SCOUT: a sink camouflage and concealed data delivery paradigm for circumvention of sink-targeted cyber threats in wireless sensor networks

  • Saqib Ubaid
  • M. Farrukh Shafeeq
  • Majid Hussain
  • Ali Hammad Akbar
  • Abdelrahman Abuarqoub
  • M. Sultan Zia
  • Beenish Abbas
Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

In modern epoch of cyber warfare and their countermeasures, wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are highly susceptible to cyber attacks due to their primary reliance over sink. WSNs perform routing and communication to deliver data from sources to sink. In this many-to-one communication paradigm, while some failure might be affordable at the many sources side, the single sink cannot be allowed any downtime, let alone be a failure. In a WSN security attack scenario, an attacker makes efforts to bring a sink down by identifying and capturing it. The current state of the art in sink protection schemes prevents such failures by preserving its privacy through letting it operate in promiscuous and all-the-time listening mode. However, such operation is still vulnerable to privacy divulgence because the attacker detects its all-the-time listening operation and identifies it. Furthermore, listening is an energy-expensive operation in WSNs that makes the sink battery die very quickly. In this paper, we propose a new sink privacy preservation scheme that defines the role of cooperating nodes. These cooperating nodes create a camouflage around the sink such that the location of the sink is never revealed. Such operational dispositioning reduces the susceptibility of WSNs generally and sink, particularly against the sink-targeted cyber attacks. Since the sink adopts sleep schedule, our scheme is energy efficient as well.

Keywords

SCOUT Privacy preservation Security threats Wireless sensor networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Karlof C, Sastry N, Wagner D (2004) Tinysec: a link layer security architecture for wireless sensor networks. In: International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pp 162–175Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drissi J, Gu Q (2006) Localized broadcast authentication in large sensor networks. In: ICNSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eschenauer L, Gligor VD (2002) A key-management scheme for distributed sensor networks. In: ACM CCS, pp 41–47Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu S, Xu S, Setia S, Jajodia S (2003) Establishing pairwise keys for secure communication in ad hoc networks: a probabilistic approach. In: IEEE ICNP, pp 326–335Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xi Y, Schwiebert L, Shi W (2006) Preserving source location privacy in monitoring-based wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of Parallel and Distributed Processing SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehta K, Liu D, Wright M (2007) Location privacy in sensor networks against a global eavesdropper. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Network ProtocolsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamat P, Zhang Y, Trappe W, Ozturk C (2005) Enhancing source location privacy in sensor network routing. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICDCS, pp 599–608Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raza M et al (2017) A critical analysis of research potential, challenges and future directives in industrial wireless sensor networks. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 20(1):39–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gu Q, Chen X (2008) Privacy-preserving mobility control protocols in wireless sensor networks. In: The International Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms, and Networks, IEEE, pp 159–164Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang Z, Wu J, Kline R (2007) Mobility control for achieving optimal configuration in mobile networks. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, West Chester UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Muhammad, Z. Furqan, R. Guha, “Wireless sensor network security: a secure sink node architecture” IEEE International Conference on Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference, IPCCC 2005 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen X, Jiang Z, Wu J (2007) Quick convergence mobility control schemes in wireless sensor networks. Technical Report, Texas State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golden Berg C, Lin J, Morse A, Rosen B, Yang Y (2004) Towards mobility as a networks control primitive. In: Proceeding of 5th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (Mobihoc’ 04), pp 163–174Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deng J, Han R, Mishra S (2005) Countermeasures against traffic analysis attacks in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE/Create NetInternational Conference on Security and Privacy for Emerging Areas in Communication Networks (SecureComm)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ngai E (2009) On providing sink anonymity for sensor networks. In: International Conference on Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2009Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prathima EG et al (2017) DAMS: data aggregation using mobile sink in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communications and Broadband Networking. ACMGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jabbar S et al (2014) VISTA: achieving cumulative vision through energy efficient Silhouette recognition of mobile targets through collaboration of visual sensor nodes. EURASIP J Image Video Process 1:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hussain M et al (2016) CRAM: a conditioned reflex action inspired adaptive model for context addition in wireless sensor networks. J Sens.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6319830 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hussain M et al (2016) A gateway deployment heuristic for enhancing the availability of sensor grids. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 12(8):7595038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu J, Zou Y, Zheng B (2017) Physical-layer security and reliability challenges for industrial wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE, pp 5313–5320Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bartariya S, Rastogi A (2016) Security in wireless sensor networks: attacks and solutions. Int J Adv Res Comput Comm Eng 5(3)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muhammad T, Ferzund J, Jabbar S, Shahzadi R (2017) Towards designing efficient lightweight ciphers for internet of things. KSII Trans Internet Inf Syst 11(8):4006–4024Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malik KR, Ahmad T et al (2016) Big-data: transformation from heterogeneous data to semantically-enriched simplified data. Multimed Tools Appl 75:12727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jabbar S, Naseer K, Gohar M, Rho S, Chang H (2016) Trust model at service layer of cloud computing for educational institutes. J Supercomput 72:58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKhawaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information TechnologyRahim Yar KhanPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Engineering and TechnologyLahorePakistan
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceCOMSATS Institute of Information TechnologySahiwalPakistan
  4. 4.Faculty of Information TechnologyMiddle East UniversityAmmanJordan
  5. 5.Department of ComputingUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)Johor BahruMalaysia

Personalised recommendations