Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Energy conserving security mechanisms for wireless sensor networks

  • Published:
annals of telecommunications - annales des télécommunications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since wireless sensor networks are emerging as innovative technologies for realizing a variety of functions through a number of compact sensor nodes, security must be justified and ensured prior to their deployment. An adversary may compromise sensor nodes, forcing them to generate undesired data, and propagation of these data packets through the network results in wasteful energy consumption. We develop a security mechanism to detect energy-consuming useless packets, assuming that a sensor node is able to generate multiple message authentication codes (MAC) using preshared secrets. The forwarding nodes along the path verify the validity of the packet by checking the authenticity of the attached MACs. This mechanism performs well when a malicious node does not have all the cryptographic keys. However, packets, generated by the malicious node having all the keys, would be considered as legitimate, and thus, the forwarding nodes become unable to detect and discard them. To deal with this problem, we devise another mechanism in which each forwarding node is capable of checking such suspicious nodes. We have quantified the security strength through analysis and simulations to show that the proposed mechanisms make the entire network energy conserving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akyildiz IF, Su W, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E (2002) A survey on sensor networks. Commun Mag IEEE 40(8):102–114. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2002.1024422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kulkarni SS, Gouda MG, Arora A (2006) Secret instantiation in ad-hoc networks. Comput Commun 29(2):200–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamid MA, Rahman M, Hong CS (2006) Energy conserving security mechanism for wireless sensor network. In: ICCSA (2), Glasgow, 8–11 May 2006, pp 866–875

  4. Gui C, Mohapatra P (2004) Power conservation and quality of surveillance in target tracking sensor networks. In: MobiCom ’04: Proceedings of the 10th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking. ACM, New York, pp 129–143. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1023720.1023734

  5. Wang N, Chang CH (2007) Performance evaluation of geographic probabilistic flow-based spreading routing in wireless sensor networks. In: PE-WASUN ’07: Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on performance evaluation of wireless ad hoc, sensor,and ubiquitous networks. ACM, New York, pp 32–38. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1298197.1298204

  6. Ye W, Heidemann J, Estrin D (2002) An energy-efficient mac protocol for wireless sensor networks. INFOCOM 2002. In: Twenty-first annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies, vol 3. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 1567–1576. doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2002.1019408

  7. Wu K, Gao Y, Li F, Xiao Y (2005) Lightweight deployment-aware scheduling for wireless sensor networks. Mob Netw Appl 10(6):837–852. doi:10.1007/s11036-005-4442-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cerpa A, Estrin D (2002) ASCENT: Adaptive self-configuring sensor networks topologies. In: INFOCOM 2002. Twenty-First annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies, vol 3. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 1278–1287. doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2002.1019378

  9. Bandyopadhyay S, Coyle E (2003) An energy efficient hierarchical clustering algorithm for wireless sensor networks. INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies. IEEE 3:1713–1723

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bandyopadhyay S, Coyle EJ (2004) Minimizing communication costs in hierarchically-clustered networks of wireless sensors. Comput Netw 44(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Manjeshwar A, Agrawal D (2001) TEEN: a routing protocol for enhanced efficiency in wireless sensor networks. In: Parallel and distributed processing symposium. Proceedings 15th international, San Francisco, 23–27 April 2001, pp 2009–2015

  12. Karlof C, Wagner D (2003) Secure routing in wireless sensor networks: attacks and countermeasures. Ad Hoc Netw 1(2–3):293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yi S, Naldurg P, Kravets R (2001) Security-aware ad hoc routing for wireless networks. In: ACM international symposium on mobile ad hoc networking and computing. ACM, New York, pp 299–302

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu YC, Perrig A, Johnson DB (2003) Rushing attacks and defense in wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. In: WiSe ’03: proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on wireless security. ACM, New York, pp 30–40. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/941311.941317

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Chan H, Perrig A, Song D (2003) Random key predistribution schemes for sensor networks. In: IEEE symposium on security and privacy, Berkeley, 11–14 May 2003, pp 197–213

  16. Du W, Deng J, Han YS, Varshney PK, Katz J, Khalili A (2003) A pairwise key pre-distribution scheme for wireless sensor networks. In: ACM conference on computer and communications security (CCS). ACM, New York, pp 42–51

  17. Menezes AJ, Vanstone SA, Oorschot PCV (1996) Handbook of applied cryptography. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  18. Law YW, Doumen J, Hartel P (2006) Survey and benchmark of block ciphers for wireless sensor networks. ACM Trans Sen Netw 2(1):65–93. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1138127.1138130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barrett CL, Marathe MV, Engelhart DC, Sivasubramaniam A (2002) Analyzing the short-term fairness of ieee 802.11 in wireless multi-hop radio networks. In: MASCOTS ’02: proceedings of the 10th IEEE international symposium on modeling, analysis, and simulation of computer and telecommunications systems (MASCOTS’02). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, p 137

  20. C. T. Inc. (2005) MPR400/410/420 mica2 mote. Datasheet 2005

  21. The Network Simulator - ns-2 (2003) http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/index.html

  22. The Zigbee Alliance (2008) http://www.zigbee.org/en

  23. Denes J, Keedwell AD (1974) Latin squares and their applications. Academic, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the MKE under the ITRC support program supervised by the IITA(IITA-2008-(C1090-0801-0016)). Dr. Choong Seon Hong is the corresponding author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Choong Seon Hong.

Appendix

Appendix

Theorem 1

In the multiple complementary tree-based key distribution with t trees, where there is no correlation between nodes’ locations in different trees and t ≪ N, the probability of security compromise, p compromise , is \(\left(\frac{2}{(d + 1)}\right)^t\) .

Proof

Consider the single complementary tree-based key distribution in Fig. 1. Let l be the intruder that can observe the communication between sensor j and k. We want to identify the probability that l is aware of the secret(s) used by j and k. Now, consider different cases based on the shared secrets that j and k use during communication. Since no secrets are associated with the root, first consider the case where j and k use the secret(s) at level 2. Such a situation occurs if k is not a descendant of the level-2 ancestor of j. Thus, the probability of this case is \(\frac{(d - 1)}{d}\). Additionally, the probability that l is aware of all the secrets is d/2; l knows all the secrets used by j and k if and only if l is a descendant of the level-2 ancestor of j or l is a descendant of the level-2 ancestor of k. Next, we consider the probability that j and k use the secret at level 3 in the tree. Such a situation arises if k is a descendent of the level-2 ancestor of j and k is not a descendent of the level-3 ancestor of j. Thus, the probability of this case is \(\frac{1}{d} \times \frac{(d - 1)}{2}\). Moreover, l is aware of the shared secret(s) between j and k if and only if l is a descendant of the level-3 ancestor of j or l is a descendant of the level-3 ancestor of k. Thus, the probability of this case is \(\frac{2}{d} \times \frac{1}{d}\). Continuing this way, the probability, p compromise, that l is aware of the secret(s) used by j and k in a single complementary tree is

$$\begin{array}{lll} p_{\rm compromise} &=& \frac{(d - 1)}{d} \frac{2}{d}\left(\sum\limits_{j=0}^h(1/d)^{2j}\right)\\ &&< \frac{(d - 1)}{d} \frac{2}{d}\left(\sum\limits_{j=0}^\infty(1/d)^{2j}\right)\\ &=& \frac{(d - 1)}{d} \frac{2}{d} \frac{1}{(1-1/d^2)}\\ &=& \frac{2}{d + 1}. \end{array}$$

With t complementary trees, \(p_{\rm compromise} = \left(\frac{2}{(d + 1)}\right)^t\).□

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hamid, M.A., Hong, C.S. Energy conserving security mechanisms for wireless sensor networks. Ann. Telecommun. 64, 723 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-009-0088-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-009-0088-z

Keywords

Navigation