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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
Kulkarni SS, Gouda MG, Arora A (2006) Secret instantiation in ad-hoc networks. Comput Commun 29(2):200–215
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Bandyopadhyay S, Coyle EJ (2004) Minimizing communication costs in hierarchically-clustered networks of wireless sensors. Comput Netw 44(1):1–16
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
Karlof C, Wagner D (2003) Secure routing in wireless sensor networks: attacks and countermeasures. Ad Hoc Netw 1(2–3):293–315
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
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
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
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
Menezes AJ, Vanstone SA, Oorschot PCV (1996) Handbook of applied cryptography. CRC, Boca Raton
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
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
C. T. Inc. (2005) MPR400/410/420 mica2 mote. Datasheet 2005
The Network Simulator - ns-2 (2003) http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/index.html
The Zigbee Alliance (2008) http://www.zigbee.org/en
Denes J, Keedwell AD (1974) Latin squares and their applications. Academic, New York
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
Corresponding author
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
With t complementary trees, \(p_{\rm compromise} = \left(\frac{2}{(d + 1)}\right)^t\).□
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-009-0088-z