Attack Detection vs. Privacy – How to Find the Link or How to Hide It?

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7114)


Wireless sensor networks often have to be protected not only against an active attacker who tries to disrupt a network operation, but also against a passive attacker who tries to get sensitive information about the location of a certain node or about the movement of a tracked object. To address such issues, we can use an intrusion detection system and a privacy mechanism simultaneously. However, both of these often come with contradictory aims. A privacy mechanism typically tries to hide a relation between various events while an intrusion detection system tries to link the events up. This paper explores some of the problems that might occur when these techniques are brought together and we also provide some ideas how these problems could be solved.


Sensor Node Wireless Sensor Network Intrusion Detection System Malicious Node Attack Detection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BMM07]
    Biswas, S., Mukherjee, S., Mukhopadhyaya, K.: A countermeasure against traffic-analysis based base station detection in WSN. In: Web Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, HiPC 2007 Posters, poster session (2007)Google Scholar
  2. [DHM04]
    Deng, J., Han, R., Mishra, S.: Intrusion tolerance and anti-traffic analysis strategies for wireless sensor networks. In: DSN 2004: Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 637–646. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  3. [HWK+05]
    Hong, X., Wang, P., Kong, J., Zheng, Q., Liu, J.: Effective probabilistic approach protecting sensor traffic. In: IEEE Military Communications Conference, MILCOM 2005, vol. 1, pp. 169–175 (October 2005)Google Scholar
  4. [KDF07]
    Krontiris, I., Dimitriou, T., Freiling, F.C.: Towards intrusion detection in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Wireless Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  5. [KW03]
    Karlof, C., Wagner, D.: Secure routing in wireless sensor networks: attacks and countermeasures. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications, pp. 113–127 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. [LCC07]
    Liu, F., Cheng, X., Chen, D.: Insider attacker detection in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 1937–1945 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. [MX06]
    Misra, S., Xue, G.: Efficient anonymity schemes for clustered wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Sensor Networks 1(1), 50–63 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [OM05]
    Onat, I., Miri, A.: An intrusion detection system for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications, vol. 3, pp. 253–259 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. [OZT04]
    Ozturk, C., Zhang, Y., Trappe, W.: Source-location privacy in energy-constrained sensor network routing. In: SASN 2004: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Security of Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks, pp. 88–93. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  10. [SFM10]
    Stetsko, A., Folkman, L., Matyas, V.: Neighbor-based intrusion detection for wireless sensor networks. Technical Report FIMU-RS-2010-04, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University (May 2010)Google Scholar
  11. [SGR97]
    Syverson, P.F., Goldschlag, D.M., Reed, M.G.: Anonymous connections and onion routing. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1997, pp. 44–54 (May 1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations