Secure Verification of Location Claims In the physical world, identity is not the only thing that matters. Physical location of the requester plays an important role in determining access rights. Secure Verification of Location Claims comes natural in the physical world but not in information systems. Location verification enables the Secure Verification of Location Claims. Secure Verification of Location Claims benefits: It is Natural . No need to establish shared secrets in advance. 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Let be a set of Verifiers V, Prover p and Region R. location determination problem : verifier actively seeks prover’s exact location. In-region verification problem : prover claims a location and verifier accepts or rejects it. In-region verification problem is easier to tackle. p claims to be in R and v ∈ V accepts or rejects. .v R .p 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Model Assumptions: No attempt to verify exact location of the prover. Attempt t verify location claims for regions R near V. Verifier and prover communicate using RF (radio frequency at the speed of light ) and sound (ultrasound at the speed of sound). Prover must be able to bound its processing delay (time to digest signal). Prover and verifier know region R a priori. 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Model Protocol Does not require Cryptography Does not require time synchronization Does not require any prover – verifier agreement. Suitable for low-cost sensor networks (low CPU and Memory reqs.). Uses Time-of-Flight to estimate distance. p ---RF--- v : p reports location l v ---RF--- p : v sends nonce N (at light speed c) p --Sound- v : p sends nonce N (at sound speed s) v accepts location claim iff: l ≤ R AND elapsed time ≤ d( v , l ) . (c-1 + s-1) 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Possible Attacks Prover tries to cheat by delaying response. Not good. Will appear to be further away. Prover tries to cheat by starting response transmission early. Not possible. Nonce is randomly generated and must be known before response. p ---RF--- v : p reports location l v ---RF--- p : v sends nonce N (at light speed c) p --Sound- v : p sends nonce N (at sound speed s) v accepts location claim iff: l ≤ R AND elapsed time ≤ d( v , l ) . (c-1 + s-1) 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Processing Delay Prover requires some time (∆p) to process nonce N. Prover is aware of its ∆p and reports it to the verifier. p ---RF--- v : p reports location l and ∆p v ---RF--- p : v sends nonce N (at light speed c) p --Sound- v : p sends nonce N (after ∆p seconds) v accepts location claim iff: l ≤ R AND elapsed time ≤ d( v , l ) . (c-1 + s-1) + ∆p 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Possible Attacks….again. Prover tries to cheat by reporting location l at border of region R and overstating processing delay ∆p. Verifier shrinks allowable region by s.∆p. ROA(v,∆p) : Region Of Acceptance where location claims are permitted by v if the claimed processing delay is ∆p. ROA(v,0) = R .v R .p l ≤ R - s∆p 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Non-uniform Regions ROA must be a circle since signals travel at the same speed in all directions. ROA must be wholly contained in region R so as to not accept a location claim outside of R. ROA should be largest circle that fits within R. ROA(v,0) .p .v ROA(v,∆p) R 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Non-uniform Regions…continue. Let ROA(∆p) region where at least one verifier node can prove location claim. ROA(∆p) = ỤROA(v,∆p) More than one verifier might be eligible. Prover does not gain any advantage by selecting a different verifier. Coverage = ROA(∆p) / R .v R .p ROA(∆p) 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Possible Attacks….once more. “remote actuation” : complice inside R helps remote attacker. Low-delay remote actuation of sonic signals is infeasible. 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Rejected Variants: (radio, sound)  (radio, radio) Error term ∆p.c would be very large (may exceed R and verifier may not accept location claims at all. (radio, sound)  (sound, radio) or (sound, sound) May attack with laser-based “remote bugging” of sound. .v R .p ROA(∆p) 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Protocol Variant: Keyed Echo Protocol All verifiers and a prover share a key, therefore verifier can verify that a particular prover is inside R. p ---RF--- v : p reports location l and ∆p v ---RF--- p : v sends nonce N (at light speed c) p --Sound- v : p sends nonce N (after ∆p seconds) .v R .p ROA(∆p) 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar

Secure Verification of Location Claims Future Work: More precise region verification. Location-limited channels : Comm. Mechanism restricted to short range. GPS (Global Positioning System) : Do not address security 1/13/2019 By Alvaro E. Escobar