Reducing Dependency on Middleware for Pull Based Active Services in LBS Systems

  • Saroj Kaushik
  • Shivendra Tiwari
  • Priti Goplani
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 72)


The middleware is the most commonly used solution to address the location privacy. But it becomes a bottleneck in terms of system performance and availability as the entire client’s service transactions are routed through the middleware to the actual Location Based Service Providers (LSP). The proposed architecture mainly targets a variety of applications where the availability of the services is probably more important than the location security. In the new flexible middleware based architecture the client and the LSPs can communicate directly. Autonomy on the client-server communication increases the possibility of communication even in the scenarios where the middleware is not available. But it also introduces authentication and security challenges to be addressed. The trusted middleware is used to generate the authentication certificates containing the Proxy Identity (also called Pseudonyms) to fulfill the authentication requirements at the LSP servers. The rest of transactions among the clients and the LSPs are accomplished independently. Further, the level of anonymity can be tuned by altering pseudonyms generation techniques i.e. “One-to-One”, “One-to-Many” and “Many-to-One” depending on the type of the service and security requirements. It also attempts to maintain almost the same level of security for the targeted services.


Trusted Middleware Location Based Services (LBS) LB Service providers Authorization Pseudonyms Location Based Service Provider (LSP) Location Privacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lioudakis, G.V., et al.: A Middleware architecture for privacy protection. The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking 51(16), 4679–4696 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ardagna, C., Cremonini, M., Damiani, E., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Samarati, P.: New Approaches for Security, Privacy and Trust in Complex Environments. In: Venter, H., Eloff, M., Lahuschagne, L., Eloff, J., von Solms, R. (eds.) IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol. 232, pp. 313–324. Springer, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The European Opinion Research Group. European Union citizens’ views about privacy: Special Eurobarometer 196 (December 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ardagna, C.A., Cremonini, M., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Samarati, P.: Access Control in Location-Based Services. In: Bettini, C., Jajodia, S., Samarati, P., Wang, X.S. (eds.) Privacy in Location-Based Applications. LNCS, vol. 5599, pp. 106–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mohan, A., Blough, D.M.: An attribute-based authorization policy framework with dynamic conflict resolution. In: Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on Identity and Trust on the Internet. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 37–50 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hauser, C., et al.: Privacy and Security in Location-Based Systems With Spatial Models. Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering University of Stuttgart, Germany (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, Y., Yang, J., He, F.: A Trusted Infrastructure for Facilitating Access Control. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008), 978-1-4244-2677-5/08/ 2008 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hohenberger, S., Weis, S.A.: Honest-verifier private disjointness testing without random oracles. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, June 2006, pp. 265–284 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hauser, C., Kabatnik, M.: Towards Privacy Support in a Global Location Service. In: Proceedings of the WATM/EUNICE (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schiller, J., et al.: Location-Based Services, pp. 16, 91–96. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2005), ISBN: 1-55860-929-6 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kin, Y.W.: NAN: Near-me Area Network. In: IEEE Internet Computing. IEEE computer Society Digital Library. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hua, W., et al.: Ticket-based Service Access scheme for Mobile Users. In: ACSC 2002 Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Australasian Conference on Computer science, vol. 4 (2002), ISBN:0-909925-82-8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    John, B., et al.: Method for Generating Digital Fingerprint Using Pseudo Random Number Code. International Patent WO 2008/094725 A1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hauser, C., et al.: Privacy and Security in Location-Based Systems With Spatial Models. Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering University of Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duckham, M., Kulik, L.: A Formal Model of Obfuscation and Negotiation for Location Privacy. In: Gellersen, H.-W., Want, R., Schmidt, A. (eds.) PERVASIVE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3468, pp. 152–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gedik, B., Liu, L.: A Customizable k-Anonymity Model for Protecting Location Privacy. In: ICDCS 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Magkos, E., et al.: A Distributed Privacy-Preserving Scheme for Location-Based Queries. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, WoWMoM (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hengartner, U.: Hiding Location Information from Location-Based Services. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007), 1-4244-1241-2/07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saroj Kaushik
    • 1
  • Shivendra Tiwari
    • 1
  • Priti Goplani
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology, DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Dept. of MathematicsIndian Institute of Technology, DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations