How Secure are Secure Localization Protocols in WSNs?

  • Chérifa Boucetta
  • Mohamed Ali Kaafar
  • Marine Minier
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 57)


Remote monitoring and gathering information are the main objectives behind deploying Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). Besides WSN issues due to communication and computation restricted resources (low energy, limited memory computational speed and bandwidth), securing sensor networks is one of the major challenges these networks have to face. In particular, the security of sensors localization is a fundamental building block for many applications such as efficient routing.

In this paper, we introduce a new threat model that combines classical Wormhole attacks (i.e. an attacker receives packets at one location in the network, tunnels and replays them at another remote location using a powerful transceiver as an out of band channel) with false neighborhood topology information sent by the wormhole endpoints themselves or by some colluding compromised nodes. We show using intensive simulations how this clever attacker that would exploit the neighborhood topology information can easily defeat two representative secure localization schemes. We also present some possible countermeasures and the first corresponding results.


Sensor Node Wireless Sensor Network True Positive Rate Malicious Node Anchor Node 
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.
    Douceur, J.R.: The sybil attack. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, M.F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, pp. 251–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karlof, C., Wagner, D.: Secure routing in wireless sensor networks: Attacks and countermeasures. Elsevier’s AdHoc Networks Journal, Special Issue on Sensor Network Applications and Protocols 1(2-3), 293–315 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu, Y.-C., Perrig, A., Johnson, D.B.: Packet leashes: A defense against wormhole attacks in wireless ad hoc networks. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference INFOCOM, IEEE 2003, San Francisco, CA, vol. 3, pp. 1976–1986. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu, L., Evans, D.: Using directional antennas to prevent wormhole attacks. In: Proceedings of NDSS 2004, San Diego, California, USA. The Internet Society, San Diego (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Čapkun, S., Buttyán, L., Hubaux, J.-P.: Sector: secure tracking of node encounters in multi-hop wireless networks. In: Proceedings of SASN 2003, pp. 21–32. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Znaidi, W., Minier, M., Babau, J.-P.: Detecting wormhole attacks in wireless networks using local neighborhood information. In: IEEE PIMRC, Cannes, French Riviera, France (September 2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shokri, R., Poturalski, M., Ravot, G., Papadimitratos, P., Hubaux, J.-P.: A practical secure neighbor verification protocol for wireless sensor networks. In: WiSec 2009, pp. 193–200. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maheshwari, R., Gao, J., Das, S.R.: Detecting wormhole attacks in wireless networks using connectivity information. In: INFOCOM 2007, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, May 6-12, pp. 107–115. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khalil, I., Hayajneh, M., Awad, M.: Svnm: Secure verification of neighborhood membership in static multi-hop wireless networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th ISCC 2009, Sousse, Tunisia, July 5-8, pp. 368–373. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poturalski, M., Papadimitratos, P., Hubaux, J.-P.: Towards provable secure neighbor discovery in wireless networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th FMSE 2008, Alexandria, VA, USA, October 27. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brands, S., Chaum, D.: Distance bounding protocols. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 344–359. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, D., Ning, P., Du, W.: Attack-resistant location estimation in sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IPSN 2005, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA, April 25-27, pp. 99–106. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Du, W., Fang, L., Ning, P.: Lad: Localization anomaly detection for wireless sensor networks. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 66(7), 874–886 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, W., Bhargava, B.K.: Visualization of wormholes in sensor networks. In: Jakobsson, M., Perrig, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Workshop on Wireless Security, Philadelphia, PA, USA, October 1, pp. 51–60. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poovendran, R., Lazos, L.: A graph theoretic framework for preventing the wormhole attack in wireless ad hoc networks. Wireless Networks 13(1), 27–59 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Cecconi, F., Loreto, V., Parisi, D.: Defining and identifying communities in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, PNAS 101(9), 2658–2663 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamida, E.B., Chelius, G., Gorce, J.-M.: Scalability versus accuracy in physical layer modeling for wireless network simulations. In: 22nd ACM/IEEE/SCS Workshop PADS 2008, Rome, Italy (June 2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ssu, K.-F., Wang, W.-T., Chang, W.-C.: Detecting sybil attacks in wireless sensor networks using neighboring information. Computer Networks 53(18), 3042–3056 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chérifa Boucetta
    • 1
  • Mohamed Ali Kaafar
    • 1
  • Marine Minier
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIAFrance

Personalised recommendations