group 12, security in pervasive computing

8/11/2019 Group 12, Security in Pervasive Computing

1/22

0

Security Issues in Pervasive Computing

(Group 12)

Consist of :

A. Survey Security (Dedi Eko Nurcahyo, 13/356483/ptk/9185)

B.

Principle of The Security Protocol (ZAINIL ABIDIN 13/356786/PTK/9214)

C.

Security Pervasive-middleware (Hendri Novianto

13/352174/ptk/8881)

D.

Security Attack in Wireless Sensor Network (Aditya Nur Cahyo

13/356789/PTK/9215)

E.

Security Attack Prevention In Pervasive Computing (Fauziazzuhry R

13/356798/PTK/09217)

Magister Information Teknology

Electrical Engineering and Information Tech Dept.

Gadjah Mada University

2013


2/22

1

Security In Pervasive Computing

A. Survey Security (Dedi Eko Nurcahyo, 13/356483/ptk/9185)

Several years ago, stand-alone computer and small networks rely on user authentification

and acces control to provide security. These method use system-based control to verify person

identity, view resources, or to change or manage data. However, this way are inadequate to more

large networks like internet and pervasive computing because this system are has no central

control. Mobile users expect to access the locally network everytime and everywhere, this can

make a serious problem in security and access control.

Pervasive computing strives to simplify task of daily activities from the simple task like

switching-on the lights, checking e-mail, organizing meeting to the more complex task such as

booking plane ticket and managing bank account. Pervasive computing allows people to

interaction, coordination, and cooperation with smart environm`ent.

Mobile devices and embedded system has severely limited processing power, memory

capasities, software support and bandwitch characteristic. Also hardware and software more

heterogen than before, so we must selective the brand hardware or software we have choosen.

Distributed trust [1]

For security from hardware side, we must be selective from several criteria such as:

1. Dynamic rights

articulating policies for user authentication, access control, and delegation;

assigning security credentials to individuals;

allowing entities to modify access rights of other entities by delegating or deferring

their access rights to third parties and revoking rights as well; and

providing access control by checking if the initiators credentials fulfillthe policies.

2.

Models

Well-known distributed trust models include the simple public key infrastructure, and

pretty good privacy.

3. Trust architecture for pervasive system


3/22

2

4. Distributed models

A security policy is a set of rules for authorization, access control, and trust in a certain

domain; it can also contain information about some users roles and the abilities

associated with those roles.

5. Delegation Chain

6. Ontologies

7. Pervasive Computing Scenario

Device that connect to the network has more serious problem with security than not-

connected device . A computer network become more and more widespread, network security

issues have become increasingly in the future. with this high progress of increasingly of

computer network, the network security can not be ignored.

There are many case of network risks over the world, such as:

Network security event type of China in first half of 2008 [2], More and more malicious

software and website have appeared, and followed more and more computer are infected each

year. To prevent these attack, not only secured transmision and data check input need to be

solved, but also the defense has to start from the source. However, conventional security defense

technologies can no longer defend from various malicious attack on pervasive computing.


4/22

3

Figure 2. Network security event type of China in first half of 2008

With pervasive computing, users be spoiled with access everywhere anytime over the place

that embedded with smart environment. Now the research of pervasive computing security is

mainly based on trust and security authentication, privacy protection, information transmission

process in the confidentiality and integrity. Access control mechanism is the most important part

in security, it will be build a trust for people to use pervasive computing without wory about

security issues.

Pervasive computing security goals [3][4]:

Confidentiality: Confidentiality or Secrecy has to do with making information

inaccessible to unauthorized users.

Availability: Availability ensures the survivability of network services to authorized

parties when needed despite denial-of-service attacks.

Integrity: Integrity measures ensure that the received data is not altered in transit by an

adversary.

Authentication: Authentication enables a node to ensure the identity of the peer node

with which it is communicating.

Non-repudiation: Non-repudiation denotes that a node cannot deny sending a message it

has previously sent.

Authorization: Authorization ensures that only authorized nodes can be accessed to

network services or resources.

Freshness: This could mean data freshness and key freshness.


5/22

4

B. Principle of The Security Protocol (ZAINIL ABIDIN 13/356786/PTK/9214)

The goal of security protocol in WSN is to protect the information, data and resource from

attacks and misbehavior. Preventive mechanisms can be used to protect against certain types of

WSN attacks [KAR 04], [PER 02]. The protocols that ensure the confidentiality, integrity,

freshness and non-repudiation of data exchanged and authentication of their origin.

1. Mechanism Security Protocol for WSN.

1. Encryption

Cryptography is the study of mathematical methods to be applied to the security

aspects of the network or data. There are two basic processes in cryptography, the

encryption and description. Encryption is the process of converting a structured

message (plaintext) into messages that are random so it is difficult to read.To make the process of encryption and description required a key. This key is

used to transform the data into something that is confidential and is also useful for

keeping data authenticity and integrity of data.

a. Symmetric Cryptography

Figure 1. Symmetric Cryptography

Uses a symmetric cryptography the same key for encryption and decryption

process. Figure 1 illustrates the process in symmetric cryptography, using the key K a

message encrypted into ciphertext. With the same key (C key) is used to perform the

description of the ciphertext back into the original message (plaintext). The

advantages of symmetric cryptography is computational speed that can be applied to

WSN systems that have limited resources. Some examples of symmetric

cryptography algorithm is the Data Encryption Standard (DES) algorithm, RC4, RC5,

MD5 [5][6]

.


6/22

5

b. Asymmetric Cryptography.

Figure 2. Asymmetric Cryptography

Figure 2 shows the asymmetric cryptography, where different keys for encryption

with a key to the process description. In asymmetric cryptography uses two types of

keys namely public key and a private key. Excess use of asymmetric cryptography is

to provide better security in the exchange of information between devices in a WSN.

Examples of some of the asymmetric cryptographic algorithm is RSA (Rivest,

Shamir, Adleman), Curve Cryptography (ECC) algorithm, TinyPK and DSA (Digital

Signature Algorithm) [5].

2. Message Authentication Code (MAC)

Message Authentication Code (MAC) is a code or identification to prove the

authenticity of the data. The technique compares the MAC authentication values

calculated by the sender with the value calculated by the recipient authentication [].

MAC method using private key authentication in generating value. Before sending a

message, the sender will compute the MAC of the message to be sent. Figure 3 below

illustrates the process of MAC [7].

Figure 3. MAC Proccess


7/22

6

MAC gives security in the form of data integrity and authentication of data.

Data integrity can be determined if the message sent is different from the received

message. While authentication can be determined with the private key used.

3. Cipher Block Chaining (CBC)

Block cipher is one form of symmetric cryptography where the message

(plaintext) message is divided into several blocks of the same size. Then each block

separately encrypted message block confidential message (ciphertext) using the

agreed key. The advantage of using a block cipher is the ease of implementation in

the system and the error propagation that occurs does not affect the secret message

block (ciphertext) other. Weaknesses in using Cipher block is when using the same

key to encrypt the message it will be easier to know which key to use. The following

figure illustrates the CBC method, the process of encryption, a plaintext block P1 will

be XORed with the previous ciphertext block IV or [7].

Figure 4. Cipher Block Chaining processes [].

2. Security Protocol of the WSN

1. Micro Version of timed, efficient, streaming, loss-tolerant, Authentication (TESLA)

protocol

TESLA supports the authentication of the packets broadcasted by the base station on the

sensor network. WSN security mechanisms in the TESLA is using asymmetric

cryptography[8]. One limitation of Tesla is that some initial information must be unicast to

each sensor node before the authentication of broadcast messages can begin. Two steps are

necessary, as shown in Figure 5, and the time is divided into equal time intervals T. In the


8/22

7

first step, the Base Station broadcasts the packets P1, P2 ... authenticated with the key (k

is the time interval chosen for transmission); these packets are buffered by the sensors which

cannot yet verify their origin because they do not know the key ; they only know the key

Kg k-1 and due to the irreversible property of function F, they cannot deduce

.

Figure 5. (TESLA) protocol.

In the second step, the Base Station broadcasts the key In the time interval k+

(1);the sensors then check that =F(

) and that packets previously arrived at time

interval k are properly authenticated. Note that the Base Station should be sure that all the

packets have been received by the sensors before disclosing the key, otherwise, a malicious

node well positioned on the network might forge packets signed with this key before flooding

the network, and sensors would have no way of distinguishing the information from the base

station from those forged by the malicious node.

2. Security protocol for information via negotiation (SPIN Protocol)

According to a study conducted by Adrian Perring et al[9]. Stated SPIN Protocol is the

most optimal security protocol in WSN. SPIN protocol consists of blocks SNEP and

TESLAblock. The use of SPIN guarantee the security of data sent to a receiver such as data

confidentiality, authentication and data freshness of data. While TESLA responsible for

authenticated broadcast for Severely resource-constrained environments.


9/22

8

Figure 6. SPIN Protocol

3. TinySec protocol

Like the SNEP, TinySec proposes two security services: authentication only and

authentication with confidentiality. Like the SNEP and TESLA, TinySec defines an end-to-

end authentication service (between source and destination) at application level, but

additionally it offers a link level authentication between neighboring nodes (both types of

authentication are not activated simultaneously). Link level authentication offers the

advantage of rapidly detecting any falsified packet and thus avoiding energy consuming

retransmissions for intermediate sensors. In addition, it helps to protect the aggregation of

data [7]

4. Localised Encryption and Authentication Protocol (LEAP)

Localised Encryption and Authentication Protocol (LEAP) was proposed by Zhu et al

(2003) as a key management protocol for sensor networks designed to support in- network

processing, while restricting the impact of a compromised node to the network [20]. Four

types of keys are supported for each sensor node an individual key shared with the base

station, a pairwise key shared with another node, a cluster key shared with multiple

neighbouring nodes and a group key shared by all network nodes.

C.

Security Pervasive-middleware

(Hendri Novianto 13/352174/ptk/8881)The first purpose service middleware is a helping to solved interconnections applications.

Middleware must be required to migrations from application mainframe to client application or

server and also to provide communications between different platforms. This is software consists

of a provide series that allow a variety of run process on one or more machine can to interact


10/22

9

with each other. Sooner or later this is technology provide ability that support moving to

architecture distribution that related often usual to make support and simple complicate and

distribution applications[10].

Middleware is a software layer residing among and connecting different software

component or applications. It provides connectivity, abstraction, interoperability and other

service balancing and fault tolerance. Security became an important issue because most

transaction and operations occur online and need to be protected from malicious and

unintentional attacks and also from any possible risk of exposure. Well define access police,

encryptions mechanism and authentication models can helps in providing security. Pervasive

computing refers to the ubiquitous presence of computing in both mobile and embedded

environments, with the ability to access and update information anyplace and anytime[11].

Security Middleware Approach

In this section we are a representative of the research directions for security

middleware[12].

a. TMAHP2P

This is middleware providing security for ad-hoc p2p applications using a trust-based

approach and WSFEP (wireless and secure file exchange protocol). It is used for securing

digital content.

b.SGSC

Secure group communications service is a middleware service for mobile ad-hoc network,

this middleware provides flexible secure group management and support the development

and execution of distributed applications.

c. SMMU

A security management middleware designed for ubiquitous computing device. It allows the

administrator to define the needed security police and provides management service to

monitoring and controlling the interconnected device. This middleware is focus on

providing trust management service and supporting real-time mobile applications scenarios.

d.SSMAP

Security-supportive middleware architecture designed to serve mainly heterogeneous

pervasive device. It is provide with trust a manager that offers dynamic reconfigurations to

fulfill security requirements of heterogeneous service providers and consumers.


11/22

10

e. S-MARKS

This is a secure middleware for portable device in a pervasive environment. It corporate

security in the middleware design to address important issue such us device validation,

discovering resources, malicious recommendations and privacy violatio

Nowadays sensor and wireless communication technologies are rapidly evolving and

conquering new applications area in the healthcare domain. Wireless medical sensor are

becoming smaller and more powerful, allowing for ubiquitous usage of a wide range of

medical applications, such as chronic disease management.[13]

Figure (1) implementation of pervasive

Health monitoring is one of the envisioned applications A security framework for

pervasive MSNs and PANs must ensure basic security service. Privacy refers to the

protection of the user identities and information from non-authorized parties. Confidentiality

is required to protect the user medical information in the whole system, from the sensor

nodes to back-end service. The MSN security layer allows each healthcare organization, e.g.

a hospital, to manage the security in it is MSN security domain, it allows any pair of device

or user in the same MSN to bootstrap a secure communication link and identify each other.

The PAN security layer allows a user to manage the secure disclosure of her measures

medical data when interacting with MSNs (e.g., clinicians in an MSN) and back-end

services. The security management of this layer is centralized and it relies on a trusted

device linked to and controlled by the patient.[14].


12/22

11

D.Security Attack in Wireless Sensor Network

(Aditya Nur Cahyo 13/356789/PTK/9215)Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is a wireless network infrastructure that uses sensors to

monitor physical or environmental conditions, such as temperature, sound, vibration,

electromagnetic waves, pressure, movement, and others. Each node in a wireless sensor

network typically equipped with a radio tranciever or other wireless communication device, a

small microcontroller, and an energy source, usually a battery. Wireless sensor networks is

growing rapidly partly because of the low costs in development[15]. Using a wireless sensor

network, we can make some good sensors for a variety of needs for military or civilian.

wireless sensor network but also has limited resources, namely the absence of data storage

and power. Weaknesses of these resources make it difficult to apply the existing security

techniques such as traditional computer. Communication channels are not reliable and

unattended operation makes more difficult the implementation of a security system. There

are several cases of attacks designed to exploit the communication channel is not reliable and

unattended operation in wireless sensor networks. [9]

Network-based sensors such as wireless sensor networks have many susceptibility to

some types of attacks. Attacks can be done in several ways, mostly in the form of denial of

services attacks, but there are also a lot of other traffic analys eg, invasion of privacy,

physical attack and others. Due to some limitations in computational and energy resources

wireless sensor network then security against denial of services attacks in wireless sensor

networks is practically impossible. However, attacks on wireless sensor network is not

limited to denial of services, there are many other techniques that are also dangerous attacks

include takeoffer nodes, attacks on the routing protocol, and an attack on the physical

security of the node.

1. Type of Denial of Services

A standard attack on wireless sensor network nodes just for jamming or set of nodes.

Jamming, in this case, only the transmission radio signals that interfere with radio

frequencies used by sensor networks. The jamming network is divided into two forms:

constant jamming, jamming and intermittent. Constant jamming is complete jamming the


13/22

12

entire network, no messages are capable of being sent or received. If jamming is only

intermittent, then the node can exchange messages periodically, but not consistently. It also

had a devastating impact on the sensor network as messages exchanged between nodes may

be time sensitive[16].

The attack can also be performed at the link layer. One possibility is that attacker may

violate communications protocol, eg, ZigBee or IEEE 801.11b (Wi-Fi) protocol, and is

constantly sending messages in an attempt to produce collisions. The collision would require

the transmission of each packet collisions affected. Using this technique allows the attacker

to drain the power supply to the sensor nodes by forcing too many retransmissions.

At the routing layer, a node can take advantage of multihop networks to reject these

messages. This can be done temporarily or constantly, consequently neighbors through the

malicious node will not be able to exchange messages with the most tissue.

The transport layer is also vulnerable to attack, as in the case of flooding. Flooding can be as

simple as sending many connection requests to nodes are vulnerable. In this case, the

resources should be allocated to handle connection request, the source node will eventually

run out.

2. The Sybil Attack

Sybil attack is defined as "the unauthorized malicious software that takes multiple

identities" [17]. Initially described as an attack capable of defeating distributed redundancy

mechanism data storage systems in peer-to-peer[18]. Besides beating distributed data storage

systems, is also effective against Sybil attacks routing algorithms, aggregation of data, voice,

fair resource allocation and thwart detection behavior. Regardless of the target (voting,

routing, aggregation), Sybil same algorithm function. all techniques involves using multiple

identities. For example, in a sensor network voting scheme, Sybil attacks may use multiple

identities to generate additional "voice." Similarly, the routing protocol to attack, Sybil attack

will depend on the identity of malicious nodes take on multiple nodes, and so routing

multiple paths through a single malicious node.

3.Traffic Analys Attack

Wireless sensor networks typically consist of many low-power sensor communicate with

multiple base stations are relatively sturdy and strong. It is not unusual, therefore, for the data

to be gathered by the individual nodes where it is finally forwarded to the base station. Often,


14/22

13

the enemy effectively making the network useless, the attacker can simply turn off the base

station, ntuk make matters worse.

A strike rate of just monitoring the node closest to the notion that to the base station tend

to forward more packets than the more distant from the base station. An attacker only needs

to monitor where nodes sending packets and follow those nodes that transmit packets. In time

correlation attack, the enemy only generate and monitor events to whom the node sends its

packets. To generate an attack, the enemy can produce physical events which will be

monitored by a sensor in the area[19].

4. Node Replication Attack

Node replication attack is basically quite simple: an attacker trying to add a node to an

existing sensor network to copy (replicate) the node ID from existing sensor nodes. A node is

replicated in this fashion can be very disturbing performance of the sensor network: packets

can be corrupted or even misrouted[20]. This can lead to disconnected network, one reading

on the sensor, etc. If an attacker can gain physical access to the entire network he can copy a

cryptographic key with the sensor and the last replication can also insert node replication to

strategic points in the network. By incorporating replicated nodes on a specific network

points, an attacker can easily manipulating certain segments of the network.

5. Attack Againts Privacy

Sensor network technology yielding a large increase in automatic data collection

capabilities through efficient deployment of tiny sensor devices. While this technology offers

many benefits to users, while this technology also has the potential to be abused. Concerns

raised is the issue of privacy, for sensor networks provide enhanced capabilities of data

collection either location data, identity and so on[21]. Enemies can use the data or the data

may seem harmless to obtain sensitive information if they know how to correlate multiple

sensor inputs.

The main problem in the privacy that is not due to sensor networks enables the collection

of information. The fact that, a lot of information from a sensor network may be collected

through surveillance company website. On the contrary, sensor networks exacerbate privacy

issues because they make a great the volume of information that is easily available via

remote access. Therefore, the enemy does not need to be physically present to maintain

control. They can gather information by anonymous. Remote access is also allows the


15/22

14

adversary to monitor multiple sites simultaneously[22]. Some of a more general attack on the

privacy of the sensor are:

a. Monitor and Eavesdropping

Monitor and Eavesdropping is the most frequent attack in privacy. By monitoring the data,

the enemy can easily find the content of the communication. When conveying traffic

control information about the configuration of the sensor network, which contains

potentially more detailed information than is accessible via the server location,

eavesdropping can act effectively against privacy protection.

b. Traffic Analysis

Traffic analysis usually combines with monitoring and eavesdropping. Increasing the

number of packets transmitted between certain nodes may give an indication that a

particular sensor has been registered activity. Through the analysis on the traffic, several

sensors with specific roles or activities can be effectively identified.

c. Camouflage

Adversary can insert nodes or hide nodes in a sensor network. After that, the node can be

disguised as a normal node to attract packet, then deflect the packet.

6. Physical Attack

Sensor networks typically operate in outdoor environments. in such an environment, the

small form factor of the sensor, coupled with the unattended and distributed nature of their

deployment makes them particularly vulnerable to physical attacks, namely, the threat of

destruction due to physical nodes[23]. Unlike many other attacks mentioned above, physical

attacks permanently destroy the sensor, so the loss is irreversible. For example, the attacker

can extract secret cryptography, tamper with associated circuitry, modify programming on

the sensor, or replace it with malicious sensors under control of the attacker. If the adversary

compromises a sensor node, then the code can be modified in a physical node[24].


16/22

15

E. Security Attack Prevention In Pervasive Computing

(Fauziazzuhry R 13/356798/PTK/09217)

Nowadays, pervasive computing has been important things to do computing everywhere.

They spread over us, computing anything, and service the information context aware we need.

But implementation of having pervasive computing, coupled with some issues. One of them is

security issues, especially on security attack. So here discussed about how to prevent Security

Attack.

1.. Denial of Service (DOS)

Fig 1. Denial of Service[25].

Figure 1 illustrated Denial of Service Attack( DoS), occurrs in the network affects the entire

network performance. Dropping attack is either Packet Dropping or Datagram Dropping .Both

these attacks occur corresponding to Transport layer of Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) stack

which affects the entire functionality of transport layer. The DOS Attack can be prevent with :

1.1Cluster Based Datagram Chunk Dropping Detection and Prevention Technique

(CBDCDDPT), DoS Attack Prevention Methods.

Fig2. The Normal Datagram[25]Fig 3. Buffer of Node n1[25]


17/22

16

Figure 2 shows the normal flow of Datagram chunks in the network with no intruder. At each

node there is a buffer having the chunks contains chunk_no and chunk_data fields being

transferred from node N1 to node N5 via N2 and N3. Figure 3 illustrated buffers at Node n1.

Fig 4. The

Occurence of

Intruders detected

by DatagramBuffers[25]

Fig 5. Intrusion Detection using

CBDCDDPT[25]

Fig 6. Normal flow

of Datagrams after

Intrusion Detection

and Preventionusing

CBDCDDPT[25]

Figure 4 shows flow of traffic under Datagram Chunk Dropping attack..Figure 5 shows that

node N3 becomes intruder. Katal, et.al proposed Cluster Based Datagram Chunk Dropping

Detection and Preventi on Technique(CBDCDDPT) in which cluster head compares the buffer

which was sent by source node to the buffer maintained at all intermediate nodes. [25]Figure 6.

shows a new routing path, formed after intrusion.

CBDCDDPT detection process by omitting the intruder node (N3) and thus achieving

normal flow of traffic in the network. Figure 5 shows the mismatch in sequence numbers

assigned to the chunks created from datagram (chunk_no) because of the dropping of chunks

being done by the intruder node N3. The chunk_data fields are also matched if chunk_no fields

match. This is detected by cluster head because of the buffer which was sent by the source node

initially before starting the datagram transmission along the path. CBDCDDPT is Cluster Based

Intrusion Detection and Prevention Technique which is capable of working efficiently if an

intermediate node becomes Datagram Chunk Dropping attacker. So the technique can preventDoS attack with dropping unknown datagram packet.

2. Security in Embedded System (Physical Hardware Layer)

The security not only focus on software, but also the defense of system hardware. Huang

et.al, introduce a low-cost, high-performance hardware platform security of the embedded

system, based on TPM (Trusted Platform Modules) and FPGA (Field Programmable Gates


18/22

17

Array) technology, called TFSES [26]. The main purpose of the system is protect the integrity

and privacy of application from physical attacks.

2.1 TFSES Security Blocks

2.1.1 Securing the hardware ID.

FPGA and flash are manufactured, with security by a unique ID by the factory. FPGAs ID

is called Device DNA and flash is Factory ID [26]., TFSES systems key proposed by

Huang,et.al generated with the unique ID which can keep the FPGA from being counterfeit.

Combining the flash Factory ID to the key let the security become stronger. As figure 7 shows,

the Device DNA and Factory flash ID at the beginning, and then encrypt them together through a

special security algorithm. So the key from security algorithm generating not only can validate

the FPGA authenticity but also make the hacker hard difficult to hack the core

Figure 7. Generating Unique ID Combine Flash ID and Device DNA (FPGA ID) [26]

2.2.2 Securing the memoriesThe purpose of securing Embedded System is not only on the Hardware ID, but also to protect

and lockdown the memories[26]. Securing the memories is important to prevent the Embedded

System being reverse engineering, cloning, and overbuilding by the Hardware Hackers.

Lockdown function permanently locks selected memories into read-only ROM. Once the

memory is locked down, it cannot be erased or modified. TFESE store the key, DES, SHA and

other important bitstream code into this In-system flash which provides a robust, cost-effective

solution. Figure 8 described the In-system flash.


19/22

18

Figure 8. Security memories with In-system flash[26].

3. Wormholes Attack Prevention in Mobile AdHoc Network (MANET).

The detection of wormholes in ad hoc networks is difficult without using specialized

hardwares. Choi, et.al, propose an algorithm to detect wormholes without any special hardwares.

Choi, et.al proposed the methods by monitoring Neighbours Nodes and calculating the WormPrevention Timer[27].

3.1 Neighbor Node Monitoring and Worm Prevention Timer (WPT)

Neighbor Node Monitoring is used to detect neighbors node. The prevention system detect

wormholes by using a special timer.[27]For using this timer, all the nodes do not require clock

synchronization, except the source node. As soon as a node sends a RREQ packet, it must set the

WPT and wait after sending the RREQ packet until it overhears its neighbors retransmission.

Figure 17 shows an example of the secure neighbor monitoring. Node A sends a RREQ

(Route Request) , which starts a wormhole prevention timer (WPT). When node B receives the

RREQ. Once a malicious node overhears a RREQ, to know the identity what node that send

RREQ, and what nodes that receives. So the data packet details must be included with the

addressed and time when Request. The details decribed at Table 1.

Figure 9. Example Neighbour Network Monitoring, (a) with legitimate nodes

(b) monitoring wormholes nodes [27].


20/22

19

Table 1. Neighbour Nodes Table[27]

In The Table 1, show if any node sends a RREQ, it records the RREQ sequence number and

sending time of the RREQ. Then, on overhearing a RREQ from any node, it records the address

of the neighbor node and the time when it receives the packet. If the node receives the RREQ

after the timer count, called as WPT, it considers the neighbor node sending the RREQ as a node

affected by wormhole nodes. The count value in its table will be increased by 1.

The Worm Prevention Timer on relies on the nodes. If the nodes likes the sensor nodes, the

WPT given by Equation 1, and then if the nodes are have mobility, the WPT given Equation 2

[27].

Where TR= Transmission Range (Packet Distance); Vp = propagation speed of packet (max

speed of light 3.108m/s). Vn=Average velocity of nodes (for mobile nodes).

So detecting the nodes are worms or not, just calculated the delay per hop, given by Equation 3

[27].

Where Ta= the time node broadcast RREQ (request) packet, Tb= time node receives RREP

(replies) packet. Hop count must be calculated. For example one hope routes means the time

route = WPT/2. The delay must be smallest or equal that WPT. If the time greater than WPT, it

signed the Worms Node, so it can be dropped from the network easily.


21/22

20

Referensi

[1] L. Kagal, T. Finin, And A. Joshi, Trust-Based Security In Pervasive Computing

Environments, Dec. 2001.[2] L.Z.Hua, J.Zhen, and L.Tao, Research on Pervasive Computing Security, Symp. Work.Ubiquitous Auton. Trust. Comput., 2010.

[3] X.Chen, K.Makki, and K.Yen, Sensor Network Security: A Survey,IEEE Commun. Surv.

Tutorials, vol. 11. No.2. Second Quarter, 2009.[4] J.Sahoo, S.Hohapatra, and R.Lath, Virtualization: A Survey On Concepts, Taxonomy And

Associated Security Issues, Second Int. Conf. Comput. Netw. Technol., 2010.

[5] O. O. Khalifa, M. R. Islam, S. Khan, and M. S. Shebani, Communications cryptography, in

RF and Microwave Conference, 2004. RFM 2004. Proceedings, 2004, pp. 220223.[6] O. Hyncica, P. Kucera, P. Honzik, and P. Fiedler, Performance evaluation of symmetric

cryptography in embedded systems, in 2011 IEEE 6th International Conference on

Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems (IDAACS), 2011, vol. 1, pp.277282.

[7] F. Ullah, M. Ahmad, M. Habib, and J. Muhammad, Analysis of security protocols for

Wireless Sensor Networks, in 2011 3rd International Conference on Computer Research

and Development (ICCRD), 2011, vol. 2, pp. 383387.[8] V. Casola, A. De Benedictis, A. Drago, and N. Mazzocca, Analysis and Comparison of

Security Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks, in 2011 30th IEEE Symposium on Reliable

Distributed Systems Workshops (SRDSW), 2011, pp. 5256.[9] A. Perrig, R. Szewczyk, J. D. Tygar, V. Wen, and D. E. Culler, SPINS: Security protocols

for sensor networks, Wirel. Networks, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 521534, 2002.

[10] A. Jameela, A. Alyaziyah, A. Fatmah, and M. Nader,, A Survey of Security Middleware

for Pervasive and Ubiquitous Systems, Coll Inf Technol UAE Univ Al Ain UAE Pp 188193.

[11] Shiva Chetan, J. Al-Muhtadi, R. Campbell, and M. D. Mickuna, Mobile Gaia: a

middleware for ad-hoc pervasive computing, Consum. Commun. Netw. Conf. 2005 CCNC2005 Second IEEE 2005 Pp 223228.

[12] Zhang, M, S. Zhu, B. Yang, and W. Zhang, Trust-based Distributed Authentication

Middleware in Ubiquitous Mobile Environment,Proc 3rd Int Conf Nat Comput Pp 814-818August 2007.

[13] U. Varshney, Pervasive Healtcare, Comput. Vol 36 No 12, pp. 138140, Dec. 2003.

[14] K. I.-K. Wang, H. Park, Z. Salcic, and P. Ratnayaka,A system-level approach for

designing context-aware distributed pervasive applications, vol. 7861 LNCS. 2013.[15] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, Wireless sensor

networks: A survey, Comput. Networks, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 393422, 2002.

[16] A. D. Wood and J. A. Stankovic, Denial of service in sensor networks, Computer, vol.

35, no. 10, pp. 5462, 2002.[17] J. Newsome, E. Shi, D. Song, and A. Perrig, The Sybil attack in sensor networks:

Analysis & defenses, 2004, pp. 259268.

[18] M. Sood and A. Vasudeva,Perspectives of Sybil attack in routing protocols of mobile adhoc network, vol. 131 LNEE. 2013.


22/22

21

[19] J. Deng, R. Han, and S. Mishra, Countermeasures against traffic analysis attacks in

wireless sensor networks, 2005, vol. 2005, pp. 113126.

[20] B. Parno, A. Perrig, and V. Gligor, Distributed detection of node replication attacks in

sensor networks, 2005, pp. 4963.

[21] D. Anthony, D. Kotz, and T. Henderson, Privacy in location-aware computing

environments,IEEE Pervasive Comput., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6472, 2007.[22] H. Chan and A. Perrig, Security and privacy in sensor networks, Computer, vol. 36, no.10, pp. 103105, 2003.

[23] X. Wang, S. Chellappan, W. Gu, W. Yu, and D. Xuan, Search-based physical attacks in

sensor networks, 2005, vol. 2005, pp. 489496.[24] X. Wang, W. Gu, K. Schosek, S. Chellappan, and D. Xuan, Sensor network

configuration under physical attacks,Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput., vol. 4, no. 34,

pp. 174182, 2009.

[25] A. Katal, M. Wazid, R. H. Goudar, and D. P. Singh, A cluster based detection andprevention mechanism against novel datagram chunk dropping attack in MANET

multimedia transmission, 2013, pp. 479484.

[26] H. Huang, C. Hu, and J. He, A security embedded system base on tcm and FPGA,2009, pp. 605609.

[27] S. Choi, D.-Y. Kim, D.-H. Lee, and J.-I. Jung, WAP: Wormhole Attack Prevention

algorithm in mobile ad hoc networks, 2008, pp. 343348.

group 12, security in pervasive computing

Documents