Comparing trust mechanisms for monitoring aggregator nodes in sensor networks

ABSTRACT

Sensor nodes are often used to collect data from locations inaccessible or hazardous for humans. As they are not under normal supervision, these nodes are particularly susceptible to physical damage or remote tampering. Generally, a hierarchical data collection scheme is used by the sensors to report data to the base station. It is difficult to precisely identify and eliminate a tampered node in such a data collecting hierarchy. Most security schemes for sensor networks focuses on developing mechanism for nodes located higher in the hierarchy to monitor those located at lower levels. We propose a complementary mechanism with which the nodes at lower levels can monitor their parents in the hierarchy to detect malicious behavior. Every node maintains a reputation value of its parent and updates this at the end of every data reporting cycle. We propose a novel combination of statistical testing techniques and existing reputation management and reinforcement learning schemes to manage the reputation of a parent node. The probability that the parent node is malicious is calculated using various combination of the Q-learning algorithm and the β-Reputation scheme. The input to the β-Reputation scheme is a history of boolean events consisting of correct or erroneous data reporting events by the parent node. The boolean events are generated at each data reporting period using statistical tests. Our approach can be viewed as a mechanism composed of different modules for the detection of a malicious event, interpretation of the malicious event and updating node reputation value based on the interpretation. We have created different versions of our system by varying these components. We compared the effectiveness of these alternative designs in detecting different types of malicious behavior in sensor networks.

REFERENCES

• 1: Intel Research Lab, Berkeley.
• 2: Haowen Chan , Adrian Perrig , Dawn Song, Random Key Predistribution Schemes for Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, p.197, May 11-14, 2003
• 3: Jen-Yeu Chen , Gopal Pandurangan , Dongyan Xu, Robust computation of aggregates in wireless sensor networks: distributed randomized algorithms and analysis, Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on Information processing in sensor networks, April 24-27, 2005, Los Angeles, California
• 4: Amol Deshpande , Suman Nath , Phillip B. Gibbons , Srinivasan Seshan, Cache-and-query for wide area sensor databases, Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, June 09-12, 2003, San Diego, California [doi>10.1145/872757.872818]
• 5: Laurent Eschenauer , Virgil D. Gligor, A key-management scheme for distributed sensor networks, Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, November 18-22, 2002, Washington, DC, USA [doi>10.1145/586110.586117]
• 6: Deborah Estrin , Ramesh Govindan , John Heidemann , Satish Kumar, Next century challenges: scalable coordination in sensor networks, Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking, p.263-270, August 15-19, 1999, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/313451.313556]
• 7: Tian He , Brian M. Blum , John A. Stankovic , Tarek Abdelzaher, AIDA: Adaptive application-independent data aggregation in wireless sensor networks, ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), v.3 n.2, p.426-457, May 2004 [doi>10.1145/993396.993406]
• 8: Lingxuan Hu , David Evans, Secure Aggregation for Wireless Networks, Proceedings of the 2003 Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT'03 Workshops), p.384, January 27-31, 2003
• 9: Chalermek Intanagonwiwat , Deborah Estrin , Ramesh Govindan , John Heidemann, Impact of Network Density on Data Aggregation in Wireless Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the 22 nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'02), p.457, July 02-05, 2002
• 10: A. Josang and R. Ismail. The beta reputation system. In 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, 2002.
• 11: Javier Lopez, Unleashing public-key cryptography in wireless sensor networks, Journal of Computer Security, v.14 n.5, p.469-482, September 2006
• 12: Samuel Madden , Michael J. Franklin , Joseph M. Hellerstein , Wei Hong, TAG: a Tiny AGgregation service for ad-hoc sensor networks, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, v.36 n.SI, Winter 2002 [doi>10.1145/844128.844142]
• 13: D. C. Montgomery and G. C. Runger. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers. WILEY, 2006.
• 14: P. Mukherjee and S. Sen. Detecting malicious sensor nodes from learned data patterns. In ATSN '07: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Technology for Sensor Networks, AAMAS, pages 11--17, 2007.
• 15: Adrian Perrig , Robert Szewczyk , J. D. Tygar , Victor Wen , David E. Culler, SPINS: security protocols for sensor networks, Wireless Networks, v.8 n.5, p.521-534, September 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1016598314198]
• 16: 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]
• 17: R. M. Ruairi and M. T. Keane. An energy-efficient, multi-agent sensor network for detecting diffuse events. In IJCAI, pages 1390--1395, 2007.
• 18: A. L. Servin and D. Kudenko. Multi-agent reinforcement learning for intrusion detection. In Adaptive Learning Agents and Multi Agent Systems 2007, pages 158--170, 2007.
• 19: Mehdi Sharifzadeh , Cyrus Shahabi, Supporting spatial aggregation in sensor network databases, Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international workshop on Geographic information systems, November 12-13, 2004, Washington DC, USA [doi>10.1145/1032222.1032248]
• 20: Christopher J. C. H. Watkins , Peter Dayan, Technical Note: $\backslash cal\; Q$-Learning, Machine Learning, v.8 n.3-4, p.279-292, May 1992 [doi>10.1007/BF00992698]
• 21: Ronald Watro , Derrick Kong , Sue-fen Cuti , Charles Gardiner , Charles Lynn , Peter Kruus, TinyPK: securing sensor networks with public key technology, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Security of ad hoc and sensor networks, October 25-25, 2004, Washington DC, USA [doi>10.1145/1029102.1029113]
• 22: Jun Wu , Chong-jun Wang , Jun Wang , Shi-fu Chen, Dynamic Hierarchical Distributed Intrusion Detection System Based on Multi-Agent System, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, p.89-93, December 18-22, 2006 [doi>10.1109/WI-IATW.2006.61]
• 23: Yi Yang , Xinran Wang , Sencun Zhu , Guohong Cao, SDAP: a secure hop-by-Hop data aggregation protocol for sensor networks, Proceedings of the 7th ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking and computing, May 22-25, 2006, Florence, Italy [doi>10.1145/1132905.1132944]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence
            Subjects: Multiagent systems

General Terms:
Algorithms, Performance, Security

Keywords:
data integrity, learning, reputation, sensor networks