Advertisement

Measurement and security trust in WSNs: a proximity deviation based approach

  • Noureddine Boudriga
  • Paulvanna N. Marimuthu
  • Sami J. HabibEmail author
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Quality of communication and measurement accuracy are of prime importance in WSN-based applications, as the sensors have to report real-time measurements to enable efficient decision-making. These sensors are often subject to measurement errors, such as noise, nonlinearity, and deviation caused by rapid changes. Sensors are prone to failures and can be targeted by attacks that aim to modify their outputs. To address these drawbacks, measurement should be checked, sensor functions should be protected, and accuracy should be analyzed all the time. In this paper, we propose a trust management framework based on three metrics: the true measurement deviation, group deviation, and security metrics to analyze the accuracy and trustworthiness of sensor data. The third metric considers the attacks detectable at the communication architecture layers. We have derived an analytical model (i) to calibrate the sensors periodically by deciding on their trustworthiness, and (ii) to modify their outputs periodically, whenever needed based on the deviation in measurement. Our simulation results for a real-time fire monitoring system show that the proposed trust framework is efficient in producing 95% accurate and trusted measurements by limiting the frequency of sensor calibrations to a minimal value and by setting a lower boundary of 5% deviation from the true and group value metrics with its added trust at the micro-level by disproving attacks at the protocol layer.

Keywords

Wireless sensor network Sensor calibration Sensor security Group deviation True value deviation Trust management 

References

  1. 1.
    Badiru AB, Racz L (2016) Handbook of measurements: benchmarks for systems accuracy and precision. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dyer SA (2004) Survey of instrumentation and measurement. Wiley, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ishmanov F, Saeed Malik A, Kim SW, Begalov B (2015) Trust management system in wireless sensor networks: design considerations and research challenges. Trans Emerg Telecommun Technol 26(2):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lopez J, Roman R, Agudo I, Fernandez-Gago C (2010) Trust management systems for wireless sensor networks: best practices. Comput Commun 33(9):1086–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Habib SJ, Marimuthu PN (2016) Development of analytical model for data trustworthiness in sensor networks. In: The proceedings of IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications, March 23–25, Crans-Montana, Switzerland, pp. 467–472Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Habib SJ, Marimuthu PN (2017) Reputation analysis of sensors’ trust within Tabu search. In: The proceedings of world conference on information systems and technologies, April 11–13, Madeira, Portugal, pp. 343–352Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boudriga N, Marimuthu PN, Habib SJ (2018) Trusting sensors measurements in a WSN: an approach based on true and group deviation estimation. In: The proceedings of world conference on information systems and technologies, March 27–29, Naples, Italy, pp. 603–613Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen Z, Tian L, Lin C (2017) Trust model of wireless sensor networks and its application in data fusion. Sensors 17:703–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fan CQ, Wang SG, Sun QB, Wang HM, Zhang GW, Yang FCA (2013) Trust evaluation method of sensors based on energy monitoring. Acta Electron Sin 41:646–651Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shao N, Zhou Z, Sun Z (2015) A lightweight and dependable trust model for clustered wireless sensor networks. In: Huang Z, Sun X, Luo J, Wang J (eds) The proceedings of cloud computing and security conference. Lecture notes in computer science, Springer, vol 9483. Pp. 157–168, 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang B, Huang ZH, Xiang YA (2014) Novel multiple-level trust management framework for wireless sensor networks. Comput Netw 72:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meghanathan N (2014) A distributed trust evaluation model for wireless Mobile sensor networks. In: The proceedings of Int. Conf. On information technology: new generations, Las Vegas, April 7–9, pp. 186–191Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee S, Auriol BJ, Jameel H, Shaikh RA, Lee H, Song YJ (2009) Group-based trust management scheme for clustered wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 20(11):1698–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salem MA (2017) An efficient distributed trust model for wireless sensor networks. International Journal and Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research 3(5):459–464Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Romer K, Blum P, Meier L (2005) Time synchronization and calibration in wireless sensor networks. In: Handbook of Sensor Networs: architecture and algorithm, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersy, pp. 199–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bychkovskiy V, Megerian S, Estrin D Potkonjak MC (2003) A collaborative approach to in-place sensor calibration. In: The proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on information processing in sensor networks, April 22–23, Palo Alto, CA, USA, pp. 301–316Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whitehouse K, Culler D (2002) Calibration as parameter estimation in sensor networks. In: The proceedings of ACM Int. workshop on wireless sensor networks and applications, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp. 59–67Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    David BM, Sousa TR (2010) A Bayesian trust model for the MAC layer in IEEE 802.15.4 networks. In: The Proceeding of 9th International Information and Telecommunication Technologies Symposium, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 1–7Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang J, Jiang S, Fapojuwo AO (2017) A protocol layer trust-based intrusion detection scheme for wireless sensor networks. Sensors 17:1227–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khalid O, Khan SU, Madani SA, Hayat K, Khan MI, Allah MN, Kolodziej J, Wang L, Zeadally S, Chen D (2013) Comparative study of trust and reputation systems for wireless sensor networks. Secur. Commn. Network 6:669–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salehpour-Oskouei F, Pourgol-Mohammad M (2017) Risk assessment of sensor failures in a condition monitoring process: degradation-based failure probability determination. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8(3):584–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bellazreg R, Boudriga N, Trimeche K, An S (2013) Border surveillance: a dynamic deployment scheme for WSN-based solutions. In: The proceedings of IFIP/IEEE Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference, April 23–25, Dubai, UAE, pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Angeles Sarna M, Casada R, Bermudez A (2015) Distributed forest fire monitoring using sensor networks. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 10:1–18Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arfaoui I, Boudriga N, Trimeche K (2017) A WSN deployment scheme under irregular conditions for surveillance applications. Ad Hoc & Sensor Wireless Networks 35(3–4):217–259Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berrahal S, Kim J-H., Rekhis S, Boudriga N, Wilkinsu D, Acevedou J (2015) Unmanned aircraft vehicle assisted border surveillance. In: The proceedings of the 23rd Internatioal conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks, Split-Bol (Island of Brac), Croatia, Sep.16–18, pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Angeles Sarna M, Casada R, Bermudez A (2015) Distributed forest fire monitoring using sensor networks. Int J Distrib Sens Netw Special issue on Ad Hoc Networks for Disaster Scenarios and/or Threat Detection 2015:6Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bukowski RW, Peacock RD, Averill JD, Cleary TG, Bryner NP, Walton WD, Reneke PA, Kuligowski ED (2008) Performance of home smoke alarms analysis of the response of several available technologies in residential fire settings. National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note, 1455-1, pp. 1–396Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institut Mines-Télécom and Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SUPCOMUniversity of CarthageTunisTunisia
  2. 2.CS Dep.University of the Western CapeBellvilleSouth Africa
  3. 3.Computer Engineering DepartmentKuwait UniversityKuwait CityKuwait

Personalised recommendations