A Distributed Scheme to Detect Wormhole Attacks in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks

Conference paper

Abstract

Due to mostly being unattended, sensor nodes become open to physical attacks such as wormhole attack, which is our focus in this paper. Various solutions are proposed for wormhole attacks in sensor networks, but only a few of them take mobility of sensor nodes into account. We propose a distributed wormhole detection scheme for mobile wireless sensor networks in which mobility of sensor nodes is utilized to estimate two network features (i.e. network node density, standard deviation in network node density) through using neighboring information in a local manner. Wormhole attack is detected via observing anomalies in the neighbor nodes’ behaviors based on the estimated network features and the neighboring information. We analyze the performance of proposed scheme via simulations. The results show that our scheme achieves a detection rate up to 100% with very small false positive rate (at most 1.5%) if the system parameters are chosen accordingly. Moreover, our solution requires neither additional hardware nor tight clock synchronization which are both costly for sensor networks.

Keywords

Mobile wireless sensor networks Security Wormhole attacks 

References

  1. 1.
    Akyildiz, I.F., Su, W., Sankarasubramaniam, Y., Cayirci, E.: Wireless sensor networks: a survey. Comput. Netw. 38(4), 393–422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu, Y.C., Perrig, A., Johnson, D.B.: Packet leashes: a defense against wormhole attacks in wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE INFOCOM 3, 1976–1986 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capkun, S., Buttyan, L., Hubaux, J.: SECTOR: secure tracking of node encounters in multi-hop wireless networks. SASN, pp. 21–32 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khalil, I., Bagchi, S., Shroff, N.B.: LITEWORP: a lightweight countermeasure for the wormhole attack in multihop wireless networks. DSN, pp. 612–621 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hu, L., Evans, D.: Using directional antennas to prevent wormhole attacks. NDSS, pp. 22–32 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lazos, L., Poovendran, R., Meadows, C., Syverson, P., Chang, L.W.: SeRLoc: secure range-independent localization for wireless sensor networks. Wise, pp. 21–30 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kohvakka, M., Suhonen, J., Kuorilehto, M., Kaseva, V., Hannikainen, M., Hamalainen, T.D.: Energy-efficient neighbor discovery protocol for mobile wireless sensor networks. Ad. Hoc. Netw. 7(1), 24–41 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bagchi, S., Hariharan, S., Shroff, N.: Secure neighbor discovery in wireless sensor networks. ECE Technical Reports. Paper 360 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curiac, D.-I., Plastoi, M., Banias, O., Volosencu, C., Tudoroiu, R., Doboli, A.: Combined malicious node discovery and self-destruction technique for wireless sensor networks. SENSORCOMM, pp. 436–441 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plastoi, M., Curiac, D.-I.: Energy-driven methodology for node self-destruction in wireless sensor networks. SACI, pp. 319–322 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sabanci UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations