Advertisement

A Comparison of Indoor Positioning Systems for Access Control Using Virtual Perimeters

  • Brian GreavesEmail author
  • Marijke Coetzee
  • Wai Sze Leung
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1041)

Abstract

Integrated smart technologies are fast becoming the norm in modern work and home environments for providing interactivity and ease of use. Greater interconnectivity, however, enables greater risk of misuse. Logical assets in such environments are protected by logical access control. However, if a logical asset is given a physical form, it no longer has the same protection due to logical and physical access control not being well integrated into physical spaces. Great strides have been made to protect assets in physical spaces by geographically placing a security perimeter around them. Geo-fencing enables the demarcation of a virtual perimeter around locations to protect them from unwarranted access. A limitation of geo-fencing is that location cannot be determined accurately indoors as positioning technologies such as GPS are ineffective, and tag or active positioning systems are easily subverted. This research explores indoor positioning systems to define virtual perimeters in indoor spaces for access control to be performed even when topological changes may occur.

Keywords

Indoor positioning systems Virtual perimeters Access control 

References

  1. 1.
    O. Vermesan, P. Friess (eds.), Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems (River Publishers, 2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Tsigkanos, L. Pasquale, C. Ghezzi, B. Nuseibeh, On the interplay between cyber and physical spaces for adaptive security. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 15(3), 466–480 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.T. Fernandez, S. Birse, U.S. Patent 9,646,477, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, 2017Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Young-Hyun, C. Young-Keun, S. Cho, B. Jeon, FloGeo: A Floatable Three-Dimensional Geofence with Mobility for the Internet of Things (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Alarifi, A. Al-Salman, M. Alsaleh, A. Alnafessah, S. Al-Hadhrami, M.A. Al-Ammar, H.S. Al-Khalifa, Ultra wideband indoor positioning technologies: analysis and recent advances. Sensors 16(5), 707 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Duque Domingo, C. Cerrada, E. Valero, J.A. Cerrada, Indoor positioning system using depth maps and wireless networks. J. Sensors 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.S. Sandhu, P. Samarati, Access control: principle and practice. IEEE Commun. Mag. 32(9), 40–48 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Cardenas, S. Amin, B. Sinopoli, A. Giani, A. Perrig, S. Sastry, Challenges for securing cyber physical systems, in Workshop on Future Directions in Cyber-Physical Systems Security, vol. 5 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Skandhakumar, J. Reid, E. Dawson, R. Drogemuller, F. Salim, An authorization framework using building information models. Comput. J. 55(10), 1244–1264 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Fallah, I. Apostolopoulos, K. Bekris, E. Folmer, Indoor human navigation systems: a survey. Interact. Comput. 25(1), 21–33 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.A. Jarvis, A perspective on range finding techniques for computer vision. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2, 122–139 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Greaves, M. Coetzee, W.S. Leung, Access control requirements for physical spaces protected by virtual perimeters, in International Conference on Trust and Privacy in Digital Business (2018), pp. 182–197Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.L. Hernández, M.V. Moreno, A.J. Jara, A.F. Skarmeta, A soft computing based location-aware access control for smart buildings. Soft Comput. 18(9), 1659–1674 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.D. Jensen, K. Geneser, I.C. Willemoes-Wissing, Sensor enhanced access control: extending traditional access control models with context-awareness, in IFIP International Conference on Trust Management, June 2013 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013), pp. 177–192Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Deak, K. Curran, J. Condell, A survey of active and passive indoor localisation systems. Comput. Commun. 35(16), 1939–1954 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Ciabattoni, G. Foresi, A. Monteriù, L. Pepa, D.P. Pagnotta, L. Spalazzi, F. Verdini, Real time indoor localization integrating a model based pedestrian dead reckoning on smartphone and BLE beacons. J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput. 1–12 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.W. Chiang, J.K. Liao, S.H. Huang, H.W. Chang, C.H. Chu, The performance analysis of space resection-aided pedestrian dead reckoning for smartphone navigation in a mapped indoor environment. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 6(2), 43 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    L.M. Ni, Y. Liu, Y.C. Lau, A.P. Patil, LANDMARC: location sensing using active RFID. Wireless Netw. 10(6), 701–710 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Brassart, C. Pegard, M. Mouaddib, Localization using infrared beacons. Robotica 18(2), 153–161 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Priya, S. Anand, Object recognition and 3D reconstruction of occluded objects using binocular stereo. Cluster Comput. 1–10 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Burbano, M. Vasiliu, S. Bouaziz, 3D cameras benchmark for human tracking in hybrid distributed smart camera networks, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Distributed Smart Camera (ACM, 2016), pp. 76–83Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stereolabs Homepage. https://www.stereolabs.com/zed/. Accessed 18 Dec 2018
  23. 23.
    A.S. George, E. Roy, A. Antony, M. Job, An Efficient Gait Recognition System for Human Identification using Neural Networks (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of JohannesburgAuckland ParkSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations