Conference Paper

Evaluation of hybrid security system with cluster based key management for Wireless Sensor Networks

Mil. Coll. of Signals, NUST, Rawalpindi
DOI: 10.1109/ICIAS.2007.4658417 Conference: Intelligent and Advanced Systems, 2007. ICIAS 2007. International Conference on
Source: IEEE Xplore

ABSTRACT Security critical applications of wireless sensor networks stipulate more efficient and secure architectures for security. Hybrid security system using both public and private key cryptography along with cluster based key management can be a step further in achieving more security and efficiency at a lower cost. The paper analyzes and evaluates the hybrid security system with cluster based key management for wireless sensor networks.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
46 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent advances in wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are fueling the interest in their application in a wide variety of sensitive settings such as battlefield surveillance, border control, and infrastructure protection. Data confidentiality and authenticity are critical in these settings. However, the wireless connectivity, the absence of physical protection, the close interaction between WSNs and their physical environment, and the unattended deployment of WSNs make them highly vulnerable to node capture as well as a wide range of network-level attacks. Moreover, the constrained energy, memory, and computational capabilities of the employed sensor nodes limit the adoption of security solutions designed for wire-line and wireless networks. In this paper, we focus on the management of encryption keys in large-scale clustered WSNs. We propose a novel distributed key management scheme based on exclusion basis systems (EBS); a combinatorial formulation of the group key management problem. Our scheme is termed SHELL because it is scalable, hierarchical, efficient, location-aware, and light-weight. Unlike most existing key management schemes for WSNs, SHELL supports rekeying and, thus, enhances network security and survivability against node capture. SHELL distributes key management functionality among multiple nodes and minimizes the memory and energy consumption through trading off the number of keys and rekeying messages. In addition, SHELL employs a novel key assignment scheme that reduces the potential of collusion among compromised sensor nodes by factoring the geographic location of nodes in key assignment. Simulation results demonstrate that SHELL significantly boosts the network resilience to attacks while conservatively consuming nodes' resources
    IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 09/2006; · 1.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous key management schemes have been proposed for sensor networks. The objective of key management is to dynamically establish and maintain secure channels among communicating nodes. Desired features of key management in sensor networks include energy awareness, localized impact of attacks, and scaling to a large number of nodes. A primary challenge is managing the trade-off between providing acceptable levels of security and conserving scarce resources, in particular energy, needed for network operations. Many schemes, referred to as static schemes, have adopted the principle of key predistribution with the underlying assumption of a relatively static short-lived network (node replenishments are rare, and keys outlive the network). An emerging class of schemes, dynamic key management schemes, assumes long-lived networks with more frequent addition of new nodes, thus requiring network rekeying for sustained security and survivability. In this article we present a classification of key management schemes in sensor networks delineating their similarities and differences. We also describe a novel dynamic key management scheme, localized combinatorial keying (LOCK), and compare its security and performance with a representative static key management scheme. Finally, we outline future research directions.
    IEEE Communications Magazine 05/2006; · 3.66 Impact Factor