Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 541–553 | Cite as

Security model for emergency real-time communications in autonomous networks

  • Emmanouil A. Panaousis
  • Christos Politis
  • Konstantinos Birkos
  • Christos Papageorgiou
  • Tasos Dagiuklas
Article

Abstract

Towards the proliferation of architectures, tools and applications that have the potential to be used during an emergency rescue mission, we present a framework for emergency real-time communication using autonomous networks, called emergency Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (eMANETs). By eMANETs we refer to networks that are deployed in emergency cases where default telecommunications infrastructure has failed. Our goal is to design a security framework that will secure real-time communications during emergency rescue scenarios. The proposed framework consists of a secure routing protocol, intrusion detection provision and security extension for real-time communications using peer-to-peer overlays. We envisage that the results of this work will aid and serve the needs of any society against any event that threatens serious damage to human welfare or to the environment.

Keywords

Security Emergency MANET VoIP Routing P2PSIP 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was undertaken in the context of the project ICT-SEC-2007 PEACE (IP-based Emergency Applications and serviCes for nExt generation networks) with contract number 225654. The project has received research funding from the European 7 th Framework Programme.

References

  1. Argyroudis, P., & O’Mahony, D. (2005). Secure routing for mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 7(3), 2–21. doi: 10.1109/SNPD.2007.223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baset, S., Schulzrinne, H., & Matuszewski, M. (2007). Peer-to-peer protocol (P2PP). IETF Internet Draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baset-p2psip-p2pp-01. Work in progress, November 2007.
  3. Birkos, K., et al. (2010). Security mechanisms and key refresh for P2PSIP overlays. IETF Internet Draft. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-birkos-p2psip-security-key-refresh-00.txt. Work in progress, March 2010.
  4. Chen, L., & Heinzelman, W. B. (2007). A survey of routing protocols that support QoS in mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Network Magazine, 21(6), 30–38. doi: 10.1109/MNET.2007.4395108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clausen, T., & Jacquet, P. (2003). Optimized link state routing protocol (OLSR). IETF Internet RFC 3626. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3626.txt.
  6. Daemen, J., & Rijmen, V. (2002). The design of Rijndael. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Hegland, A., & Winjum, E. (2008). Securing QoS signaling in IP-based military ad hoc networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 46(11), 42–48. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2008.4689243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. IETF (2010). P2PSIP Working Group. http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/p2psip-charter.html.
  9. Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., & Schulzrinne, H. (2009). Resource location and discovery (RELOAD) base protocol. IETF Internet Draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-08. Work in progress, July 2009.
  10. Kent, S., & Atkison, R. (1998). Security architecture for the Internet protocol. IETF RFC 2401. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2401.txt.
  11. Martigon, F., Paris, S., & Capone, A. (2009). Design and implementation of MobiSEC: A complete security architecture for wireless mesh networks. Computer Networks (Elsevier), 53(12), 2192–2207. doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2009.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Panaousis, E. A., & Politis, C. (2009). A game theoretic approach for securing AODV in emergency mobile ad hoc networks. In Proc. 34th IEEE conference on local computer networks (IEEE LCN), Zurich, Switzerland (pp. 985–992). doi: 10.1109/LCN.2009.5355020.
  13. Panaousis, E. A., Ramrekha, T. A., Millar, G. P., & Politis, C. (2010). Adaptive and secure routing for emergency mobile ad-hoc networks. International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Networks (IJWMN), 2, 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., & Das, S. (2003). Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing. IETF Internet RFC 3561. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3561.txt.
  15. Ramrekha, T. A., et al. (2010). ChaMeLeon (CML): A hybrid and adaptive routing protocol for emergency situations.. IETF Internet Draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ramrekha-manet-cml-00.txt. Work in progress, March 2010.
  16. Rosenberget, J., et al. (2002). SIP: Session initiation protocol. IETF RFC 3261. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt.
  17. Sun, Y. L., Han, Z., Yu, W., & Liu, K. J. R. (2006). A trust evaluation framework in distributed networks: Vulnerability analysis and defense against attacks. In Proc. 25th IEEE international conference on computer communications, Catalunya, Spain (pp. 1–13). doi: 10.1109/INFOCOM.2006.154.
  18. Yang, H., Meng, X., & Lu, S. (2006). SCAN: Self-organized network-layer security in mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 24(2), 261–273. doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2005.861384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zapata, M. G. (2002). Secure ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing. In Proc. ACM mobile computing and communications review (MC2R) (Vol 6., No. 3, pp. 106–107). doi: 10.1145/581291.581312.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanouil A. Panaousis
    • 1
  • Christos Politis
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Birkos
    • 2
  • Christos Papageorgiou
    • 2
  • Tasos Dagiuklas
    • 2
  1. 1.Wireless Multimedia & Networking (WMN) Research GroupKingston University LondonKingston upon ThamesUK
  2. 2.University of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations