skip to main content
10.1145/3345768.3355910acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmswimConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Byzantine-Tolerant Distributed Consensus Algorithm for Connected Vehicles Using Proof-of-Eligibility

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Emerging applications in connected vehicles have tremendous potential for advances in safety, navigation, traffic management and fuel efficiency, while also posing new security challenges such as false information attacks. This paper targets the problem of securing critical information that is disseminated among nearby vehicles for safety and traffic efficiency purposes through distributed consensus. We present a consensus algorithm, which uses a "proof of eligibility" test to establish that a group of vehicles are actually within the vicinity of the information source. With the presence of a limited number of compromised (Byzantine faulty) participants, our algorithm provides correct consensus among healthy vehicles in real time. The algorithm provides fast and reliable consensus group formation and private key distribution without privileged members, trusted setup, or leader election. In addition to proving a safety property of our consensus algorithm, we have implemented it on top of a widely-used vehicle simulation environment (SUMO, OMNeT++ and Veins) and evaluated its performance on a model of the streets in a real midtown area. Simulation results demonstrate that the algorithm can reach consensus very efficiently (within 9.5s) and with up to 30% of compromised vehicles in a given area. The simulations also demonstrate the ability of our algorithm to more quickly disseminate information about a traffic accident and more efficiently route traffic around the accident site, as compared to previous robust information dissemination approaches.

References

  1. M. Al-Kahtani. 2012. Survey on security attacks in Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs). In Signal Processing and Communication Systems (ICSPCS), 2012 6th International Conference on. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Arshad, Z. Ullah, N. Ahmad, M. Khalid, H. Criuckshank, and Y. Cao. 2018. A survey of local/cooperative-based malicious information detection techniques in VANETs. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 1 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Augustine, G. Pandurangan, and P. Robinson. 2013. Fast byzantine agreement in dynamic networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Abdulkader B., Pascale L., and Frédéric G. 2015. Solving Consensus in Opportunistic Networks. In ICDCN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Z. Cao, J. Kong, U. Lee, M. Gerla, and Z. Chen. 2008. Proof-of-relevance: Filtering false data via authentic consensus in vehicle ad-hoc networks. In INFOCOM Workshops 2008, IEEE. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Castro, B. Liskov, et al. 1999. Practical Byzantine fault tolerance. In OSDI, Vol. 99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Cavin, Y. Sasson, and A. Schiper. 2004. Consensus with unknown participants or fundamental self-organization. In International Conference on Ad-Hoc Networks and Wireless. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Q. Chen, Y. Yin, Y. Feng, Z M. Mao, and H. Liu. [n. d.]. Exposing Congestion Attack on Emerging Connected Vehicle based Traffic Signal Control. ([n. d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Q. Ding, X. Li, M. Jiang, and X. Zhou. 2010. Reputation management in vehicular ad hoc networks. In Int'l Conf. on Multimedia Technology. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Dotzer, L. Fischer, and P. Magiera. 2005. Vars: A vehicle ad-hoc network reputation system. In World of Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Networks, 2005. WoWMoM 2005. Sixth IEEE International Symposium on a. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Douceur. 2002. The sybil attack. In International workshop on peer-to-peer systems. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. T. Garip, H. Kim, P. Reiher, and M. Gerla. 2017. INTERLOC: An interferenceaware RSSI-based localization and Sybil attack detection mechanism for vehicular ad hoc networks. In 14th Annual Consumer Comm. & Networking Conf. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. Ghosh, A. Varghese, A. Gupta, A. A Kherani, and S. Muthaiah. 2010. Detecting misbehaviors in VANET with integrated root-cause analysis. Ad Hoc Networks 8, 7 (2010), 778--790.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. F. Greve and S. Tixeuil. 2007. Knowledge connectivity vs. synchrony requirements for fault-tolerant agreement in unknown networks. In Dependable Systems and Networks, 2007. DSN'07. 37th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Grover, Nitesh. Prajapati, V. Laxmi, and Manoj. Gaur. 2011. Machine learning approach for multiple misbehavior detection in VANET. In International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. Guerraoui, F. Huc, and A. Kermarrec. 2013. Highly dynamic distributed computing with byzantine failures. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. D. Krajzewicz, J. Erdmann, M. Behrisch, and L. Bieker. 2012. Recent Development and Applications of SUMO - Simulation of Urban Mobility. International Journal On Advances in Systems and Measurements 5, 3&4 (December 2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. L. Lamport et al. 2001. Paxos made simple. ACM Sigact News 32, 4 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. L. Lamport, R. Shostak, and M. Pease. 1982. The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 4, 3 (1982).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. T. Leinmüller, E. Schoch, F. Kargl, and C. Maihöfer. 2010. Decentralized position verification in geographic ad hoc routing. Security and communication networks 3, 4 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Z. Li and C. Chigan. 2014. On joint privacy and reputation assurance for vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 13, 10 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. N. Lo and H. Tsai. 2007. Illusion attack on vanet applications-a message plausibility problem. In Globecom Workshops, 2007 IEEE. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. NHTSA. [n. d.]. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/12/2016--31059/ federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-v2v-communications#h-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. NHTSA. 2017. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/ 12/2016--31059/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-v2v-communicationsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. D. Ongaro and J. Ousterhout. 2014. In search of an understandable consensus algorithm.. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. OpenStreetMap contributors. 2017. Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org . https://www.openstreetmap.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J. Petit and Z. Mammeri. 2011. Dynamic consensus for secured vehicular ad hoc networks. In Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2011 IEEE 7th International Conference on. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. C. Qi and M. Z. Morley. [n. d.]. Connected cars can lie, posing a new threat to smart cities. https://theconversation.com/ connected-cars-can-lie-posing-a-new-threat-to-smart-cities-95339Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. K. Rabieh, M. Mahmoud, T. N Guo, and M. Younis. 2015. Cross-layer scheme for detecting large-scale colluding Sybil attack in VANETs. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. C. Sommer, R. German, and F. Dressler. 2011. Bidirectionally Coupled Network and Road Traffic Simulation for Improved IVC Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 10, 1 (January 2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2010.133Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. R. van der Heijden, S. Dietzel, and F. Kargl. 2013. Misbehavior detection in vehicular ad-hoc networks. 1st GI/ITG KuVS Fachgespräch Inter-Vehicle Communication. University of Innsbruck (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. R. van der Heijden, S. Dietzel, T. Leinmüller, and F. Kargl. 2016. Survey on misbehavior detection in cooperative intelligent transportation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.06810 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. L.Wu and H. Tsai. 2013. Modeling vehicle-to-vehicle visible light communication link duration with empirical data. In Globecom Workshops, 2013. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. W. Wu, J. Cao, and M. Raynal. 2008. Eventual clusterer: A modular approach to designing hierarchical consensus protocols in manets. IEEE Transactions on Parallel & Distributed Systems 6 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Y. Yao, B. Xiao, G. Wu, X. Liu, Z. Yu, K. Zhang, and X. Zhou. 2019. Multi-channel based Sybil attack detection in vehicular ad hoc networks using RSSI. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 18, 2 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Byzantine-Tolerant Distributed Consensus Algorithm for Connected Vehicles Using Proof-of-Eligibility

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          MSWIM '19: Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems
          November 2019
          340 pages
          ISBN:9781450369046
          DOI:10.1145/3345768

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 25 November 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate398of1,577submissions,25%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader