Quantifying eavesdropping vulnerability in sensor networks

ABSTRACT

With respect to security, sensor networks have a number of considerations that separate them from traditional distributed systems. First, sensor devices are typically vulnerable to physical compromise. Second, they have significant power and processing constraints. Third, the most critical security issue is protecting the (statistically derived) aggregate output of the system, even if individual nodes may be compromised. We suggest that these considerations merit a rethinking of traditional security techniques: rather than depending on the resilience of cryptographic techniques, in this paper we develop new techniques to tolerate compromised nodes and to even mislead an adversary. We present our initial work on probabilistically quantifying the security of sensor network protocols, with respect to sensor data distributions and network topologies. Beginning with a taxonomy of attacks based on an adversary's goals, we focus on how to evaluate the vulnerability of sensor network protocols to eavesdropping. Different topologies and aggregation functions provide different probabilistic guarantees about system security, and make different trade-offs in power and accuracy.

REFERENCES

• 1: A. Arasu, S. Babu, and J. Widom. The CQL continuous query language: Semantic foundations and query execution. Technical Report 2003-67, Stanford University, 2003.
• 2: Sasikanth Avancha , Jeffrey Undercoffer , Anupam Joshi , John Pinkston, Secure sensor networks for perimeter protection, Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, v.43 n.4, p.421-435, 15 November 2003 [doi>10.1016/S1389-1286(03)00352-9]
• 3: Brian Babcock , Shivnath Babu , Mayur Datar , Rajeev Motwani , Jennifer Widom, Models and issues in data stream systems, Proceedings of the twenty-first ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems, June 03-05, 2002, Madison, Wisconsin [doi>10.1145/543613.543615]
• 4: H. Chan and A. Perrig. Security and privacy in sensor networks. IEEE Computer Magazine, pages 103--105, 2003 2003.
• 5: Fang Chu , Yizhou Wang , Carlo Zaniolo, An Adaptive Learning Approach for Noisy Data Streams, Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'04), p.351-354, November 01-04, 2004
• 6: E. Cronin, M. Sherr, and M. Blaze. On the reliability of internet eavesdropping, February 2005. Personal Communication.
• 7: Amol Deshpande , Carlos Guestrin , Wei Hong , Samuel Madden, Exploiting Correlated Attributes in Acquisitional Query Processing, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'05), p.143-154, April 05-08, 2005 [doi>10.1109/ICDE.2005.63]
• 8: A. Deshpande, C. Guestrin, S. R. Madden, J. M. Hellerstein, and W. Hong. Model-driven data acquisition in sensor networks. In 30th VLDB Conference, 2004.
• 9: W. Du, J. Deng, Y. S. Han, S. Chen, and P. Varshney. A key management scheme for wireless sensor networks using deployment knowledge. In Proceedings of The 23rd Conference of the IEEE Communications Society, 2004.
• 10: M. Gruteser, G. Schelle, A. Jain, R. Han, and D. Grunwald. Privacy-aware location sensor networks. In Proceedings of HotOS'03: 9th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, pages 163--168. USENIX, May 2003.
• 11: J. M. Hellerstein, W. Hong, S. Madden, and K. Stanek. Beyond average: Towards sophisticated sensing with queries. In 2nd International Workshop on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN '03), March 2003.
• 12: I.Miller and J.E.Freund. Probability and Statistics for Engineers, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall,Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1977.
• 13: Erland Jonsson , Tomas Olovsson, A Quantitative Model of the Security Intrusion Process Based on Attacker Behavior, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.23 n.4, p.235-245, April 1997 [doi>10.1109/32.588541]
• 14: C. Karlof and D. Wagner. Secure routing in wireless sensor networks: Attacks and countermeasures. In IEEE Int'l Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications, pages 113--127, May 2003.
• 15: Y. W. Law, S. Etalle, and P. H. Hartel. Assessing Security-Critical Energy-Efficient sensor networks. In Conf. on Security and Privacy in the Age of Uncertainty (SEC), pages 459--463, May 2003.
• 16: Samuel Madden , Michael J. Franklin , Joseph M. Hellerstein , Wei Hong, The design of an acquisitional query processor for sensor networks, Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, June 09-12, 2003, San Diego, California [doi>10.1145/872757.872817]
• 17: Thomas M. Mitchell, Machine Learning, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1997
• 18: Adrian Perrig , Robert Szewczyk , Victor Wen , David Culler , J. D. Tygar, SPINS: security protocols for sensor netowrks, Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, p.189-199, July 2001, Rome, Italy [doi>10.1145/381677.381696]
• 19: Bartosz Przydatek , Dawn Song , Adrian Perrig, SIA: secure information aggregation in sensor networks, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, November 05-07, 2003, Los Angeles, California, USA [doi>10.1145/958491.958521]
• 20: Stuart Edward Schechter , Michael D. Smith, Computer security strength and risk: a quantitative approach, 2004
• 21: David Wagner, Resilient aggregation in sensor networks, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Security of ad hoc and sensor networks, October 25-25, 2004, Washington DC, USA [doi>10.1145/1029102.1029116]
• 22: Anthony D. Wood , John A. Stankovic, Denial of Service in Sensor Networks, Computer, v.35 n.10, p.54-62, October 2002 [doi>10.1109/MC.2002.1039518]
• 23: Y. Yao and J. Gehrke. Query processing for sensor networks. In CIDR 2003, 2003.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  C. Computer Systems Organization
  C.2 COMPUTER-COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
      C.2.0 General
          Subjects: Security and protection (e.g., firewalls)

General Terms:
Security

Keywords:
data streams, eavesdropping, probability distribution, wireless sensor networks