Advertisement

Ad-Hoc Framework for Efficient Network Security for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)

  • Md Samsul HaqueEmail author
  • Morshed U. Chowdhury
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1113)

Abstract

With the emerging new applications, UAVs are incorporating to our daily lifestyle. The convenience of offering certain services via UAV using its cyber capabilities is very attractive but on the other side poses a great threat of safety and security. With the ever-growing use of commercial WiFi based UAVs, the enduring ability for cybersecurity and safety threats has become a sophisticated problem. UAV networks are susceptible to several common security risks including eavesdropping and jamming attack, denial of service (DoS) or buffer overflow attack by malicious remote attackers. Because of the unique nature of UAV networks, traditional security techniques used by conventional networks is not feasible for UAV communication. The resource constraint nature of such WiFi based UAV network is a key design problem, when implementation of security. Address security issues for UAV domain and propose to examine the practicality of using Identity Based Encryption (IBE) in resource constraint UAV network is our aim in this study. We would like to assess the practicality and performance of IBE in UAV network by measuring energy of the operations for key management and examine the feasibility of the approach and thus present an efficient security framework for resource constrained wireless UAV network.

Keywords

Identity-based encryption Unmanned aerial vehicle Omnet++ 

References

  1. 1.
    Dini, G., Tiloca, M.: A simulation tool for evaluating attack impact in cyber physical systems. In: Hodicky, J. (ed.) MESAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8906, pp. 77–94. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13823-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rani, C., Modares, H., Sriram, R., Mikulski, D., Lewis, F.L.: Security of unmanned aerial vehicle systems against cyber-physical attacks. J. Defense Model. Simul.: Appl. Methodol. Technol. 13(3), 331–342 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Snell, B.: McAfee Labs 2017 threats predictions: “Dronejacking” places threats in the sky, November 2016, 2017. https://www.mcafee.com/au/resources/reports/rp-threats-predictions-2017.pdf
  4. 4.
    FAA Releases 2016 to 2036 Aerospace Forecast (2016). https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=85227
  5. 5.
    Nassi, B., Shabtai, A., Masuoka, R., Elovici, Y.: SoK-security and privacy in the age of drones: threats, challenges, solution mechanisms, and scientific gaps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.05155 (2019)
  6. 6.
    Moormann, D.: DHL parcelcopter research flight campaign 2014 for emergency delivery of medication (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hooper, M., et al.: Securing commercial WiFi-based UAVs from common security attacks, pp. 1213–1218. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Securitymagazine: Privacy and security are biggest concerns about the business use of drones, 2 March 2017. https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/87868-privacy-and-security-are-biggest-concerns-about-the-business-use-of-drones
  9. 9.
    Gallagher, S.: Triathlete injured by “hacked” camera drone (2014). https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/04/triathlete-injured-by-hacked-camera-drone/. Accessed June 2017
  10. 10.
    Hartmann, K., Steup, C.: The vulnerability of UAVs to cyber attacks-an approach to the risk assessment, pp. 1–23. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Samland, F., Fruth, J., Hildebrandt, M., Hoppe, T., Dittmann, J.: AR. drone: security threat analysis and exemplary attack to track persons. In: International Society for Optics and Photonics, p. 83010G (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trujano, F., Chan, B., Beams, G., Rivera, R.: Security analysis of DJI phantom 3 standard. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reddy, S.V., Ramani, K.S., Rijutha, K., Ali, S.M., Reddy, C.P.: Wireless hacking-a WiFi hack by cracking WEP, pp. V1-189–V1-193. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kamkar, S.: SkyJack (2013). Accessed June 2019Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kovar, D.: UAVs, IoT, and Cybersecurity (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altawy, R., Youssef, A.M.: Security, privacy, and safety aspects of civilian drones: a survey. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst. 1(2), 7 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parrot Ar.Drone 2.0 Power Edition, Technical Specifications. https://www.parrot.com/global/drones/parrot-ardrone-20-power-edition
  18. 18.
    PARROT Bebop 2 Power - Pack FPV, Technical Specifications. https://www.parrot.com/global/drones/parrot-bebop-2-power-pack-fpv
  19. 19.
    Krajník, T., Vonásek, V., Fišer, D., Faigl, J.: AR-drone as a platform for robotic research and education. In: Obdržálek, D., Gottscheber, A. (eds.) EUROBOT 2011. CCIS, vol. 161, pp. 172–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21975-7_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valente, J., Cardenas, A.A.: Understanding security threats in consumer drones through the lens of the discovery quadcopter family, pp. 31–36. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pleban, J.-S., Band, R., Creutzburg, R.: Hacking and securing the AR. drone 2.0 quadcopter: investigations for improving the security of a toy. In: International Society for Optics and Photonics, p. 90300L (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giray, S.M.: Anatomy of unmanned aerial vehicle hijacking with signal spoofing, pp. 795–800. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fang, Y., Zhu, X., Zhang, Y.: Securing resource-constrained wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 16(2), 24–30 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doyle, B., Bell, S., Smeaton, A.F., McCusker, K., O’Connor, N.E.: Security considerations and key negotiation techniques for power constrained sensor networks. Comput. J. 49(4), 443–453 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shamir, A.: Identity-based cryptosystems and signature schemes. In: Blakley, G.R., Chaum, D. (eds.) CRYPTO 1984. LNCS, vol. 196, pp. 47–53. Springer, Heidelberg (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39568-7_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boneh, D., Franklin, M.: Identity-based encryption from the weil pairing. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 213–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44647-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kodali, R.K., Chougule, S.K.: Hierarchical key agreement protocol for wireless sensor networks. Int. J. Recent Trends Eng. Technol. 9(1), 25 (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bekmezci, I., Sahingoz, O.K., Temel, Ş.: Flying ad-hoc networks (FANETs): a survey. Ad Hoc Netw. 11(3), 1254–1270 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chien, H.-Y., Lin, R.-Y.: Identity-based key agreement protocol for mobile ad-hoc networks using bilinear pairing, pp. 8–pp. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu, F.R., Tang, H., Mason, P.C., Wang, F.: A hierarchical identity based key management scheme in tactical mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 7(4), 258–267 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sliwa, B., Ide, C., Wietfeld, C.: An OMNeT++ based framework for mobility-aware routing in mobile robotic networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05351 (2016)

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin Centre for Cyber Security Research and Innovation, School of Information TechnologyDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations