The Polycom MCU outperformed the other MCUs in the comparative study. It passed 63 out of 63 test cases, while the RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU passed 14 cases, the TANDBERG MCU 16+16 passed 5 cases, and the TANDBERG MPS passed 7 cases. The Polycom MCU demonstrated the most complete set of security, versatility, and administration features. It provided the largest and most flexible set of options to successfully complete three example use cases.
This document provides an overview of test automation using QuickTest Professional (QTP). It discusses the basics of QTP including anatomy, recording modes, object repositories, and the script language VBScript. The document then outlines the phases of the QTP test automation life cycle including test planning, generating tests, enhancing tests with checkpoints and data, debugging, execution, and result analysis. Other QTP concepts covered include actions, functions, libraries, additional concepts like databases, and the latest version features.
The document discusses key concepts in software testing including software quality, software quality assurance (SQA), software quality control (SQC), and the V-Model. It describes the software development lifecycle including requirements gathering, design, coding, testing, and maintenance. It provides details on different types of testing like unit testing, integration testing, system testing, and reviews/inspections conducted at various stages. Key testing techniques mentioned are black box testing, white box testing, basis path testing, control structure testing, and mutation testing. The V-Model mapping development stages to corresponding testing stages is also explained.
This document provides an overview of software system testing concepts across multiple days. It covers testing fundamentals such as testing myths, costs of defects, and risk-based testing. It also describes testing processes like test strategies and plans. Specific testing techniques like black-box and white-box testing are explained. Infrastructure topics include test environments and documentation. The document concludes with sections on test automation and management.
The document summarizes a security analysis of the BlackBerry Enterprise Solution conducted by Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology (SIT). The analysis evaluated the solution's compliance with security best practices. It assessed the communication between BlackBerry components, server security, and the BlackBerry smartphone. The analysis found that with the recommended configuration changes, the solution provides strong protection against known attacks while maintaining core functionality. Some residual risks were also identified for consideration in a company's risk management process.
The document discusses Grid-QCM, a quality certification model for grid computing. It aims to automate quality assurance processes to reduce costs and effort for organizations. The model defines metrics for static analysis, coding style, testing, and standards compliance. It outputs a final score and certification that objects, not entire processes or organizations. The model is being validated through the ETICS project and aims to standardize quality assurance for grid computing.
Vibrant Technologies is headquarted in Mumbai,India.We are the best Shell Scripting training provider in Navi Mumbai who provides Live Projects to students.We provide Corporate Training also.We are Best Shell Scripting classes in Mumbai according to our students and corporators
Sumanth S has over 9 years of experience in software development with specialization in C and C++. He has experience developing applications for Windows, Linux, HP-UX, VxWorks and other operating systems. Some of the key projects he has worked on include developing RIP modules for Ricoh printers, an infotainment system for Porsche, and software for medical devices from companies like Fluke Biomedical and Oridion. He is currently working as a Technical Leader at Wipro Technologies developing software for printers.
Construction of sfiCAN: a star-based fault-injection infrastructure for the C...balDYxan
sfiCAN is a physical fault injection system developed for the Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol. It consists of a centralized fault injector hub and multiple logging nodes. The hub can independently inject faults like bit flips into individual nodes' transmitted and received signals to test how CAN applications respond to errors. Tests showed sfiCAN could reliably inject single-bit transient faults and reproduce complex fault scenarios to evaluate system dependability. sfiCAN provides researchers a valuable tool for thoroughly evaluating the robustness of CAN-based embedded systems.
This document provides an overview of test automation using QuickTest Professional (QTP). It discusses the basics of QTP including anatomy, recording modes, object repositories, and the script language VBScript. The document then outlines the phases of the QTP test automation life cycle including test planning, generating tests, enhancing tests with checkpoints and data, debugging, execution, and result analysis. Other QTP concepts covered include actions, functions, libraries, additional concepts like databases, and the latest version features.
The document discusses key concepts in software testing including software quality, software quality assurance (SQA), software quality control (SQC), and the V-Model. It describes the software development lifecycle including requirements gathering, design, coding, testing, and maintenance. It provides details on different types of testing like unit testing, integration testing, system testing, and reviews/inspections conducted at various stages. Key testing techniques mentioned are black box testing, white box testing, basis path testing, control structure testing, and mutation testing. The V-Model mapping development stages to corresponding testing stages is also explained.
This document provides an overview of software system testing concepts across multiple days. It covers testing fundamentals such as testing myths, costs of defects, and risk-based testing. It also describes testing processes like test strategies and plans. Specific testing techniques like black-box and white-box testing are explained. Infrastructure topics include test environments and documentation. The document concludes with sections on test automation and management.
The document summarizes a security analysis of the BlackBerry Enterprise Solution conducted by Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology (SIT). The analysis evaluated the solution's compliance with security best practices. It assessed the communication between BlackBerry components, server security, and the BlackBerry smartphone. The analysis found that with the recommended configuration changes, the solution provides strong protection against known attacks while maintaining core functionality. Some residual risks were also identified for consideration in a company's risk management process.
The document discusses Grid-QCM, a quality certification model for grid computing. It aims to automate quality assurance processes to reduce costs and effort for organizations. The model defines metrics for static analysis, coding style, testing, and standards compliance. It outputs a final score and certification that objects, not entire processes or organizations. The model is being validated through the ETICS project and aims to standardize quality assurance for grid computing.
Vibrant Technologies is headquarted in Mumbai,India.We are the best Shell Scripting training provider in Navi Mumbai who provides Live Projects to students.We provide Corporate Training also.We are Best Shell Scripting classes in Mumbai according to our students and corporators
Sumanth S has over 9 years of experience in software development with specialization in C and C++. He has experience developing applications for Windows, Linux, HP-UX, VxWorks and other operating systems. Some of the key projects he has worked on include developing RIP modules for Ricoh printers, an infotainment system for Porsche, and software for medical devices from companies like Fluke Biomedical and Oridion. He is currently working as a Technical Leader at Wipro Technologies developing software for printers.
Construction of sfiCAN: a star-based fault-injection infrastructure for the C...balDYxan
sfiCAN is a physical fault injection system developed for the Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol. It consists of a centralized fault injector hub and multiple logging nodes. The hub can independently inject faults like bit flips into individual nodes' transmitted and received signals to test how CAN applications respond to errors. Tests showed sfiCAN could reliably inject single-bit transient faults and reproduce complex fault scenarios to evaluate system dependability. sfiCAN provides researchers a valuable tool for thoroughly evaluating the robustness of CAN-based embedded systems.
Fuzzing is a software testing technique that feeds random data to a program to test for crashes or security vulnerabilities. It can find bugs that other testing methods may miss by exploring unusual code paths. While fuzzing is effective at finding bugs, it only finds issues and does not evaluate the quality or reliability of the software. Code coverage metrics can be used alongside fuzzing to measure how thoroughly the code has been tested, but may still miss some bugs. Fuzzing works best when the tester has knowledge of the program's internal structure and algorithms.
Securing the present block cipher against combined side channel analysis and ...Nxfee Innovation
This document summarizes a research paper that presents a hardware implementation of the PRESENT block cipher secured against both side-channel analysis and fault attacks. The implementation uses threshold implementation masking to protect against side-channel analysis and Private Circuits II to protect against fault attacks. The implementation is evaluated on an FPGA and is shown to provide first-order security against side-channel analysis and resistance against arbitrary 1-bit faults. Differential fault analysis attacks on PRESENT are also evaluated and shown to require more effort to be successful against this implementation due to the fault masking.
The document discusses CAPS' application diagnostic service which assesses the potential for accelerating applications using GPU computing. The diagnostic process involves:
1) Analyzing the application code to understand performance goals, parallelism potential, and difficulties in migrating to GPUs.
2) Providing an assessment of expected speedup and a "Go/No Go" analysis on feasibility of GPU migration.
3) Costing 3500 euros for the preliminary code study and diagnostic report.
During the audit, 10 issues were found including 1 medium risk issue that has been resolved. Several issues related to unclear specifications that require clarification. All issues have now been resolved according to the recent updates. The audit evaluated the code for security vulnerabilities, adherence to best practices, and specifications. Both automated analysis and manual review were performed, finding issues such as missing access controls, unchecked parameters, and clone-and-own risks.
Software testing is the process of executing software in a controlled manner. It is often used in association with the terms verification and validation. Verification is the checking or testing of items, including software, for conformance and consistency with an associated specification. Software testing is just one kind of verification, which also uses techniques such as reviews, analysis, inspections and walk throughs. Validation is the process of checking that what has been specified is what the user actually wanted.
The document provides a summary of Michael Joshua S's professional experience and skills. It summarizes over 12 years of experience in embedded systems testing and validation across various industries. Key roles included consulting test engineer, team lead, and project engineer. Technical skills include test automation using National Instruments hardware and software, system engineering, verification and validation, and embedded software development.
This document provides an overview of MISRA compliance guidelines for software development. It discusses the development process, fundamental elements of compliance like guideline classification and enforcement plans, deviations from guidelines, and requirements for claiming MISRA compliance. Guidelines can be mandatory, required, or advisory. Compliance involves enforcing guidelines through compilers, tools, and reviews. Deviations from required guidelines require records justifying the deviation. Projects must demonstrate staff competence, management processes, and compliance with guidelines to claim MISRA compliance.
This guidebook was created to provide specific information and guidance on the process of creating and assuring safe software. In our modern world, software controls much of the hardware (equipment, electronics, and instruments) around us. Sometimes hardware failure can lead to a loss of human life. When software controls, operates, or interacts with such hardware, software safety becomes a vital concern.
This document summarizes a research study comparing test-driven development (TDD) to traditional ad-hoc development approaches. The study divided developers into two teams - one using TDD and one using ad-hoc methods. The TDD team produced code with significantly fewer defects across all phases of development and maintenance. Specifically, the TDD approach resulted in 10 defects per thousand lines of code compared to 50 defects using ad-hoc methods. As a result, the TDD approach was found to reduce overall development and maintenance costs by decreasing the number of defects that need to be fixed.
The document describes Ash Maurya's USERcycle methodology for building product features. The methodology breaks down the feature development process into stages: understanding the problem, defining a solution, validating solutions qualitatively through mockups and demos, and verifying quantitatively by measuring key metrics. The goal is to build a continuous feedback loop with customers to guide development and maximize learning at each stage of the process.
The document provides information about reference software for MPEG-7 standards. It includes block diagrams that show the architecture and components of the software. It lists available reference software files for visual descriptors, audio descriptors, and multimedia description schemes. The software is divided into modules for various functions like media decoding, descriptor extraction, coding schemes, and applications.
Chapter 7 of the famous saga "the DO-254 for Dummies" from James BEZAMAT director of DMAP
subject : IP and verification process
More : dmap.fr
contact : contact@dmap.fr
Software Testing is the last phase in software development lifecycle which has high impact on the quality of the final product delivered to the customer. Even after being a critical phase, it was not given the importance as it actually deserves. The schedule constraints and slippage carry forwarded from the previous phase also make the testing phase more torrent. History reveals that the situation has changed with time, wherein testing is now visualized as one of the most critical, phase of software development. This makes software testing a discipline which demands for continuous and systematic growth. Software testing is a trade-off between Cost, Time and Quality.
The client is a leading security technology company that develops an anti-malware product (AMR) to protect against malware and rootkits. With over 1600 manual test cases across operating systems, regression testing was challenging. The client sought to automate testing and create a reusable framework. iFocus Systec developed a Perl-based framework using Selenium for browser tests and AutoIT for GUI tests. This automated over 70% of test cases and reduced test cycles by 55%, providing a maintainable and reusable solution.
Accelerating tests with Cypress for a leaderboard platformKnoldus Inc.
The document discusses test automation for a leaderboard platform using Cypress. It begins with an introduction to the leaderboard platform and its goals. It then covers challenges in testing the platform, including high regression time, compatibility across browsers and devices, and third party integrations. It outlines the roles of different types of testing, such as functional, compatibility, and usability testing. A case study on the Knoldus leaderboard is presented, along with challenges faced. Criteria for selecting a test automation tool are discussed. Cypress is chosen as the solution for implementing an automated test harness due to its benefits like being a front-end framework that can also test APIs. The test strategy incorporates tools like Postman, Jenkins,
Vandana Bolar is seeking a leadership role where she can inspire her team to excel and contribute to business goals. She has 12 years of experience in project management, testing, and customer relationships. She currently leads a team of 6 and 80 engineers in test factory operations for a key client in the Netherlands.
Covered in this Session:
- Intro to Perfecto
- Monitoring Discovery Questions
- Monitoring Key Requirements
- Real User Monitoring vs. Synthetic Monitoring
- Steps to Set Up Monitoring
- Demo
- Success Story
- Q&A
Introduce Test Harness for Direct To Consumer Solutions.pdfKnoldus Inc.
Gargi Sanadhya will present on introducing a test harness for direct to consumer solutions. The presentation will cover challenges of testing in direct to consumer environments, roles of different testing types, a case study, and designing a test automation framework. It will include a demo of the proposed test automation solution using Cypress, an end to end testing framework. Testing direct to consumer solutions presents challenges like high regression risk due to interconnected components, tight deadlines for new features or products, and difficulties testing third party integrations. The presentation will advocate implementing an automated test harness with Cypress to enable continuous testing of the web UI, APIs, and performance in a direct to consumer environment.
SourceWarp is a scalable approach to support data-driven decision making for CI/CD tools and DevSecOps platforms. It allows running experiments on these systems by replaying commit histories from source code repositories without deploying features. This evaluates features through testing and benchmarking. An industrial case study at GitLab evaluated a new vulnerability tracking approach using SourceWarp. It replayed commits from GitLab's source code repository on systems with and without the feature. SourceWarp completed the experiment faster than deploying the feature and provided metrics showing the impact of vulnerability tracking on error reduction.
The document discusses design verification and the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM). It describes how directed testing has drawbacks and coverage driven verification (CDV) using UVM is the recommended approach. UVM provides standard building blocks and methodologies for verification and is supported by major EDA vendors.
Fuzzing is a software testing technique that feeds random data to a program to test for crashes or security vulnerabilities. It can find bugs that other testing methods may miss by exploring unusual code paths. While fuzzing is effective at finding bugs, it only finds issues and does not evaluate the quality or reliability of the software. Code coverage metrics can be used alongside fuzzing to measure how thoroughly the code has been tested, but may still miss some bugs. Fuzzing works best when the tester has knowledge of the program's internal structure and algorithms.
Securing the present block cipher against combined side channel analysis and ...Nxfee Innovation
This document summarizes a research paper that presents a hardware implementation of the PRESENT block cipher secured against both side-channel analysis and fault attacks. The implementation uses threshold implementation masking to protect against side-channel analysis and Private Circuits II to protect against fault attacks. The implementation is evaluated on an FPGA and is shown to provide first-order security against side-channel analysis and resistance against arbitrary 1-bit faults. Differential fault analysis attacks on PRESENT are also evaluated and shown to require more effort to be successful against this implementation due to the fault masking.
The document discusses CAPS' application diagnostic service which assesses the potential for accelerating applications using GPU computing. The diagnostic process involves:
1) Analyzing the application code to understand performance goals, parallelism potential, and difficulties in migrating to GPUs.
2) Providing an assessment of expected speedup and a "Go/No Go" analysis on feasibility of GPU migration.
3) Costing 3500 euros for the preliminary code study and diagnostic report.
During the audit, 10 issues were found including 1 medium risk issue that has been resolved. Several issues related to unclear specifications that require clarification. All issues have now been resolved according to the recent updates. The audit evaluated the code for security vulnerabilities, adherence to best practices, and specifications. Both automated analysis and manual review were performed, finding issues such as missing access controls, unchecked parameters, and clone-and-own risks.
Software testing is the process of executing software in a controlled manner. It is often used in association with the terms verification and validation. Verification is the checking or testing of items, including software, for conformance and consistency with an associated specification. Software testing is just one kind of verification, which also uses techniques such as reviews, analysis, inspections and walk throughs. Validation is the process of checking that what has been specified is what the user actually wanted.
The document provides a summary of Michael Joshua S's professional experience and skills. It summarizes over 12 years of experience in embedded systems testing and validation across various industries. Key roles included consulting test engineer, team lead, and project engineer. Technical skills include test automation using National Instruments hardware and software, system engineering, verification and validation, and embedded software development.
This document provides an overview of MISRA compliance guidelines for software development. It discusses the development process, fundamental elements of compliance like guideline classification and enforcement plans, deviations from guidelines, and requirements for claiming MISRA compliance. Guidelines can be mandatory, required, or advisory. Compliance involves enforcing guidelines through compilers, tools, and reviews. Deviations from required guidelines require records justifying the deviation. Projects must demonstrate staff competence, management processes, and compliance with guidelines to claim MISRA compliance.
This guidebook was created to provide specific information and guidance on the process of creating and assuring safe software. In our modern world, software controls much of the hardware (equipment, electronics, and instruments) around us. Sometimes hardware failure can lead to a loss of human life. When software controls, operates, or interacts with such hardware, software safety becomes a vital concern.
This document summarizes a research study comparing test-driven development (TDD) to traditional ad-hoc development approaches. The study divided developers into two teams - one using TDD and one using ad-hoc methods. The TDD team produced code with significantly fewer defects across all phases of development and maintenance. Specifically, the TDD approach resulted in 10 defects per thousand lines of code compared to 50 defects using ad-hoc methods. As a result, the TDD approach was found to reduce overall development and maintenance costs by decreasing the number of defects that need to be fixed.
The document describes Ash Maurya's USERcycle methodology for building product features. The methodology breaks down the feature development process into stages: understanding the problem, defining a solution, validating solutions qualitatively through mockups and demos, and verifying quantitatively by measuring key metrics. The goal is to build a continuous feedback loop with customers to guide development and maximize learning at each stage of the process.
The document provides information about reference software for MPEG-7 standards. It includes block diagrams that show the architecture and components of the software. It lists available reference software files for visual descriptors, audio descriptors, and multimedia description schemes. The software is divided into modules for various functions like media decoding, descriptor extraction, coding schemes, and applications.
Chapter 7 of the famous saga "the DO-254 for Dummies" from James BEZAMAT director of DMAP
subject : IP and verification process
More : dmap.fr
contact : contact@dmap.fr
Software Testing is the last phase in software development lifecycle which has high impact on the quality of the final product delivered to the customer. Even after being a critical phase, it was not given the importance as it actually deserves. The schedule constraints and slippage carry forwarded from the previous phase also make the testing phase more torrent. History reveals that the situation has changed with time, wherein testing is now visualized as one of the most critical, phase of software development. This makes software testing a discipline which demands for continuous and systematic growth. Software testing is a trade-off between Cost, Time and Quality.
The client is a leading security technology company that develops an anti-malware product (AMR) to protect against malware and rootkits. With over 1600 manual test cases across operating systems, regression testing was challenging. The client sought to automate testing and create a reusable framework. iFocus Systec developed a Perl-based framework using Selenium for browser tests and AutoIT for GUI tests. This automated over 70% of test cases and reduced test cycles by 55%, providing a maintainable and reusable solution.
Accelerating tests with Cypress for a leaderboard platformKnoldus Inc.
The document discusses test automation for a leaderboard platform using Cypress. It begins with an introduction to the leaderboard platform and its goals. It then covers challenges in testing the platform, including high regression time, compatibility across browsers and devices, and third party integrations. It outlines the roles of different types of testing, such as functional, compatibility, and usability testing. A case study on the Knoldus leaderboard is presented, along with challenges faced. Criteria for selecting a test automation tool are discussed. Cypress is chosen as the solution for implementing an automated test harness due to its benefits like being a front-end framework that can also test APIs. The test strategy incorporates tools like Postman, Jenkins,
Vandana Bolar is seeking a leadership role where she can inspire her team to excel and contribute to business goals. She has 12 years of experience in project management, testing, and customer relationships. She currently leads a team of 6 and 80 engineers in test factory operations for a key client in the Netherlands.
Covered in this Session:
- Intro to Perfecto
- Monitoring Discovery Questions
- Monitoring Key Requirements
- Real User Monitoring vs. Synthetic Monitoring
- Steps to Set Up Monitoring
- Demo
- Success Story
- Q&A
Introduce Test Harness for Direct To Consumer Solutions.pdfKnoldus Inc.
Gargi Sanadhya will present on introducing a test harness for direct to consumer solutions. The presentation will cover challenges of testing in direct to consumer environments, roles of different testing types, a case study, and designing a test automation framework. It will include a demo of the proposed test automation solution using Cypress, an end to end testing framework. Testing direct to consumer solutions presents challenges like high regression risk due to interconnected components, tight deadlines for new features or products, and difficulties testing third party integrations. The presentation will advocate implementing an automated test harness with Cypress to enable continuous testing of the web UI, APIs, and performance in a direct to consumer environment.
SourceWarp is a scalable approach to support data-driven decision making for CI/CD tools and DevSecOps platforms. It allows running experiments on these systems by replaying commit histories from source code repositories without deploying features. This evaluates features through testing and benchmarking. An industrial case study at GitLab evaluated a new vulnerability tracking approach using SourceWarp. It replayed commits from GitLab's source code repository on systems with and without the feature. SourceWarp completed the experiment faster than deploying the feature and provided metrics showing the impact of vulnerability tracking on error reduction.
The document discusses design verification and the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM). It describes how directed testing has drawbacks and coverage driven verification (CDV) using UVM is the recommended approach. UVM provides standard building blocks and methodologies for verification and is supported by major EDA vendors.
UVM BASED REUSABLE VERIFICATION IP FOR WISHBONE COMPLIANT SPI MASTER COREVLSICS Design
The System on Chip design industry relies heavily on functional verification to ensure that the designs are bug-free. As design engineers are coming up with increasingly dense chips with much functionality, the functional verification field has advanced to provide modern verification techniques. In this paper, we
present verification of a wishbone compliant Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) Master core using a System Verilog based standard verification methodology, the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM). The reason for using UVM factory pattern with parameterized classes is to develop a robust and reusable
verification IP. SPI is a full duplex communication protocol used to interface components most likely in embedded systems. We have verified an SPI Master IP core design that is wishbone compliant and compatible with SPI protocol and bus and furnished the results of our verification. We have used
QuestaSim for simulation and analysis of waveforms, Integrated Metrics Center, Cadence for coverage analysis. We also propose interesting future directions for this work in developing reliable systems.
UVM BASED REUSABLE VERIFICATION IP FOR WISHBONE COMPLIANT SPI MASTER COREVLSICS Design
The System on Chip design industry relies heavily on functional verification to ensure that the designs are bug-free. As design engineers are coming up with increasingly dense chips with much functionality, the functional verification field has advanced to provide modern verification techniques. In this paper, we
present verification of a wishbone compliant Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) Master core using a System Verilog based standard verification methodology, the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM). The reason for using UVM factory pattern with parameterized classes is to develop a robust and reusable
verification IP. SPI is a full duplex communication protocol used to interface components most likely in embedded systems. We have verified an SPI Master IP core design that is wishbone compliant and compatible with SPI protocol and bus and furnished the results of our verification. We have used
QuestaSim for simulation and analysis of waveforms, Integrated Metrics Center, Cadence for coverage analysis. We also propose interesting future directions for this work in developing reliable systems.
UVM BASED REUSABLE VERIFICATION IP FOR WISHBONE COMPLIANT SPI MASTER COREVLSICS Design
The System on Chip design industry relies heavily on functional verification to ensure that the designs are bug-free. As design engineers are coming up with increasingly dense chips with much functionality, the functional verification field has advanced to provide modern verification techniques. In this paper, we present verification of a wishbone compliant Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) Master core using a System Verilog based standard verification methodology, the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM). The reason for using UVM factory pattern with parameterized classes is to develop a robust and reusable verification IP. SPI is a full duplex communication protocol used to interface components most likely in embedded systems. We have verified an SPI Master IP core design that is wishbone compliant and compatible with SPI protocol and bus and furnished the results of our verification. We have used QuestaSim for simulation and analysis of waveforms, Integrated Metrics Center, Cadence for coverage analysis. We also propose interesting future directions for this work in developing reliable systems.
Satish G has over 7 years of experience in software testing, including validation of embedded software for consumer electronics like digital TVs and Android TV devices. He has expertise in testing video and audio functionality, HDMI protocols, 4K technologies, and Google and mobile apps. Satish aims to leverage his experience in testing lifecycles, strategies, and techniques to contribute to high-quality software and client projects.
The QA professional is certainly needed within a company. However, in many cases, unfortunately, there are companies that don’t adhere to this professional culture. Increasing the code quality becomes a major challenge for development teams in these cases. This presentation aims to give tips learned from mistakes of this attempt to try to improve the code quality and test execution time for a quick feedback.
Fuzzing101 - webinar on Fuzzing PerformanceCodenomicon
This document provides an overview and introduction to fuzzing performance. It discusses how fuzzing tools from Codenomicon, like Defensics, can scale testing through parallel and distributed processing. Metrics like test cases per second are discussed as measures of fuzzing performance. The document demonstrates how Defensics is able to generate a high volume of test cases and load through features like multi-threaded execution and running fuzzers in parallel. It provides an example showing Defensics was able to generate over 50 times the load of a single client.
The quality assurance checklist for progressive testingMaitrikpaida
Quality assurance (QA) is a strategic way of preventing mistakes and defects in developed products and avoiding problems when delivering products or services to customers. This defect prevention in quality assurance differs subtly from defect detection and rejection in quality control and has been referred to as a shift left since it focuses on quality earlier in the process
The Quality Assurance Checklist for Progressive TestingCygnet Infotech
This document discusses quality assurance testing for progressive applications. It defines quality assurance as preventing defects through early testing. Progressive testing tests application modules incrementally in a top-down, bottom-up, or hybrid approach. A quality assurance checklist should include unit, regression, performance, security, and installation testing to validate the application and ensure long-term functionality. Comprehensive testing provides benefits like reduced costs, improved customer satisfaction, and increased profits.
You need to analyze the features of three videoconferencing systems walthamcoretta
You need to analyze the features of three videoconferencing systems and provide an overview of each system. After you complete the overview of the systems, you'll recommend a system which best meets the business functionality and security requirements. You will also prepare a set of high level executive briefing slides to give the CEO and CIO an overview of your study. Your study and recommendation will be critical to the company's success.
Cybersecurity professionals are frequently required to assess the security, risk applications, and systems for business communications before they can be added to an organization's network. CISOs need to assess risks posed to the organization and develop new security measures or adjust current measures to address these risks appropriately. These evaluations involve comparing competing applications or systems against the organization's baseline to determine the best balance between business needs and the security and risk appetite of the organization.
Videoconferencing and collaboration systems vary in cost, configuration, functionality, use, and collaboration capability. These systems are trusted to facilitate sensitive and proprietary discussions through their use of encrypted communication channels. Yet these systems have vulnerabilities and are prone to threats and attacks ranging from phishing, credential compromise, and even malware insertion. Therefore, analysis of possible threats, attacks, and vulnerabilities inherent in these systems is critical in developing defense and protection strategies for voice and video data at all endpoints and during transit.
In this project, you will create a proposal for a secure videoconferencing system, which will include an executive summary, briefing/slide presentation, and lab report. The details can be found in the final step of the project.
There are six steps to the project, and the project as a whole should take about two weeks to complete. Begin with the workplace scenario and then continue to Step 1.
Deliverables
Proposal for Secure Videoconferencing, Slides to Support Executive Briefing, Lab Report
Step 1: Develop Functional Requirements for Videoconferencing
The first step in your proposal for a secure videoconferencing system is to develop a set of functional requirements for videoconferencing that you believe the media company will need based on its geographic dispersion and business needs.
In developing those requirements, research three videoconferencing solutions such as Skype, GotoMeeting, Polycom, and Cisco Webex and explain their capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages. Identify costs as well as implementation and support requirements.
The functional requirements and the three possible solutions will be a section of your Proposal for Secure Videoconferencing. In the next step, you will review the challenges of implementing those solutions.
Step 2: Discuss Implementation Challenges
In the previous step, you outlined the requirements ...
Covered in this webinar:
- Overview of Perfecto
- Walkthrough of the Perfecto Automation IDE
- Understanding script basics
- Validations
- Script building, execution and results
- Q&A
By the end of this webinar, you'll be setting up your automation in no time!
The document is a resume for Deepit Chaturvedi. It summarizes his professional experience in software testing and quality assurance over 6 years. It details his work with clients like UPS SCS, Melbourne IT, Telecom New Zealand, and Panduit. It also lists his skills in testing Java applications, automation testing using tools like QTP, and testing Oracle, Siebel, and other applications. His education credentials include a Bachelor's degree in Computer Technology.
Similar to Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study (20)
This paper proposes an adaptive energy management policy for wireless video streaming between a battery-powered client and server. It models the energy consumption of the server and client based on factors like CPU frequency, transmission power, and channel bandwidth. The paper formulates an optimization problem to assign optimal energy to each video frame. This maximizes system lifetime while meeting a minimum video quality requirement. Experimental results show the proposed policy increases overall system lifetime by 20% on average.
Microsoft PowerPoint - WirelessCluster_PresVideoguy
This document analyzes delays in unicast video streaming over IEEE 802.11 WLAN networks. It describes conducting an experiment using a testbed with a Darwin Streaming Server and WLAN probe to capture packets. The analysis found that video bitrate variations, packetization scheme, bandwidth load, and frame-based nature of video all impacted mean delay. Bursts of packets from video frames caused per-packet delay to increase in a sawtooth pattern. Increasing uplink load was also found to affect delay variations.
Proxy Cache Management for Fine-Grained Scalable Video StreamingVideoguy
This document proposes a novel video caching framework that uses MPEG-4 Fine-Grained Scalable (FGS) video with post-encoding rate control to achieve low-cost and fine-grained rate adaptation. The framework allows clients to have heterogeneous bandwidths and enables adaptive control of backbone bandwidth consumption. It examines issues in caching FGS videos, such as determining the optimal portion to cache (in terms of length and rate) and optimal streaming rate to clients. Simulation results show it significantly reduces transmission costs compared to non-adaptive caching while providing flexible utility to heterogeneous clients with low computational overhead.
The document compares Microsoft Windows Media and the Adobe Flash Platform for streaming media. It discusses key differences like user experience, workflows, and playback reach. Flash offers more flexibility in creative expression, richer interactions, and wider device playback than Windows Media. It also has a 98% install base, making it easier for viewers to watch streams without extra software. The document outlines workflows for experience design, programming, broadcasting, production, and more using Flash tools versus Microsoft alternatives.
Free-riding Resilient Video Streaming in Peer-to-Peer NetworksVideoguy
This document summarizes a PhD thesis about free-riding resilient video streaming in peer-to-peer networks. The thesis contains research on two approaches: tree-based live streaming and swarm-based video-on-demand. For tree-based live streaming, the thesis presents the Orchard algorithm for constructing and maintaining trees to distribute video in a peer-to-peer network. It analyzes attacks on Orchard like free-riding and evaluates Orchard's performance under different conditions through experiments. For swarm-based video-on-demand, the thesis introduces the Give-to-Get approach for distributing video files and compares it to other peer-to-peer protocols. It evaluates Give-to-Get's performance in experiments
BT has developed Fastnets technology to improve video streaming. It avoids start-up delays and picture freezing during congestion. Fastnets streams multiple encoded versions of the video at different data rates and seamlessly switches between them based on available bandwidth to maintain quality without pausing. This allows for near-instant start times and reduces bandwidth usage by up to 30%. Fastnets provides a high-quality video streaming solution for both mobile and IPTV applications.
This document summarizes recent research on video streaming over Bluetooth networks. It discusses three key areas: intermediate protocols, quality of service (QoS) control, and media compression. For intermediate protocols, it evaluates streaming via HCI, L2CAP, and IP layers and their tradeoffs. For QoS control, it describes how error control mechanisms like link layer FEC, retransmission, and error concealment can improve video quality over Bluetooth. It also discusses congestion control. For media compression, it notes the importance of compression to achieve efficiency over limited Bluetooth bandwidths.
The document discusses video streaming, including definitions and concepts. It covers topics such as the difference between streaming and downloading, common streaming categories like live and on-demand, protocols used for streaming like RTSP and RTP, and the development process for creating streaming video including content planning, capturing, editing, encoding, and integrating with servers.
Inlet Technologies offers a live video streaming solution called Spinnaker that uses Intel Xeon processors with quad-core technology. Spinnaker can encode live video streams into multiple formats and resolutions simultaneously. This allows content to be delivered optimally to various devices. Spinnaker is a flexible, scalable solution that can increase broadcast capacity cost-effectively while maintaining high video quality.
Considerations for Creating Streamed Video Content over 3G ...Videoguy
The document discusses considerations for creating video content that can be streamed over mobile networks with restricted bandwidth like 3G-324M. It covers topics like video basics, codecs, profiles and levels, video streaming techniques, guidelines for authoring mobile-friendly content, and tools for analyzing video streams. The goal is to help content creators optimize video quality for low-bandwidth mobile viewing.
ADVANCES IN CHANNEL-ADAPTIVE VIDEO STREAMINGVideoguy
This document summarizes recent advances in channel-adaptive video streaming. It reviews adaptive media playout at the client to reduce latency, rate-distortion optimized packet scheduling to determine the best packet to send, and channel-adaptive packet dependency control to improve error robustness and reduce latency. It also discusses challenges for wireless video streaming and different wireless streaming architectures.
Impact of FEC Overhead on Scalable Video StreamingVideoguy
The document discusses the impact of forward error correction (FEC) overhead on scalable video streaming. It aims to address uncertainty about the benefits of FEC and provide insight into how FEC overhead affects scalable video performance. The motivation section explains that FEC is often used for streaming to overcome packet loss without retransmission. However, previous studies have reported conflicting results on the benefits of FEC. The background section provides details on media-independent FEC schemes.
The document proposes a cost-effective solution for video streaming and rich media applications using Vela's RapidAccess video server combined with iQstor's iQ1200 SATA storage system. The integrated encoding, decoding and video serving capabilities of RapidAccess are paired with the scalable storage and virtualization features of the iQ1200 SATA storage array to provide a robust yet affordable infrastructure for applications such as video on demand, corporate training and distance learning.
This document provides information on streaming video into Second Life, including:
- The basic prerequisites for streaming video include being the landowner, using QuickTime format videos, and having the video hosted on a web server.
- There are three main ways to stream video: establishing movie playback, streaming live video, and broadcasting from Second Life.
- Streaming live video or broadcasting involves using software like QuickTime Broadcaster or Windows Media Encoder to capture the video stream and send it to a hosting server, then entering that URL in Second Life.
XStream Live 2 is a live video encoding and streaming software that allows users to broadcast high quality HD video at low bitrates. It supports various video formats and streaming servers. The software provides high quality H.264 encoding with proprietary technology. It is designed for live event streaming, IPTV, and other video distribution uses.
The document provides instructions for setting up a homemade videoconference streaming solution using Windows Media software. The solution involves installing Windows Media Encoder and Administrator on a server and configuring the software to receive a video stream from a videoconferencing terminal. The streaming server then broadcasts the stream in real-time to clients who can view it using media player software. The solution provides a low-cost way to stream videoconferences but has limitations such as only supporting one conference stream at a time.
This document describes iStream Live 2 software for live streaming video to iPhones and iPads. It allows streaming of SD or HD video over HTTP from a variety of video sources. Key features include support for all major CDNs, encoding of H.264 video and AAC audio for high quality at low bitrates, and integration with existing Windows streaming systems. It provides better quality streaming than other encoders at lower bandwidth requirements.
Glow: Video streaming training guide - FirefoxVideoguy
This document provides a guide to using Glow video streaming. It includes tutorials on setting up video streaming by adding the Video Streaming Management web part, uploading video clips, viewing clips, editing clip information, and deleting clips. The guide also discusses how video streaming can be used to support learning and teaching, such as adding videos to lessons.
1. December 2004
www.veritest.com • info@veritest.com
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative
Study
Test report prepared under contract from Polycom, Inc.
Executive Summary
Polycom commissioned VeriTest to
conduct an independent comparative Key Findings
analysis of four Multipoint
Conferencing Unit (MCU) products
Overall, the Polycom MCU demonstrated the most complete
used for video conferencing systems.
set of security and authentication, as well as, administration
We performed a series of tests on
operation and control feature capabilities of all MCU products
each product that was consistent with
in our review.
the typical product usage.
We found that the Polycom MCU offered the most flexibility
We evaluated the following four MCU within its feature set of all of the MCU products.
systems:
Based on the results from our three use case scenarios, we
• Polycom MGC-100 found that the Polycom offered the largest and most flexible
• RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU set of options to complete the use cases successfully.
• TANDBERG MCU 16+16
• TANDBERG Media
Processing System (MPS)
Polycom and VeriTest worked together to create a test methodology to measure the capability of each
product in this study. This methodology covered a wide spectrum of real-user MCU product capabilities and
was designed to examine how effective each product was when subjected to real-world operational settings.
The 71 test cases that we used measured the capability of each product across the following feature set:
1. Security and Authentication
a. Conference Security
b. System Security
2. Versatility
a. Transcoding
b. Data and Content
c. Continuous Presence
d. Conference Routing
e. Conference Types
f. Resource Management
g. Customization
3. Operation and Control
a. System Management
b. User Control
In summary, we found that the Polycom MGC-100 MCU successfully passed 63 of the 63 test cases,
compared to 14 passed test cases for the RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU, 5 for the TANDBERG MCU 16+16,
and 7 for the TANDBERG MCU MPS. Additionally, for tests that were quantitative in nature and did not
generate a simple pass/fail response, the Polycom MCU consistently demonstrated a significantly wider range
of capabilities and more flexibility than the other manufacturers. One example that showed this flexibility was
the Polycom approach to transcoding. Their ability to mix 62 video connections in a single conference, each
2. with separate connection parameters was significantly more than the other manufacturers could do and would
be of significant benefit in a video network deployment.
The Polycom MCU also demonstrated the most complete set of security and authentication capabilities as
well as the most powerful administration operation and control features of all MCU products in our review. An
example of this is the consistently high pass rate of the Polycom MCU on security issues such as multiple
administration levels and password protection, when compared to the other manufacturers’ products.
Overall, we found that the Polycom MCU offered by far the greatest flexibility within its feature set across all
three key areas of security, versatility and operational management of all of the MCU products tested.
In addition, we used three use case scenarios to determine how each product would behave when deployed
as the target MCU within different real-world scenarios.
For the first use case, we used the following scenario:
Company XYZ hosts multiple conferences on the behalf of clients and billed according to usage. As such,
they need to provide secure conferencing with strong password and conference protection. Every client is
provided with a unique, randomly generated password for chair and participant access. It is critical that all
passwords comply with their in-house password policy.
Based on our test case results, the Polycom MCU was able to complete all required tasks. The RADVISION
MCU was able to complete two of the required tasks, and both TANDBERG MCU products did not pass on all
tasks.
For the second use case, we used the following scenario:
Company XYZ has implemented on-demand conferencing throughout their company. Each functional
work group has their own entry queue, conference identifier, and set of passwords for security. To
conserve resources, the director of IT only wants the conference to start once the chairperson is
participating. In addition, to minimize the amount of time spent on conference management, the director
wants the ability for the chairperson to control his or her own conference, identifying who is present, the
duration, and the screen layouts.
Based on our test case results, the Polycom MCU was able to complete all required tasks. The other MCU
products did not pass on all tasks.
For the third use case, we used the following scenario:
Service Provider XYZ business model is to host multiple conferences for their enterprise-based clients. As
such, they provide premium high touch services as a way to differentiate themselves from their
competition. One area they wish to excel at is for their clients to have a high quality experience with the
expectation to connect right away, request help when needed and the audio quality to be superb. This
service provider has set up each of their clients with their own call in number with multiple conference ID’s
for each number, customized IVR, operator services and a Service Level Agreement. Since they host
thousands of hours of conferencing per month, scalability is required and multiple operators to monitor on
going conferences.
Based on our test case results, the Polycom MCU was able to complete all required tasks. The other MCU
products did not pass on all tasks.
Based on the results from our use case scenarios, we found that the Polycom offered the largest and most
flexible set of options to complete the use cases successfully.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 2
3. Test Results
Polycom commissioned VeriTest to conduct a comparative analysis of four MCU products. We performed a
series of tests on each of the four products that was consistent with the typical product usage.
We evaluated the following four systems:
• Polycom MGC-100
• RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU
• TANDBERG MCU 16+16
• TANDBERG MPS
Polycom and VeriTest worked together to create a test methodology to measure the capability of each
product in this study. This methodology covered a wide spectrum of real-user product capabilities. The test
methodology that we used measured the capability of each product across the following feature set:
1. Security and Authentication
a. Conference Security
b. System Security
2. Versatility
a. Transcoding
b. Data and Content
c. Continuous Presence
d. Conference Routing
e. Conference Types
f. Resource Management
g. Customization
3. Operation and Control
a. System Management
b. User Control
Although we tested discrete features of the MCUs in this study, some of the tests that we ran have common
methodologies. See the section on Test Methodology for a complete description of the test methodology that
we used in this study.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 3
4. Results Summary
The following set of tables includes a summary of the test cases that we performed in this study.
Test # Test Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
1 Conference Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
Password
Call-in and Call-
out
2 Password Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Hierarchy
3 Privilege Profiles Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
4 Automatic Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Password
Generation
5 Password Integrity Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Validation
6 Conference Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
Password String
Validation
7 Change Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Conference
Password During
A Conference
8 Conference Lock Passed Passed Passed Passed
9 Conference Hide Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
10 Automatic Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
Conference
Termination – no
show
11 Automatic Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
Conference
Termination – after
last person
12 Automatic Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Conference
Termination – after
chairperson
leader profile exits
13 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Termination –
During A
Conference
14 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Requires
Chairperson or
leader To Start
15 Participant Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Identification –
Entering a
conference
16 Participant Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 4
5. Identification –
Leaving a
conference
17 Automatic Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Participant
Identification By
Name
18 Roll Call Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
19 Automatic Dial Out Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
20 Operator Assisted Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Routing
Figure 1. Security and Authentication Test Results
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 5
6. Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
21 Request Private Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Operator
Assistance
22 Secure Breakout Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
or Sidebar
Session
23 Decreasing Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Password
Attempts
24 Failed Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Access
25 Secure Non Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Password
Conference
26 Administration 3 levels of 2 levels of 1 level of 1 level of
Hierarchy administration administration administration administration
27 Administration Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Login Identification
28 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Countdown To
Termination
Figure 2. Security and Authentication Test Results (continued)
Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
29 Transcoding 12 of 12 3 of 12 2 of 12 2 of 12
Bandwidths
30 Transcoding Video 3 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3
Protocols
31 Transcoding Video 3 of 3 1 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3
Formats
32 Transcoding Audio 6 of 6 6 of 6 4 of 6 4 of 6
Algorithms
33 Transcoding All 62 of 62 3 of 62 2 of 62 2 of 62
34 Mixed Protocol Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Conference
Application Layer
35 Mixed Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Passed
Presentation Layer
Figure 3. Versatility - Transcoding Test Results
Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
36 T.120 Support Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
Datasheet
comparison
37 Standard H.239 Passed Passed Did not pass Passed
Support Datasheet
comparison
Figure 4. Versatility – Data and Content Test Results
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 6
7. Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
38 Configurable Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Automatic Layout
Selection
39 Private Layout Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
40 Chairperson Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Layout Change
41 Virtual Classroom Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
42 Broadcast Mode Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
43 CNN CP View Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
Figure 5. Versatility – Continuous Presence Test Results
Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
44 Conference DID Passed Passed Passed Passed
Number Routing
45 Different Number Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Conference ID
Routing
46 Participant Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Number Routing
Figure 6. Versatility – Conference Routing Test Results
Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
47 Operator Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
48 Scheduled Passed Passed Passed Passed
49 Ad-hoc Dialing Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
50 Ad-hoc Predefined Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Dialing
Figure 7. Versatility – Conference Type Test Results
Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
51 Music On Hold Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Detection
52 Resource Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Management
53 Resource Reset Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
54 Multi System View 3 of 3 parameters 0 of 3 parameters 1 of 3 parameters 1 of 3 parameters
55 Integrated Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Gateway
56 Simultaneous Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
Conferences
Figure 8. Versatility – Resource Management Test Results
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 7
8. Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
57 IVR Variations Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
58 Multi-language Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Company
Greeting Entry
Queue
Figure 9. Versatility – Customization Test Results
Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
59 Administration Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Login Identification
60 Multiple Admin 3 levels of 2 levels of 1 level of 1 level of
Profiles administration administration administration administration
61 Multi-language Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Company
Greeting Entry
Queue
62 Single Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Management
Interface
63 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Filtering – Faulty
Connection
64 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Filtering –
Participants
Requesting
Assistance
65 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Filtering – Noisy
Line
66 Automatic Mute Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
On Music
Detection
67 View Individual Passed Did not pass Passed Passed
Capabilities
Figure 10. Operation and Control – System Management Test Results
Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS
100 400 MCU 16+16
68 Ad-hoc Dialing Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass
69 Single Number per Passed Passed Passed Passed
Conference
70 Single Number For Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
All Conferences
71 Personalized Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass
Conference
Figure 11. Operation and Control – User Control Test Results
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 8
9. Security and Administration Testing
The Security and Administration test cases focus on determining the product’s ability to provide a maximum
level of conference security through the set of features provided by the MCU under test. Additionally, these
tests address the set of features provided by the MCU to perform administrative control remotely.
Test case 1 - Conference Password
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by protecting entry to a
conference by the use of a password. To prove this capability, we created a conference definition with a
conference password. We then dialed into and out of the conference checking to ensure that the MCU
prompted us for a password for each type of connection.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We
dialed into the conference and the Polycom MCU prompted us for a password. We then dialed out to a
second endpoint and once again, the MCU prompted us for a password. This test proved that this security
feature worked for both dial in and dial out conditions.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We
dialed into the conference and the RADVISION MCU prompted us for a password. We then dialed out to a
second endpoint and once again, the MCU prompted that endpoint for a password. This test proved that this
security feature worked for both dial in and dial out conditions.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We
dialed into the conference and the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU prompted us for a password. We then dialed out
to a second endpoint; however, when that participant answered the endpoint, the MCU did not request a
password. The MCU placed the endpoint into the conference regardless. This test proved that this security
feature worked for dial in connections but not for dial out connections.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We
dialed into the conference and the TANDBERG MPS prompted us for a password. We then dialed out to a
second endpoint; however, when that participant answered the endpoint, the MCU did not request a
password. The MCU placed the endpoint into the conference regardless. This test proved that this security
feature worked for dial in connections but not for dial out connections.
Test case 2 - Password Hierarchy
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by facilitating entry into a
conference using a password hierarchy. Permitting access into a conference using multiple passwords allows
the MCU to provide greater conference security by granting or denying access to additional services based on
the password profile supplied to enter the conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference
definition granting additional privileges to the chairperson or leader password profile to that of the participant
password profile. We then dialed into the conference using each password profile to confirm that entry was
possible using a password hierarchy and that each profile afforded differing levels of functionality.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant
password. Using the MCU configuration menu we selected an IVR Message Service that we used for this
test. We then dialed into the conference using the participant password from one endpoint and then dialed
into the same conference using the chairperson password from another endpoint. To ensure that we had
dialed into the conference with differing levels of permissions, we were able to mute all endpoints using DTMF
codes from the endpoint where the chairperson’s password was entered and were unable to do this on the
endpoint where the participant’s password was entered. This test proved that this password hierarchy test
passed successfully.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 9
10. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant
password. However, when we dialed into the conference, we were able to log in as the participant only. When
we attempted to dial into the conference as the chairperson, the RADVISION MCU generated an operator
recording stating that we had entered an invalid password. We later found that the chairperson password is to
be used to enter the administration console with special permissions, not to enter a specific conference with
chairperson privileges. This test proved that this password hierarchy test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we found that the TANDBERG MCU 16+16 allowed us to create only one
password per conference. This test proved that this password hierarchy test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS – Did not pass
Using the administration console, we found that the TANDBERG MPS allowed us to create only one
password per conference. This test proved that this password hierarchy test did not pass.
Test case 3 - Privilege Profiles
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security being capable of
assigning multiple instances of contrasting levels of in-conference functionality or privilege profiles using a
single conference definition. To prove this capability, we created a single conference definition and confirmed
that the chairperson or leader received different in-conference capabilities to that of the participant. Using the
same conference definition, a second conference was created that used a different privilege profile. We then
connected another chairperson or leader and participant to confirm that a completely different set of in-
conference privileges were available.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant.
We were able to make these changes by going to the MCU configuration menu and selecting IVR Msg
Services, and then a specific IVR Message Service that we used for this test. We dialed into the conference
as a participant using one endpoint and then dialed into the conference as a chairperson using another
endpoint. To ensure that we had dialed into the conference with different permissions, we were able to mute
all endpoints using DTMF codes on the chairperson endpoint, and unable to do this on the participant
endpoint. We then created a second conference using the same conference definition and confirmed that a
different profile was active. This test proved that this privilege profile test passed successfully.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant.
However, when we dialed into the conference, we were able to log in as the participant only. When we
attempted to dial into the conference as the chairperson, the RADVISION MCU generated an operator
recording stating that we had entered an invalid password. We were unable to mute all other participants from
an endpoint for two reasons: 1.) all of the conference endpoints did not have sufficient privileges to mute all
other participants, and 2.) we were unable to find DTMF codes that would allow an endpoint to mute all other
endpoint in a conference. However, we found that all endpoints could be muted by using the RADVISION
MCU administration console. The inability to pass this test proved that the privilege profile test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we created a conference with one level of password hierarchy (See Test 2).
We then dialed into the conference and were unable to find functionality to enable or restrict differing levels of
functionality. We found that we were required to have access to the TANDBERG MCU 16+16 administration
console to perform chairperson privileges, such as muting other participants. The inability to pass this test
proved that the privilege profile test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 10
11. Using the administration console, we created a conference with one level of password hierarchy (See Test 2).
We then dialed into the conference and were unable to find functionality to enable or restrict differing levels of
functionality. We found that we were required to have access to the TANDBERG MPS administration console
to perform chairperson privileges, such as muting other participants. The inability to pass this test proved that
the privilege profile test did not pass.
Test case 4 - Automatic Password Generation
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security being capable of
automatically generating passwords. Automatic password generation increases conference security ensuring
that every conference is password protected, complies with password integrity checks, and ensures password
uniqueness. To prove this capability, we created a conference with no password and validated whether a
password was automatically generated based on the condition of no password supplied.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. When we
attempted to create a conference with no password, the Polycom MCU overrode this option and automatically
assigned randomized passwords for both the chairperson and participants
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. The RADVISION
MCU did not generate a random password, so we were required to enter a password. The MCU allowed
single character passwords, so there did not appear to be any password integrity checks on the entered
password. The inability to pass this test proved that the automatic password generation test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. The MCU did not
generate a random password, so we were required to enter a password. The MCU allowed single character
passwords, so there did not appear to be any password integrity checks on the entered password. The
inability to pass this test proved that the automatic password generation test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. The MCU did not
generate a random password, so we were required to enter a password. The MCU allowed single character
passwords, so there did not appear to be any password integrity checks on the entered password. The
inability to pass this test proved that the automatic password generation test did not pass.
Test case 5 - Password Integrity Validation
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by applying a password
integrity check, checking that all passwords meet a minimum or maximum password length specified by the
MCU. To prove this capability, we validated whether or not the MCU under test checked, validated, or
rejected passwords entered from the endpoint. We dialed into a password-protected conference and
attempted to enter a password.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Upon creation of conference, we got a dialog that stated “status =
STATUS_ILLEGAL_PASSWORD_LENGTH”. The conference required four or more numeric characters for a
valid password.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Created a conference with a service that had password required. When password required was enabled, we
were able to enter with passwords of only one character in length. There appeared to be no custom minimum
limit to the password size.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
We were able to create a conference with a password with only one character.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 11
12. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
We were able to create a conference with a password with only one character.
Test case 6 - Conference Password String Validation
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by validating the
password as a complete string. To prove this capability, we created a conference with a password of “12345.”
We then entered the conference with the password of “1234567” and reported whether or not we could
connect to the conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.”
We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The Polycom MCU prompted us to enter the
conference password, followed by a “#” sign. Requiring the endpoint to terminate the password with the “#”
sign allows the Polycom MCU to match exact string matches. We entered a password of “1234567” and the
MCU denied our entry into the conference due to providing the wrong password. The rejection of the incorrect
password string proved that the conference password string validation test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.”
We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The RADVISION MCU prompted us to enter the
conference password, followed by a “#” sign. Requiring the endpoint to terminate the password with the “#”
sign allows the RADVISION MCU to match exact string matches. We entered a password of “1234567” and
the MCU denied our entry into the conference due to providing the wrong password. The rejection of the
incorrect password string proved that the conference password string validation test passed.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.”
We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The TANDBERG MCU prompted us to enter the
conference password. The TANDBERG MCU did not prompt us to terminate the password with the "#" sign,
or some other termination key. We entered a password of “1234567” and the MCU connected us to the
conference. Additionally, when we dialed "9871234567" as the password, we were connected to the
conference apparently because the password string "12345" exists somewhere in the string we entered. We
found that the MCU remains open accepting password characters. If any substring is entered that matches
the expected password string, then the endpoint is entered into the conference. The ability to enter a
conference with an incorrect password proved that the conference password string validation test did not
pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.”
We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The TANDBERG MCU prompted us to enter the
conference password. The TANDBERG MCU did not prompt us to terminate the password with the "#" sign,
or some other termination key. We entered a password of “1234567” and the MCU connected us to the
conference. Additionally, when we dialed "9871234567" as the password, we were connected to the
conference apparently because the password string "12345" exists somewhere in the string we entered. We
found that the MCU remains open accepting password characters. If any substring is entered that matches
the expected password string, then the endpoint is entered into the conference. The ability to enter a
conference with an incorrect password proved that the conference password string validation test did not
pass.
Test case 7 - Change Conference Password during a Conference
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a password
assigned to a conference to be changed by an endpoint during an ongoing conference. To prove this
capability, we created a conference with a password of “2222.” We then entered the conference and changed
the password to “3333.” We then attempted to have a new endpoint join. We validated failure by typing “2222”
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 12
13. to ensure that we could not connect to the updated conference and also validated success by typing “3333” to
ensure that we could connect to the conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference with a password of “2222.”
We used an endpoint to dial into the conference and entered “2222” when prompted for the password. We
then entered *77, the DTMF code to change the conference password, and changed the password to “3333.”
We then had a second endpoint dial into the conference. We tried entering the conference by entering the
password “2222,” were rejected from the conference, and asked to re-enter the password. We entered “3333”
this time and were connected to the conference. The rejection of the incorrect password string and
acceptance of the updated password proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference with a password of “2222.”
We used an endpoint to dial into the conference and entered “2222” when prompted for the password. We
were unable to use DTMF codes at the endpoint to change the password. Although the RADVISION MCU
manual says that the MCU can use DTMF codes, we were unable to get a response from the MCU using
DTMF codes. We were unable to find a parameter setting in the administration console to change this
features. The inability to change the password within a conference proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we were unable to find any information
regarding using DTMF codes to administer the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU from an endpoint. We confirmed that
DTMF codes, with the exception of password provision, are not supported on the TANDBERG MCU. We were
unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. We were also unable to change the conference
password during the conference via the administration console; however, the password string field was
disabled. The inability to support DTMF codes to support this feature proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we were unable to find any information
regarding using DTMF codes to administer the TANDBERG MPS from an endpoint. We confirmed that DTMF
codes, with the exception of password provision, are not supported on the TANDBERG MCU. We were
unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. We were also unable to change the conference
password during the conference via the administration console; however, the password string field was
disabled. The inability to support DTMF codes to support this feature proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 8 - Conference Lock
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing an on going
conference to be locked to deny access to any further connections. To prove this capability, we created a
conference, then entered and locked the conference to stop further participants joining. We then attempted to
dial into the conference to confirm that further entry was not allowed.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference.
We then locked the conference using DTMF codes (*70) and then, using a second endpoint, we dialed into
the conference. We were unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. The inability to connect to
a locked conference proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference.
We then locked the conference using the administration console and then, using a second endpoint, we
dialed into the conference. We were unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. The inability to
connect to a locked conference proved that this test passed.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Passed
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 13
14. Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference.
We disabled the Allow Incoming Calls checkbox using the administration console and then, using a second
endpoint, we dialed into the conference. The inability to connect to a locked conference proved that this test
passed.
TANDBERG MPS - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference.
We disabled the Allow Incoming Calls checkbox using the administration console and then, using a second
endpoint, we dialed into the conference. The inability to connect to a locked conference proved that this test
passed.
Test case 9 - Conference Hide
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing an on going
conference to be secured so that it cannot be monitored by any application or interface. To prove this
capability, we created a conference, then entered the conference and secured the conference so that it
cannot be monitored any application or interface. We then attempted to view the conference in the
administration console.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference.
We then locked the conference using DTMF codes (*71). We then attempted to view the conference in the
Polycom MCU administration console and could not see any information related to this call. The inability to
view this hidden conference proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Using the administration console and the RADVISION MCU documentation, we were unable to find any
information to suggest that allowed us to hide conferences on the RADVISION MCU. The lack of a hide
conference feature proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Using the administration console and the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU documentation, we were unable to find
any information to suggest that allowed us to hide conferences on the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU. The lack of a
hide conference feature proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Using the administration console and the TANDBERG MPS documentation, we were unable to find any
information to suggest that allowed us to hide conferences on the TANDBERG MPS. The lack of a hide
conference feature proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 10 - Automatic Conference Termination – no show
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a
conference if no connections are made within a set number of minutes from the start of the conference. We
created a conference to terminate after two minutes before the first connection. We then used the
administration console to confirm that conference terminated after two minutes had elapsed.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created a conference definition with Auto-termination enabled. We set the termination time to be two
minutes. We created the conference and let it sit idle for two minutes. We observed the conference terminate
via the MGC Manager console. The confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed
We created a conference with termination after no show using the advanced options. We set the termination
time to be two minutes. We created the conference and let it idle for two minutes. We observed the
conference terminate via the RADVISION administration console. The confirmation of the terminated
conference proved that this test passed.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 14
15. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
We created a conference with the Max Call Duration set to one minute. The conference displayed this
information in the conference summary window. Once a participant called into the conference, a timer was set
to allow a conference of 1-minute maximum. After one minute, the participant was silently disconnected. The
conference remained created. If another participant called into the conference, the clock would reset and
allow that participant to join that conference for one minute. The TANDBERG MCU is designed to terminate
the conference call, but to leave the conference running for future connections. Regardless, the only manner
to terminate a conference is by manually terminating it with the administration console. The inability to have a
conference terminate by conference timeout confirms that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
We created a conference with the Max Call Duration set to one minute. The conference displayed this
information in the conference summary window. Once a participant called into the conference, a timer was set
to allow a conference of 1-minute maximum. After one minute, the participant was silently disconnected. The
conference remained created. If another participant called into the conference, the clock would reset and
allow that participant to join that conference for one minute. The TANDBERG MPS MCU is design to
terminate the conference call, but to leave the conference running for future connections. Regardless, the
only manner to terminate a conference is by manually terminating it with the administration console. The
inability to have a conference terminate by conference timeout confirms that this test did not pass.
Test case 11 - Automatic Conference Termination – after last person
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a
conference after the last person leaves the conference. We created a conference to terminate one minute
after the last person leaves the conference. We then used the administration console to confirm that
conference terminated one minute after the last person left.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created a conference definition with Auto-termination enabled. We set the termination time to be one
minute after the last person leaves. We created the conference, dialed into it, disconnected from it, and then
let it sit idle for one minute. We observed the conference terminate via the MGC Manager console. The
confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed
We created a conference with the administration console setting to terminate after last participant leaves. We
created the conference, dialed into it, disconnected from it, and then let it sit idle for one minute. After one
minute, the conference terminated on its own. The confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this
test passed.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
We created a conference with the administration console. We noticed that the TANDBERG MCU only allowed
the overall length of a conference call to be pre-determined. After reviewing the product and the TANDBERG
MCU documentation, we determined that we must terminate all conferences manually. The failure to
terminate the conference automatically proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
We created a conference with the administration console. We noticed that the TANDBERG MCU only allowed
the overall length of a conference call to be pre-determined. After reviewing the product and the TANDBERG
MCU documentation, we determined that we must terminate all conferences manually. The failure to
terminate the conference automatically proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 12 - Automatic Conference Termination – after chairperson profile exits
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a
conference after the chairperson profile exits the conference. We created a conference to terminate after the
chairperson profile exits the conference. We then dialed into the conference as the chairperson, and dialed in
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 15
16. with a separate endpoint as a participant. We then had the chairperson exit the conference. We used the
administration console to confirm that conference terminated after the chairperson exited the conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created a conference definition with Terminate after Chairperson Exits enabled. We created the
conference, dialed into it as the chairperson, and dialed into it as a participant. We then disconnected the
chairperson from the conference and waited to ensure that the conference terminated. The confirmation of the
terminated conference proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we determined that the first
participant into a conference creates the conference instance. Therefore, when this participant exits the
conference, the conference terminates. We also found no distinction between participant and chairperson in
the conference. Based on the previous reasons, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any
information regarding establishing a hierarchy of conference privileges; therefore, it cannot detect the
difference between a chairperson dialing into a conference versus a participant dialing into a conference. We
also determined that all conferences must be terminated manually. Based on the previous reasons, we
proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any
information regarding establishing a hierarchy of conference privileges; therefore, it cannot detect the
difference between a chairperson dialing into a conference versus a participant dialing into a conference. We
also determined that all conferences must be terminated manually. Based on the previous reasons, we
proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 13 - Conference Termination – during a conference
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a conference
to be instantaneously terminated during an ongoing conference. To prove this capability, we created a
conference and had three endpoints dial into the conference as participants. From one of the endpoints, we
entered the DTMF code to terminate the conference. We used the administration console to confirm that
conference terminated.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used three endpoints to dial into the
conference as participants. Using one endpoint, we then terminated the conference using DTMF codes (*87).
We monitored the conference in the Polycom MCU administration console. The Polycom MCU deleted the
conference from the console. The termination of this conference from the console proved that this test
passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we determined that there were
no DTMF commands that allow an endpoint to terminate the conference. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we determined that this product
did not support DTMF codes with the exception of password provision. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 16
17. After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we determined that this product
did not support DTMF codes with the exception of password provision. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 14 - Conference Requires Chairperson to Start
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a conference
to start only when the chairperson present. To prove this capability, we created a conference that requires the
chairperson to start. From one of the endpoints, we dialed into the conference as a participant. If the endpoint
was put on hold, we then used another endpoint and dialed into the conference as a chairperson. If both
endpoints entered the conference, then we would know that the conference required a chairperson to start
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created a conference with Start Conf Requires Chairperson enabled. We dialed into the conference as a
participant and were put on hold. We then used a separate endpoint and dialed into the conference as the
chairperson. At this point, the conference started, and thus proved the start of this test.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we determined that this product
was unable to create a conference where participants are put on hold until the chairperson enters the
conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
The TANDBERG MCU does not support a chairperson or leader privileges; therefore, the conference cannot
detect when a chairperson or leader enters the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we
proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
The TANDBERG MPS does not support a chairperson or leader privileges; therefore, the conference cannot
detect when a chairperson or leader enters the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we
proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 15 - Participant Identification – entering a conference
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by prompting each
connection to a conference to record their name which will be replayed to announce their entry in to the
conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference with identification required. From one endpoint,
we dialed into the conference and verified that it prompted for our name upon entering a conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created a conference with IVR settings set to rollcall enabled. We dialed into the conference with one
endpoint and were prompted for our name before entering the conference. At this point, the conference
started, and thus proved the start of this test.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a
conference that prompted us for our name upon entering the conference. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
The TANDBERG MCU does not support prompting for participant names. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
The TANDBERG MPS does not support prompting for participant names. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 17
18. Test case 16 - Participant Identification – leaving a conference
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that when a connection to a conference is terminated,
the name recorded prior to entry will announce its departure. To prove this capability, we created a
conference with identification required. From two endpoints, we dialed into the conference and when
prompted, we announced our name. We then disconnected one endpoint from the conference and verified
that the other conference connection received the announcement of leaving the conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a conference with Roll Call enabled in the IVR settings. We
connected to the conference using two endpoints. Upon entering the conference, we were prompted for our
names, which we entered as instructed. We then had one of the endpoints disconnect for the conference. The
name of the disconnecting endpoint was then announced to the conference as was heard by the remaining
endpoint. The ability to hear the disconnecting endpoint proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we created a conference. However, we were unable to create conference
that would prompt for participant identification upon entering the conference call. Since participant
identification is not taken during the conference, the RADVISION MCU is unable to provide automatic
participant identification upon leaving the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that
this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we created a conference. However, we were unable to create conference
that would prompt for participant identification upon entering the conference call. We were able to find a
capability for a tone upon exiting the call. Since participant identification is not taken during the conference,
the TANDBERG MCU is unable to provide automatic participant identification upon leaving the conference.
Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Using the administration console, we created a conference. However, we were unable to create conference
that would prompt for participant identification upon entering the conference call. We were able to find a
capability for a tone upon exiting the call. Since participant identification is not taken during the conference,
the TANDBERG MPS is unable to provide automatic participant identification upon leaving the conference.
Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 17 - Automatic Participant Identification by Name
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by identifying each
participant by name when entering a conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference and
connected one endpoint to the conference. Using the administration console, we monitored the connection of
a participant into a conference and confirmed that the identification of the participant by name and was
consistent with the actual endpoint that entered the conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Using the administration console, we created a conference. We then used an endpoint to dial into the
conference. The Polycom MCU prompted us to enter the conference identification and password. Once
accepted into the conference, the MCU detected and identified the connection by name. The Polycom MCU
performs this function by storing information about the participant in a local Access database managed by the
Polycom administration console. The ability to provide this information proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any
information regarding the ability to use a conference ID and password to identify the endpoint participant.
Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 18
19. After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any
information regarding the ability to use a conference ID and password to identify the endpoint participant by
name. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Final
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any
information regarding the ability to use a conference ID and password to identify the endpoint participant by
name. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 18 - Roll Call
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by being able to replay
all the names recorded prior to entering a conference, during the conference. To prove this capability, we
created a conference with identification required. From two endpoints, we dialed into the conference. From
one endpoint, we then requested a roll call of all connected endpoints.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created a conference definition with Roll Call enabled in the IVR settings. We created the conference and
dialed into it as a participant. The MCU prompted us to enter our name, followed by the “#” sign. We followed
these instructions and we were entered into the conference. We connected to the conference call using an
additional endpoint but with a different name. From one of the endpoints, we selected the DTMF code (*33) to
request a roll call of all participants. We received the roll call announcement. The confirmation of the roll call
proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a
conference that prompted us for names at the start of the conference, and use these names for a manual roll
call. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a
conference that prompted us for names at the start of the conference, and use these names for a manual roll
call. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a
conference that prompted us for names at the start of the conference, and use these names for a manual roll
call. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 19 - Automatic Dial Out
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by enabling the
conference to automatically connect predefined participants when initiated. To prove this capability, we
created a conference with predefined participants. Using an endpoint, we called into the conference and
determined if the predefined participants received a call from the conference
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created a conference definition with two predefined participants. We dialed into the conference and the
MCU immediately dialed out to the two predefined participant endpoints. The confirmation of the predefined
call proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Although the conference can define specific invites for a conference call, the conference will not automatically
dial out to them when the call is initiated by the chair. From the endpoint, we can invite another endpoint by
typing Conference prefix and ID + ** + the endpoint that we want to invite.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 19
20. The TANDBERG 16+16 MCU allows the administrator to create a conference and add participants. It will start
this conference and dial out immediately once the conference is created. However, since the conference is
created well before a call is desired to start or it’s scheduled start time, it cannot respond to a call leader
starting the call and respond by calling out to conference participants.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
The TANDBERG MPS allows the administrator to create a conference and add participants. It will start this
conference and dial out immediately once the conference is created. However, since the conference is
created well before a call is desired to start or it’s scheduled start time, it cannot respond to a call leader
starting the call and respond by calling out to conference participants.
Test case 20 - Operator Assisted Routing
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing participants
to be acknowledged and vetted first by a video operator before being manually placed into the destination
conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference that required operator assistance. Using one
endpoint, we created an operator conference. We then attempted to dial into the conference from a second
endpoint and verified that an operator attended the call and placed us in our targeted conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We first created an operator conference. To create an attended wait, we selected Msg Service Type to be
Attended (Wait). We then dialed into the conference as a participant and requested assistance. The attendant
monitored our assistance request using the administration console and moved us into the requested
conference. The confirmation of the ability to get routed to the correct conference via operator assistance
proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that for operator
assistance, the participant must dial the operator number. The documentation states to "Enter the number of
the delegated operator which the MCU dials when the operator invitation selected in the Conference Control
interface during a conference. The operator is invited to join the conference for consultation and to provide
support.” For this action to work as desired, the calling participant must call from within a conference;
therefore, it cannot make a call to an operator for routing assistance. The confirmation of the inability to get
routed to the correct conference via operator assistance proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG
MCU does not support operator assistance of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved
that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG
MPS does not support operator assistance of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that
this test did not pass.
Test case 21 - Request Private Operator Assistance
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a participant
to request private operator assistance during a conference. Once acknowledged, the requesting participant
and operator can hear and see each other in complete privacy before being placed back into the original
conference. To prove this capability, we created and started a conference that provided operator assistance.
Using one endpoint, we created an operator conference. We then dialed into the conference from a second
endpoint, requested assistance, and then rejoin the conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We first created an operator conference and dialed into the operator conference. We then created a new
conference and dialed into as a participant. We used the DTMF code to be taken out of the conference and
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 20
21. request assistance. The DTMF code we used was *0. We then waited for the operator for assistance. Once
the operator became available and saw our request on the administration console, we were taken into a
private conference with the operator and then moved back into the destination conference. The confirmation
of the ability to receive private operator assistance proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
We first created a conference and dialed into the conference. We used the DTMF code to be taken out of the
conference and request assistance. The DTMF code we used was *0. When we used this DTMF code, we
were not taken out of the conference call and operator assistance was not raised on the administration
console. The confirmation of the inability to receive private operator assistance proved that this test did not
pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG
MCU does not support private operator assistance request of any sort. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG
MPS does not support private operator assistance request of any sort. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 22 - Secure Breakout or Sidebar Session
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing any number
of conference participants to be moved securely and seamlessly from one conference to another and rejoined
without disconnection. Each conference is completely independent and secure of the original with video and
audio streams isolated to each conference. To prove this capability, we created and started several isolated
conferences. We added four participants to a conference. We separated two participants from the conference
without disconnection and validated that the audio and video streams were separate.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We first created two conferences, conference 55 and 56, both with quad views. We dialed four endpoints into
conference 55. We then highlighted two of the endpoints in the administration console, right-clicked on them,
and selected to move them to conference 56. The two endpoints that we selected were moved to conference
56, so now there were two private conferences each with two participants. Confirmation of the ability to create
two private conferences from one conference without participant disconnection proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
We created two conferences. We dialed into one of the conferences with four endpoints. We were unable to
move the participants from one conference to another conference via the administration console. Additionally,
the DTMF code required to move the audio into a subconference (*71) did not move the participant into a
subconference. We were required to move the participant into the subconference via the management
console. Confirmation of the inability to create two private conferences from one conference without
participant disconnection proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG
MCU does not support conference separation or breakout of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability,
we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG
MPS does not support private operator assistance request of any sort. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 21
22. Test case 23 - Decreasing Password Attempts
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by restricting the number
of password attempts to enter a conference before being disconnected. Protecting a conference for example
with a single attempt of entering a password adds an additional level of security. To prove this capability, we
defined and started a conference with a single logon attempt. We dialed into the conference and entered an
incorrect password multiple times. We validated that the number of login attempts equaled the preset value.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We first set the number of user input tries in the IVR Msg Services to three. We then created a conference
with this IVR setting. We attempted to dial into the conference three times using an incorrect password. After
the third attempt, the MCU automatically disconnected us from the conference queue. Confirmation of the
ability to set decreasing password attempts proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
When we used the RADVISION MCU, we were given three chances to enter the correct password before
being disconnected from the password entry queue. After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product
and documentation, we were unable to determine how to change the number of invalid password login
attempts. This product does provide security by limiting the number of invalid password attempts; however,
the inability to set decreasing password attempts proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
When we used the TANDBERG MCU, we were given a set fixed time and to enter a fixed number of
password entry attempts. We were unable to determine how to change the number of invalid password login
attempts or how to change the total available time to enter the password. This product does provide security
by limiting the number of invalid password attempts; however, the inability to set decreasing password
attempts proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
When we used the TANDBERG MPS, we were given a set fixed time and to enter a fixed number of
password entry attempts. We were unable to determine how to change the number of invalid password login
attempts or how to change the total available time to enter the password. This product does provide security
by limiting the number of invalid password attempts; however, the inability to set decreasing password
attempts proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 24 - Failed Conference Access
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security as any participants who
fail to enter a valid conference password for any reason would be automatically placed on hold. To prove this
capability, we defined and started a conference with a single logon attempt. We dialed into the conference,
entered an incorrect password, and waited to be put on hold. We used the administration console to identify
participants placed on hold pending operator assistance. We validated this test case by finding participants on
hold in the administration console and attending to them.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We first created an operator assistance conference. We then created a standard conference and dialed into
this conference as a participant. We entered an invalid password and were placed in the operator queue on
the MCU. From the administration console, we were able to see the endpoint that was requesting assistance
and send this endpoint into the operator conference for assistance. Confirmation of the ability to be moved
into an operator assistance queue due to a did not pass conference access proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
We created a conference and dialed into this conference as a participant. We entered an invalid password
and were allowed to retry entering a correct password three times. We were then disconnected from the
conference. It appears that there is no administration console setting that allows us to have participants move
to operator assist upon a failed conference access. Confirmation of the inability to be moved into an operator
assistance queue due to a failed conference access proved that this test did not pass.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 22
23. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU product and documentation, we found that the
TANDBERG 16+16 MCU does not support a feature to put a participant on hold and assist them with
password problems. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG
MPS does not support a feature to put a participant on hold and assist them with password problems. Based
on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 25 - Secure Non-Password Conference
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased security by forcing dial out systems to
acknowledge connection to the MCU with a DTMF tone when prompted. If no response is detected the
connection will be terminated, eliminating connection to endpoints where it may be set to auto answer, where
no one is present or to passive recording devices. To prove this capability, we defined and started a
conference with a dial out participant defined. If the endpoint failed to respond when prompted for a DTMF
tone, such as an answer machine might respond, then the MCU should disconnect that endpoint from the
conference.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We defined a conference with a dial out participant defined. We created the conference and then dialed into
the conference using one of the endpoints. We then initiated the conference to dial out to the defined dial out
participant. The conference dialed out and waited for a response from the new endpoint. When it received no
response, then the conference disconnected the endpoint. Confirmation of the ability to disconnect an
insecure non-password endpoint proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
We created a conference by dialing into a new conference definition. We then dialed out to a new endpoint.
The conference dialed out and immediately connected the new endpoint. The conference connected to the
dialed endpoint regardless of whether the connecting party was the correct connection. Confirmation to
connect to unknown endpoints proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
We created a conference by dialing into a new conference definition. We then dialed out to a new endpoint.
The conference dialed out and immediately connected the new endpoint. The conference connected to the
dialed endpoint without DTMF code confirmation. Confirmation to connect to unknown endpoints proved that
this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
We created a conference by dialing into a new conference definition. We then dialed out to a new endpoint.
The conference dialed out and immediately connected the new endpoint. The conference connected to the
dialed endpoint without DTMF code confirmation. Confirmation to connect to unknown endpoints proved that
this test did not pass.
Test case 26 - Administration Hierarchy
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated an administration hierarchy. This hierarchy is a set of
profiles that administrators can assign, or be assigned to, to enable or restrict access capabilities according to
their needs. Assigning administrators with different profiles and rights provides greater security to the overall
system. Using the administration console, we determined the number of levels of permissions that the
administration console allowed us to create.
Polycom MGC-100
After reviewing the Polycom MCU documentation, we found that the MGC Manager administration console
supported three levels of operators. They were:
1. Attendant
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 23
24. 2. Ordinary
3. Superuser
The attendant operator can only define and manage new conferences, gateway sessions, meeting rooms,
and participants. The attendant operator does not have access to the MCU Configuration icon and MCU
Utilities. Ordinary operators can perform all the tasks an attendant operator does. In addition, ordinary
operators can also view the configurations of the modules in the MGC-100. Superuser operators can perform
all tasks attendant and ordinary operators do. In addition, superuser operators can define and delete other
operators, and define network services. While ordinary operators can view the configurations of the modules
in the MGC-100, only the superuser operator can modify the configuration of a module.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU
After reviewing the RADVISION MCU documentation, we found that the RADVISION system allowed two
levels of access privileges. They were:
1. Chair controller
2. User
Additionally, the system offers two levels of console management. They were:
1. Operator
2. Administrator
TANDBERG MCU 16+16
After reviewing the RADVISION MCU documentation, we found that the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU could not
assign different levels of privileges to call participants. We found only one level of administration level.
Figure 12. TANDBERG 16+16 MCU System Configuration, Miscellaneous Configuration dialog box
TANDBERG MPS
After reviewing the RADVISION MPS documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS could not assign
different levels of privileges to call participants. We found only one level of administration level.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 24
25. Figure 13. TANDBERG MPS MCU System Configuration, Miscellaneous Configuration Settings dialog
box
Test case 27 - Administration Login Identification
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by identifying all login
connections to the MCU. The MCU should provide the name, profile date of login and device. To prove this
capability, we identified the current administration connections to the MCU by name and profile. We also
measured the ability to see who is logged in and how they are logged in.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
Within the Polycom Administration console, by selecting the Connections drilldown icon on the left, we could
determine that we were the only connection logged into the MGC manager. We could also determine that we
were a superuser, our administration name, when we connected, from what location, and using which
protocol. Confirmation of the ability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test
passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
Within the RADVISION MCU administration console, we were unable to determine which users are logged in
the console. The system allows the first administrator to enter into the console and is granted full permissions.
All others who then connect to the console are granted read-only privileges. Confirmation of the inability to
determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
Within the TANDBERG MCU administration console, we found that it does not display the number of current
connections, the connection identification, and the connection profile. Confirmation of the inability to
determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
Within the TANDBERG MPS administration console, we found that it does not display the number of current
connections, the connection identification, and the connection profile. Confirmation of the inability to
determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass.
Test case 28 - Conference Countdown to Termination
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a
conference definition after a set number of activations. To prove this capability, we set a conference to
terminate after two activations.
Polycom MGC-100 - Passed
We created an instance of a meeting room object and set the number of occurrences to be two in the Meet
Me per Conference dialog box. We dialed in to the conference twice and after each disconnection, the MCU
reduced the number of conference activations by one in the Meet Me per Conference dialog box. After we
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 25
26. accessed the meeting twice, the conference definition was deleted and we were unable to activate the
conference further. Based on this feature capability, we proved that this test passed.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that this MCU does
not support conference termination after a specific number of activations. Based on this lack of feature
capability, we proved that this test did not pass.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that conferences
could only be terminated manually. We were able to terminate the conference only by manually terminating
the conference in the administration console. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test
did not pass.
TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass
After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that conferences
could only be terminated manually. We were able to terminate the conference only by manually terminating
the conference in the administration console. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test
did not pass.
In summary, the Polycom MGC-100 system passed all 27 test cases, as compared to five passed by the
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU and one by the TANDBERG 16+16 and MPS MCU products. Additionally, as
shown in test case 26, the Polycom MCU demonstrated three levels of administration hierarchy, compared to
two levels for the RADVISION MCU and one level for the TANDBERG MCU. Overall, the Polycom MCU
demonstrated the most complete set of security and authentication feature capabilities of the MCU products in
our review.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 26
27. Versatility Testing
The Versatility test cases focus on determining the product’s ability to provide a maximum level of versatility
through the set of features provided by each MCU under test. Within versatility testing, we tested features
related to transcoding, continuous presence, conference routing, conference types, and resource
management.
Test cases 29 through 33 address the ability of each MCU to perform transcoding. Transcoding is the process
of converting a media stream from one format to another. When related to MCU functionality, transcoding is
the process of managing audio and video stream information from endpoints with different bandwidth
connections, different video protocols and formatting capabilities and different audio algorithms in such a
manner so that they can work together successfully within a single conference at their optimum capabilities.
To measure the transcoding capabilities for test cases 29 through 33, we generated multiple conference
streams into the MCU under test. This methodology allowed us to inject many conferences with fixed
parameters, such as protocols, formats, and algorithms into the MCU under test and verify the maximum
number of unique audio and video streams that the MCU was able to successfully transcode.
To generate a large number of unique streams, we used a Polycom MGC-100 MCU to create specific
conference parameters and the connected into the MCU under test with these fixed parameters. As can be
seen in Figure 16, we connected this MCU into our test bed network.
Test case 29 - Transcoding Bandwidths
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported bandwidths up to two Mbps can
coexist in the same conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of
bandwidths in a single conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating
a conference definition and dial into the conference using the following bandwidths:
• 64 kbps
• 128 kbps
• 192 kbps
• 256 kbps
• 384 kbps
• 320 kbps
• 512 kbps
• 768 kbps
• 1152 kbps
• 1472 kbps
• 1536 kbps
• 1920 kbps
Polycom MGC-100
We used the second Polycom MGC-100 MCU to generate the following unique audio and video streams. The
following list is a set of the streams that we used during our testing. The bolded parameters illustrate that the
transcoding focused on the bandwidth settings.
• 64 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 128 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 192 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 256 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 320 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 384 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 512 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 768 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 1152 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 1472 kbps, H.261, CIF
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 27
28. • 1536 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 1920 kbps, H.261, CIF
We were able to connect these 12 streams, each with a unique bandwidth into a single conference on the
Polycom MCU. We inspected the properties of each incoming connection to ensure that all bandwidth
requirements were met and validated that conference transcoding was being performed by the MCU as
expected. Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple bandwidths proved that this MCU was able to
transcode all available bandwidth capabilities.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU
Using the administration console, we used the RADVISION MCU interface to create video scheme settings
with different bandwidths. We found a limitation in the user interface that prevented us from creating more
than three video scheme settings. Figure 14 shows the user interface with this limitation. Notice that the
button that allows the user to create additional streams, the Add button, became disabled after three video
scheme settings has been created.
Figure 14. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU View Settings dialog box
If we edit the first setting in the list, and change the mode from Basic to Non_Transcoding, then we are able to
return to the View Settings Screen and add a fourth video scheme setting. However, we were able to perform
this only when the Max Layout Continuous Presence is set to Full Screen. If we change the Max Layout to
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 28
29. anything other than Full Screen, then we are unable to add more than three video scheme settings.
Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple bandwidths proved that this MCU was able to transcode all
available bandwidth capabilities.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16
Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We
dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the
conference that the MCU maintained two bandwidth points for transcoding.
The first two bandwidths that connect to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU
transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the
bandwidth of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the
bandwidth of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit
will be established for the conference is equal to this newest bandwidth.
Additionally, we found confirming documentation in Section 4.4.4.3 of the document entitled “Technical
Description of TANDBERG MCU with software version D2 (TANDBERG D12925 Rev. 02)”.
In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to rate match multiple input streams to a
maximum of two transcoded bandwidth outputs.
TANDBERG MPS
Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We
dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the
conference that the MCU maintained two bandwidth points for transcoding.
The first two bandwidths that connect to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU
transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the
bandwidth of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the
bandwidth of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit
will be established for the conference equal to this latest bandwidth.
Additionally, we found confirming documentation in the document entitled “MPS User Manual.” in Section
6.2.3 on the Enhanced Video Transcoding of this document.
In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to rate match multiple input streams to a
maximum of two transcoded bandwidth outputs.
Test case 30 - Transcoding Video Protocols
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported video protocols can coexist in the
same conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of video protocols in a
single conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating a conference
definition and dial into the conference using the following bandwidths:
• H.261
• H.263
• H.264
Polycom MGC-100
We used the second Polycom MGC-100 MCU to generate the following unique audio and video streams. The
bolded parameters illustrate that the transcoding focused on the video protocol settings.
• 64 kbps, H.261, CIF
• 64 kbps, H.263, CIF
• 64 kbps, H.264, CIF
We were able to connect these three streams, each with a unique video protocol into a single conference on
the Polycom MCU. We inspected the properties of each incoming connection to ensure that all protocol
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 29
30. requirements were met and validated that conference transcoding was being performed by the MCU as
expected. Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple video protocol proved that this MCU was able to
transcode all available video protocol capabilities.
RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU
Using the administration console, we used the RADVISION MCU interface to create video scheme settings
with different video protocols. We found a limitation in the user interface that prevented us from creating more
than three video scheme settings. Figure 14 shows the user interface with this limitation.
When we tested the RADVISION MCU using the on-board video card, i.e. MVP mode, we were able to
transcode using only H.261 and H.263 video protocols. H.264 was unavailable. When we tested the MCU
card, i.e. MP mode, we than we able to select H.261, H.263, and H.264, but only in non-transcoded
conference.
TANDBERG MCU 16+16
Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We
dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the
conference that the MCU maintained two video protocols for transcoding. The first two video protocols that
connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints
connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered
into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the
conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit will be established for the conference equal to
this latest video protocol.
Additionally, when we created a conference and successfully connected a H.261 endpoint, and connected a
H.263 endpoint. When we connected a H.264 endpoint in to the conference, the conference terminated in the
administration console.
In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to accept multiple input streams to a maximum of
two distinct video protocol outputs.
TANDBERG MPS
Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MPS interface to create a new conference. We
dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the
conference that the MCU maintained two video protocols for transcoding. The first two video protocols that
connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints
connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered
into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the
conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit will be established for the conference equal to
this latest video protocol.
In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MPS was able to accept multiple input streams to a maximum of
two distinct video protocol outputs.
Test case 31 - Transcoding Video Formats
In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported video formats can coexist in the same
conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of video formats in a single
conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating a conference definition
and dial into the conference using the following bandwidths:
• QCIF
• CIF
• 4CIF
Polycom MGC-100
We used the second Polycom MGC-100 MCU to generate the following unique audio and video streams. The
bolded parameters illustrate that the transcoding focused on the video format settings.
Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 30