2023.10147938

    2023

  9. [16]

    Zhi Li, Anne Aaron, Ioannis Katsavounidis, Anush Moorthy, and Megha Manohara. 2016. Toward A Practical Perceptual Video Quality Metric . Re- trieved 2024 from https://netflixtechblog.com/toward-a-practical-perceptual- video-quality-metric-653f208b9652

    2016

  10. [17]

    Zheng Liu and Xue Li. 2004. Motion Vector Encryption in Multimedia Streaming. In Proceedings of the 10th International Multimedia Modelling Conference (MMM ’04). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 64

    2004

  11. [18]

    Bruce M Maggs and Ramesh K Sitaraman. 2015. Algorithmic nuggets in content delivery. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 45, 3 (2015), 52–66

    2015

  12. [19]

    Hongzi Mao, Ravi Netravali, and Mohammad Alizadeh. 2017. Neural adaptive video streaming with pensieve. InProceedings of the conference of the ACM special interest group on data communication . 197–210

    2017

  13. [20]

    NumPy. 2024. numpy.random.poisson. Retrieved 2024 from https://numpy.org/ doc/stable/reference/random/generated/numpy.random.poisson.html

    2024

  14. [21]

    Marta Orduna, César Díaz, Lara Muñoz, Pablo Pérez, Ignacio Benito, and Narciso García. 2020. Video Multimethod Assessment Fusion (VMAF) on 360VR Contents. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 66, 1 (2020), 22–31. doi:10.1109/TCE. 2019.2957987

    2020

  15. [22]

    Lintian Qiao and Klara Nahrstedt. 2001. A New Algorithm for MPEG Video Encryption. (08 2001)

    2001

  16. [23]

    David Reddick, Justin Presley, Frank Alex Feltus, and Susmit Shannigrahi. 2022. WiP: AABAC-Automated Attribute Based Access Control for Genomics Data. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies. 217–222

    2022

  17. [24]

    Eric Rescorla. 2018. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. RFC 8446. doi:10.17487/RFC8446

    2018 doi

  18. [25]

    D. Salomon. 2007. Data compression: The complete reference . Springer

    2007

  19. [26]

    Changgui Shi and Bharat Bhargava. 1998. A Fast MPEG Video Encryption Algorithm. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Multime- dia (Bristol, United Kingdom) (MULTIMEDIA ’98). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 81–88. doi:10.1145/290747.290758

    1998

  20. [27]

    Iraj Sodagar. 2011. The mpeg-dash standard for multimedia streaming over the internet. IEEE multimedia 18, 4 (2011), 62–67

    2011

  21. [28]

    Kevin Spiteri, Rahul Urgaonkar, and Ramesh K Sitaraman. 2020. BOLA: Near- optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Network- ing 28, 4 (2020), 1698–1711

    2020

  22. [30]

    Chenglei Wu, Zhihao Tan, Zhi Wang, and Shiqiang Yang. 2017. A Dataset for Exploring User Behaviors in VR Spherical Video Streaming. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM on Multimedia Systems Conference (Taipei, Taiwan) (MMSys’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2017

  23. [31]

    Rui Xin, Shihan Lin, and Xiaowei Yang. 2023. Quantifying User Password Expo- sure to Third-Party CDNs. In Passive and Active Measurement: 24th International Conference, PAM 2023, Virtual Event, March 21–23, 2023, Proceedings . Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 652–668. doi...

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Siu-Kei Au Yeung, Shuyuan Zhu, and Bing Zeng. 2009. Partial video encryption based on alternating transforms. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 16, 10 (2009), 893–896

    2009

  25. [33]

    Hannuksela, and Moncef Gabbouj

    Alireza Zare, Alireza Aminlou, Miska M. Hannuksela, and Moncef Gabbouj

  26. [34]

    Hajiesmaili, and Ramesh K

    Ali Zeynali, Mohammad H. Hajiesmaili, and Ramesh K. Sitaraman. 2024. BOLA360: Near-optimal View and Bitrate Adaptation for 360-degree Video Streaming. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (Bari, Italy) (MMSys ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Michael Zink, Ramesh Sitaraman, and Klara Nahrstedt. 2019. Scalable 360° Video Stream Delivery: Challenges, Solutions, and Opportunities. Proc. IEEE 107, 4 (2019), 639–650. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2019.2894817 9

    2019

  28. [1770]

    doi:10.1109/ICCW.2015.7247436

    2015

  29. [1997]

    doi:10.1109/TNET.2014.2354262

    2014

  30. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (MM ’16)

    HEVC-compliant Tile-based Streaming of Panoramic Video for Virtual Reality Applications. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (MM ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 601–605. doi:10.1145/29...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.