skip to main content
10.1145/3564746.3587013acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesacm-seConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Analysis of ECDSA's Computational Impact on IoT Network Performance

Published:12 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Internet of Things (IoT) is transforming the world. On the one hand, its rapid integration into many systems is making automation easier, but on the other hand dependence of many processes on IoT is also making the IoT an attractive target for exploitation. One of the attacks that IoT devices can suffer from is device impersonation. To verify that the sender of a piece of information is who it claims to be, digital signatures are a solution. Applying digital signatures requires some overhead, and that overhead may impact the performance of an IoT network. In this paper, we observed the computational impact of using the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to create and verify IoT devices' digital signatures. We used two criteria to evaluate the performance of our small IoT network: the packet loss and the average time needed to sign and verify a packet in a small IoT network. We also analyzed the same system without using digital signatures. Our evaluations show that in a small IoT sensor network, ECDSA computational impact is quite low.

References

  1. Seyed Farhad Aghili, Maede Ashouri-Talouki, and Hamid Mala. 2018. DoS, Impersonation and De-Synchronization Attacks Against an Ultra-Lightweight RFID Mutual Authentication Protocol for IoT. The Journal of Supercomputing 74, 1 (2018), 509--525.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Zainab Alansari, Safeeullah Soomro, Mohammad Riyaz Belgaum, and Shahaboddin Shamshirband. 2018. The Rise of Internet of Things (IoT) in Big Healthcare Data: Review and Open Research Issues. In Progress in Advanced Computing and Intelligent Engineering, Khalid Saeed, Nabendu Chaki, Bibudhendu Pati, Sambit Bakshi, and Durga Prasad Mohapatra (Eds.). Springer Singapore, Singapore, 675--685.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdullah Aziz, Olov Schelén, and Ulf Bodin. 2020. A Study on Industrial IoT for the Mining Industry: Synthesized Architecture and Open Research Directions. IoT 1, 2 (2020), 529--550. https://www.mdpi.com/2624-831X/1/2/29Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Zhihua Cui, Xianghua Xu, Fei Xue, Xingjuan Cai, Yang Cao, Wensheng Zhang, and Jinjun Chen. 2020. Personalized Recommendation System Based on Collaborative Filtering for IoT Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 13, 4 (2020), 685--695. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ikram Ud Din, Mohsen Guizani, Byung-Seo Kim, Suhaidi Hassan, and Muhammad Khurram Khan. 2019. Trust Management Techniques for the Internet of Things: A Survey. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 29763--29787. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Espressif. 2022. ESP-NOW: Espressif's Wireless Communication Protocol. https://www.espressif.com/en/news/ESP-NOWGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Espressif. 2022. ESP32 Series. https://www.espressif.com/sites/default/files/documentation/esp32_datasheet_en.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Espressif. 2022. Espressif. https://www.espressif.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Saman Forouzandeh, Atae Rezaei Aghdam, Mostafa Barkhordari, Seyed Amin Fahimi, Mohsen Karzari Vayqan, Soran Forouzandeh, and Ehsan Ghasem Khani. 2017. Recommender System for Users of Internet of Things (IoT). IJCSNS 17, 8 (2017), 46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Asma Haroon, Sana Akram, Munam Ali Shah, and Abdul Wahid. 2017. E-Lithe: A Lightweight Secure DTLS for IoT. In 2017 IEEE 86th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall). Toronto, Canada, 1--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Mahmud Hossain, Shahid Noor, and Ragib Hasan. 2017. HSC-IoT: A Hardware and Software Co-Verification Based Authentication Scheme for Internet of Things. In 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Cloud Computing, Services, and Engineering (MobileCloud). San Fransisco, United States, 109--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Apurva S. Kittur, Ashu Jain, Alwyn Roshan Pais, Sabu M Thampi, Ínez Pérez Gregorio Mart, Carlos Becker Westphall, Jiankun Hu, Chun I. Fan, and Félix Gómez Mármol. 2017. Fast Verification of Digital Signatures in IoT. In Security in Computing and Communications. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 16--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Neal Koblitz. 1994. A Course in Number Theory and Cryptography (2 ed.). Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nagendra Modadugu and Eric Rescorla. 2004. The Design and Implementation of Datagram TLS. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dina Nawara and Rasha Kashef. 2020. IoT-based Recommendation Systems - An Overview. In 2020 IEEE International IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS). Vancouver, Canada, 1--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. George Oikonomou, Simon Duquennoy, Atis Elsts, Joakim Eriksson, Yasuyuki Tanaka, and Nicolas Tsiftes. 2022. The Contiki-NG Open Source Operating System for Next Generation IoT Devices. SoftwareX 18 (2022), 101089. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Satya Shah, Richard Rutherford, and Sarath Menon. 2020. Emerging Technologies of IoT Usage in Global Logistics. In 2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM). Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 251--257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group. 2022. Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group. https://www.secg.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Manuel Suárez-Albela, Tiago M. Fernández-Caramés, Paula Fraga-Lamas, and Luis Castedo. 2018. A Practical Performance Comparison of ECC and RSA for Resource-Constrained IoT Devices. In 2018 Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS). Bilbao, Spain, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Manuel Suárez-Albela, Paul Fraga-Lamas, and Tiago M. Fernández-Caramés. 2018. A Practical Evaluation on RSA and ECC-Based Cipher Suites for IoT High-Security Energy-Efficient Fog and Mist Computing Devices. Sensors 18, 11 (2018). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Lo'ai Tawalbeh, Fadi Muheidat, Mais Tawalbeh, and Muhannad Quwaider. 2020. IoT Privacy and Security: Challenges and Solutions. Applied Sciences 10, 12 (2020). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Lawrence Washington. 2008. Elliptic Curves: Number Theory and Cryptography, Second Edition. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Analysis of ECDSA's Computational Impact on IoT Network Performance

          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 Other conferences
            ACM SE '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Southeast Conference
            April 2023
            216 pages
            ISBN:9781450399210
            DOI:10.1145/3564746

            Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 12 June 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • short-paper

            Acceptance Rates

            ACM SE '23 Paper Acceptance Rate31of71submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate178of377submissions,47%
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)40
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader