Trustworthy Sensor Networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Trustworthy Sensor Networks PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6832bb-ZjU1Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Trustworthy Sensor Networks

Description:

Trustworthy Sensor Networks Daniel Aegerter, 41542053 Supervisor: Rajan Shankaran Agenda Problem Statement Wireless Sensor Networks Notion of Trust in Wireless Sensor ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:55
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: SanC70
Learn more at: http://clt.mq.edu.au
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Trustworthy Sensor Networks


1
Trustworthy Sensor Networks
  • Daniel Aegerter, 41542053
  • Supervisor Rajan Shankaran

2
Agenda
  • Problem Statement
  • Wireless Sensor Networks
  • Notion of Trust in Wireless Sensor Networks
  • Comparative Analysis
  • Recommendations

3
Problem
  • Security is critical in many applications of
    Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs)
  • Battlefield surveillance
  • Patient monitoring
  • Environment monitoring
  • Security mechanisms assume trustworthiness of
    participating nodes
  • What happens if nodes get compromised?
  • Access key material
  • Change content of messages
  • Drop messages
  • Lives and livelihoods might depend on the
    correctness of the data

4
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs)
  • Sensor nodes sense data from the environment and
    detect specific events
  • Sensor nodes are equipped with sensors to monitor
    a wide range of physical conditions
  • Temperature, Humidity, Light, Pressure, Object
    motion, Noise, etc.
  • Sensor nodes are constrained by limited resources

Memory
Communicationdevice
Processor Unit
Sensor Unit
Power Unit
5
Network Architecture
  • Components of Wireless Sensor Networks
  • Common Sensor Nodes
  • Base Station
  • Multihop communication

6
Notion of Trust
  • Trust is the subjective probability by which an
    individual, A, expects that another individual,
    B, performs a given action on which its welfare
    depends (Gambetta, 1988)

In the context of WSNs
  • Trustworthy sensor nodes dont
  • Manipulate gathered information
  • Alter information received from neighbouring
    nodes
  • Flood the network with bogus routing information
  • Drop messages received from other nodes

7
Challenges in Evaluating Trust for WSNs
  • Limited processing, storage, and energy resources
  • Existing protocols and mechanisms are not
    applicable
  • Minimise communication overhead
  • Trusted authority not present in WSNs
  • Public key mechanisms and certificates not
    suitable
  • Adoption of architectural network changes
  • Dynamic nature of WSNs
  • Nodes may become faulty or compromised
  • ? Trust re-evaluation is essential

8
Concept of Reputation-Based Trust Systems
  • Trust is based on a nodes behaviour
  • Does the node behave in a correct manner?
  • Network events and correctness of gathered
    information
  • Trust evaluation through first and second-hand
    information
  • Direct observations
  • Recommendations from peers
  • Building blocks
  • Watchdog mechanism ? collects evidence
  • Reputation system ? evaluates and maintains trust

9
Comparative Analysis
  • Compares five reviewed reputation-based
    frameworks
  • Reputation-based framework for high integrity
    sensor network (RFSN)
  • Gaussian trust model and reputation system
    (GRSSN)
  • Lightweight group based trust management scheme
    (GTMS)
  • Trust-based cluster head election
  • Certificate and behaviour-based approach
  • Determines characteristics and constraints of
    each framework
  • Proposes categories to conduct the comparative
    analysis
  • Trust management
  • Node and network requirement
  • Trust evaluation

10
Comparative Analysis Some Criteria
  • Evidence
  • Network events vs. correctness of sensed data
  • Pre-established trust relationships
  • Do sensor nodes trust each other at time of
    deployment?
  • Storage complexity
  • Tables, keys, certificates
  • Revocation
  • What happens with non-cooperative sensor nodes?

11
Comparative Analysis Outcomes
  • All frameworks have some design problems
  • Difficult to take all characteristics and
    constraints of WSNs into account
  • Frameworks are application specific
  • Different assumptions
  • Different requirements (e.g. supernodes, keys,
    certificates)
  • Sophisticated frameworks are more complex
  • Economical issues
  • Management issues
  • Evidence analysis
  • Network events or also correctness of sensed data?

12
Recommendations
  • Collaborative reputation-based approach for
    establishing trust
  • Behaviour of nodes is observed by a subset of
    sensor nodes
  • Other nodes do not have to monitor network events
  • Guardian nodes
  • Guardian nodes evaluate collaborative
    trustworthiness of nodes
  • All sensor nodes are directly observable by
    guardian nodes
  • Guardian node evaluate whether a node is
    cooperative
  • Opinions are shared among guardian nodes
  • Blacklist entry has to be confirmed by other
    guardians
  • Sensor node keep list with non-cooperative nodes

13
Recommendations - Example
14
Future Research Directions
  • Analyse correctness of sensed data not only
    network events
  • Trust evaluation for different roles that sensor
    node can perform
  • Forward messages
  • Aggregate data
  • Sense information

Thank you
15
Questions
About PowerShow.com