Reducing the Impact of Traffic Sanitization on Latency Sensitive Applications

  • Mauro MigliardiEmail author
  • Alessio Merlo
  • Sherenaz Al-Haj Baddar
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 611)


In our modern society the reliance on fast and reliable delivery of large amounts of data is steadily growing as more and more companies and public bodies use data analytics to support their decision processes. At the same time, the rise of the Internet of Things introduces into the public cyberspace a multitude of devices that are often ill-suited to implement strong security measures. For this reason, it is of paramount importance that the whole Internet traffic is fully sanitized from any malicious packet before it is delivered to the destination. Past work has proved that this compelling security requirement may be leveraged to implement an aggressive intrusion detection that may lead to energy savings in the network; however it may also negatively impact latency sensitive applications as the need to scrutinize all the packets may cause latency sensitive traffic to incur unwanted delays beyond the time needed to analyze it for security sake. In this paper, we describe a methodology that, while guaranteeing a full sanitization of the Internet traffic, allows reducing its impact on the delay introduced in latency sensitive traffic.


Traffic sanitization Latency sensitive applications Timely delivery 


  1. 1.
    Ponemon Cost of Data Breach Study (2016). Last accessed 12 Apr 2017
  2. 2.
    Yahoo’s data breach is one of the biggest in history. Last accessed 13 Apr 2017
  3. 3.
    Lord, N.: The History of Data Breaches. Last accessed 12 Apr 2017
  4. 4.
    Findings from the 2016 breach level index. Last accessed 12 Apr 2017
  5. 5.
    Jerkins, J.A.: Motivating a market or regulatory solution to IoT insecurity with the Mirai botnet code. In: 2017 IEEE 7th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), Las Vegas, NV, pp. 1–5 (2017). doi: 10.1109/CCWC.2017.7868464
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Ring, M., Dürrwang, J., Sommer, F., Kriesten, R.: Survey on vehicular attacks - building a vulnerability database. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES), Yokohama, pp. 208–212 (2015). doi: 10.1109/ICVES.2015.7396919
  8. 8.
    Merlo, A., Migliardi, M., Caviglione, L.: A survey on energy-aware security mechanisms. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 24, 77–90 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2015.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lan, K.C., Hussain, A., Dutta, D.: Effect of malicious traffic on the network. In: Proceedings of PAM 2003, San Diego, California, April 2003Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mallikarjunan, K.N., Muthupriya, K., Shalinie, S.M.: A survey of distributed denial of service attack. In: 2016 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO), pp. 1–6, January 2016Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merlo, A., Migliardi, M., Spadacini, E.: IPS-based reduction of network energy consumption. Logic J. IGPL (in press). doi: 10.1093/jigpal/jzw053
  12. 12.
    Netflix and Youtube grab 50% of peak Internet traffic, p2p fades into the sunset. Last accessed 13 Apr 2017
  13. 13.
    White paper: Cisco VNI Forecast and Methodology, 2015–2020. Last accessed 13 Apr 2017
  14. 14.
    Das, S., Parulkar, G., McKeown, N.: Rethinking IP core networks. IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Commun. Networking 5(12), 1431–1442 (2013). doi: 10.1364/JOCN.5.001431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEI – Universita’ di PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.CIPI – Universita’ di PadovaPadovaItaly
  3. 3.DIBRIS – Universita’ di GenovaGenovaItaly
  4. 4.KASIT – The University of JordanAmmanJordan

Personalised recommendations