Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 539–545 | Cite as

Designing and verifying a P2P service security protocol in M2M environment

  • Woo-Sik BaeEmail author


Multifunctional high-performance electronic systems in M2M(Machine-to-Machine) industry have been evolving substantially in tandem with the advancement of IT. M2M, standing for machine-to-machine communication, replaces people in cases where human intervention is hardly viable or in such fields as weather, environment or disasters where long-term monitoring is required. Yet, due to the nature of M2M devices involving wireless communication, they are exposed to intruders’ attacks. Thus, the overriding concern in M2M communication is mutual authentication and security. In this context, security communication protocols are considered worth exploring. This paper concerns designing a safe communication protocol by applying hash locks, random numbers and session keys. Instead of arguing for the security of the protocol based on mathematical theorem proving as most previous studies did, the present paper demonstrates the proposed protocol is safe against a variety of intruders’ attacks by formally verifying it using Casper/FDR. In short, the proposed protocol is verified in terms of safety, deadlock and livelock.


P2P Security protocol Authentication protocol RFID security Casper/FDR M2M authentication Model checking 


  1. 1.
    Song JS (2013) M2M standards and technology trends. TTA J 150:84–89Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pyo CS (2013) M2M techonolgy and its standardization trends, oneM2M 2013 Seoul International ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu G, TalwReader S, Johnsson K, Himayat N, Johnson KD (2011) M2M: from mobile to embedded internet. IEEE Commun Mag 49(4):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ngo HH, Wu X, Le PD, Srinivasan B (2010) An individual and group authentication model for wireless network services. J Convergence Inf Technol 5(1):82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ETSI (2011) “Machine to machine communications (M2M); M2M functional architecture,” ETSI, TS 102 690Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hummen R, Ziegeldorf JH, Shafagh H, Raza S, Wehrle K (2013) “Towards viable certificate-based authentication for the Internet of Things”. In: Proc, ACM HotWiSec.’13: 37–42Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalyani P, Chellappan C (2011) Heterogeneous wireless mobile sensor network mobile based routing adapted to dynamic topology. Eur J Sci Res 50(1):143–150Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aiash M, Mapp G, Lasebae A, Phan R, Loo J (2012) A formally verified AKA protocol for vertical handover in hetero-geneous environments using Casper/FDR. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2012:57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chao H-C, Zeadally S, Chen Y-S, Martinez G, Wang R-C (2010) Next Generation Networks(NGNs). Int J Commun Syst 23:691–693. doi: 10.1002/dac.1144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowe G, Broadfoot P, Dilloway C, Hui M, Casper, “A compiler for the Analysis of security protocol,” 2011. (Available from:, Accessed 19, 2011
  11. 11.
    Aiash M, Mapp G, Lasebae A, Nemrat A AL (2012) “Supporting LTE networks in heterogeneous environment using the Y-Comm framework”. In: Proceeding of The Fourth International Conference on Networks & Communications (NETCOM-2012), Chennai, India, pp. 125–136Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    He D, Chen C, Chan S, Bu J (2012) Strong roaming authentication technique for wireless and mobile networks. Int J Commun Syst. doi: 10.1002/dac.1387, Early view of an online version Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen C, He D, Chan S, Bu J, Gao Y, Fan R (2010) Lightweight and provably secure user authentication with anonymity for the global mobility network. Int J Commun Syst 2010 24:347–362. doi: 10.1002/dac.1158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stig Fr M, Joe-Kai T (2012) “Computational security analysis of the UMTS and LTE authentication and key agreement protocols”. CoRR, abs, pp. 1203–3866Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aiash M, Mapp G, Lasebae A, Phan R (2012) A survey on authentication and key agreement protocols in heterogeneous networks. Int J Netw Secur Appl (IJNSA) 2012 4(4):199–214Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peris-Lopez P, Hernandez-Castro JC, Estevez-Tapiador JM, Ribagorda A (2010) Vulnerability analysis of RFID protocols for tag ownership transfer. Comput Netw 54(9):1502–1508CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song B, Mitchell CJ (2011) Scalable RFID security protocols supporting tag ownership transfer. Comput Commun 34(4):556–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen H, Yu S, Shang J etc. (2009) “Comparison with several fuzzy trust methods for P2P-based system”. In proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Information Technology and Computer Science, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 188–119Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aringhieri R, Damiani E, Vimercati SDCD, Paraboschi S, Samarati P (2006) Fuzzy techniques for trust and reputation management in anonymous peer-to-peer systems, special topic section on soft approaches to information retrieval and information access on the web. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(4):528–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shin K, Reeves DS, Rhee I (2009) “Treat-before-trick: free-riding prevention for bittorrent-like peer-to-peer networks”. Proceedings of 23rd IEEE international parallel and distributed processing symposium, pp. 1–12Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sarjaz BS, Abbaspour M (2013) Securing BitTorrent using a new reputation-based trust management system. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 6:86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nam T, Lee H, Jeong C, Han C (2005) A harmful content protection in peer-to-peer networks. Artif Intell Simul 3397:617–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lowe G (2009) Casper: a compiler for the analysis of security protocols. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim l-G, Jeon C-W, Kim H-S, Choi J-Y, Kang I-H (2005) Formal methodology for analysis of security protocols. J Korea Inst Inf Secur Cryptol 15:17–27Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fromal system(Europe) Ltd (2010) Failures-divergence refinement FDR2 user manual. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pura M-L (2010) Victor valeriu patriciu, ion bica. “Formal verification of G-PAKE using Casper/FDR2-securing a group PAKE protocol using Casper/FDR2,” Security and Cryprography Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference. pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bae WS (2014) Formal verification of an RFID authentication protocol based on hash function and secret code. Wirel Pers Commun Int J 79(4):2595–2609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AIS CenterAjou Motor CollegeBoryeong-SiKorea

Personalised recommendations