Of Malicious Motes and Suspicious Sensors: On the Efficiency of Malicious Interference in Wireless Networks

  • Seth Gilbert
  • Rachid Guerraoui
  • Calvin Newport
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4305)


How efficiently can a malicious device disrupt communication in a wireless network? Imagine a basic game involving two honest players, Alice and Bob, who want to exchange information, and an adversary, Collin, who can disrupt communication using a limited budget of β broadcasts. How long can Collin delay Alice and Bob from communicating? In fact, the trials and tribulations of Alice and Bob capture the fundamental difficulty shared by several n–player problems, including reliable broadcast, leader election, static k–selection, and t–resilient consensus. We provide round complexity lower bounds—and (nearly) tight upper bounds—for each of those problems. These results imply bounds on adversarial efficiency, which we analyze in terms of jamming gain and disruption–free complexity.


Leader Election Crash Failure Malicious Adversary Reliable Broadcast Round Complexity 
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. 1.
    Brown, T.X., James, J.E., Sethi, A.: Jamming and sensing of encrypted wireless ad hoc networks. Technical Report CU-CS-1005-06, UC Boulder (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perrig, A., Szewczyk, R., Tygar, J.D., Wen, V., Culler, D.E.: Spins: Security protocols for sensor networks. Wireless Networks 8(5), 521–534 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karlof, C., Sastry, N., Wagner, D.: Tinysec: A link layer security architecture for wireless sensor networks. In: Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koo, C.Y.: Broadcast in radio networks tolerating byzantine adversarial behavior. In: Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 275–282 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhandari, V., Vaidya, N.H.: On reliable broadcast in a radio network. In: Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 138–147 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pelc, A., Peleg, D.: Broadcasting with locally bounded byzantine faults. Information Processing Letters 93(3), 109–115 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drabkin, V., Friedman, R., Segal, M.: Efficient byzantine broadcast in wireless ad hoc networks. In: Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 160–169 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pelc, A., Peleg, D.: Feasibility and complexity of broadcasting with random transmission failures. In: Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 334–341 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clementi, A.E.F., Monti, A., Silvestri, R.: Optimal F-reliable protocols for the do-all problem on single-hop wireless networks. In: Bose, P., Morin, P. (eds.) ISAAC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2518, pp. 320–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chlebus, B.S., Kowalski, D.R., Lingas, A.: The do-all problem in broadcast networks. In: Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 117–127 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kranakis, E., Krizanc, D., Pelc, A.: Fault-tolerant broadcasting in radio networks. In: European Symposium on Algorithms, pp. 283–294 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clementi, A., Monti, A., Silvestri, R.: Round robin is optimal for fault-tolerant broadcasting on wireless networks. J. Parallel Distributed Computing 64(1), 89–96 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koo, C.Y., Bhandari, V., Katz, J., Vaidya, N.H.: Relibable broadcast in radio networks: The bounded collision case. In: Principles of Distributed Computing (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stahlberg, M.: Radio jamming attacks against two popular mobile networks. In: Helsinki University of Technology Seminar on Network Security (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Negi, R., Perrig, A.: Jamming analysis of mac protocols. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu, Y., Perrig, A.: A survey of secure wireless ad hoc routing. IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine 02(3), 28–39 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gupta, V., Krishnamurthy, S., Faloutsos, S.: Denial of service attacks at the mac layer in wireless ad hoc networks. In: Military Communications Conference (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abramson, N.: The aloha system - another approach for computer communications. In: Proceedings of Fall Joint Computer Conference, AFIPS, vol. 37, pp. 281–285 (1970)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Metcalf, R.M., Boggs, D.R.: Ethernet: Distributed packet switching for local computer networks. Communications of the ACM 19(7), 395–404 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bar-Yehuda, R., Goldreich, O., Itai, A.: On the time-complexity of broadcast in multi-hop radio networks: An exponential gap between determinism and randomization. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 45(1), 104–126 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woo, A., Whitehouse, K., Jiang, F., Polastre, J., Culler, D.: Exploiting the capture effect for collision detection and recovery. In: Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors, pp. 45–52 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clementi, A., Monti, A., Silvestri, R.: Selective families, superimposed codes, and broadcasting on unknown radio networks. In: Symposium on Discrete algorithms, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 709–718 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kowalski, D.R.: On selection problem in radio networks. In: Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 158–166. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seth Gilbert
    • 1
  • Rachid Guerraoui
    • 2
  • Calvin Newport
    • 1
  1. 1.MIT CSAIL 
  2. 2.EPFL IC 

Personalised recommendations