Distribution and Revocation of Cryptographic Keys in Sensor Networks Amrinder Singh Dept. of Computer Science Virginia Tech.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Security in Sensor Networks By : Rohin Sethi Aranika Mahajan Twisha Patel.
Advertisements

A Survey of Key Management for Secure Group Communications Celia Li.
ECE454/CS594 Computer and Network Security Dr. Jinyuan (Stella) Sun Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Tennessee Fall 2011.
Authors: Yanchao Zhang, Member, IEEE, Wei Liu, Wenjing Lou,Member, IEEE, and Yuguang Fang, Senior Member, IEEE Source: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE.
Efficient Public Key Infrastructure Implementation in Wireless Sensor Networks Wireless Communication and Sensor Computing, ICWCSC International.
The Sybil Attack in Sensor Networks: Analysis & Defenses J. Newsome, E. Shi, D. Song and A. Perrig IPSN’04.
1 Digital Signatures & Authentication Protocols. 2 Digital Signatures have looked at message authentication –but does not address issues of lack of trust.
Computer Science Dr. Peng NingCSC 774 Adv. Net. Security1 CSC 774 Advanced Network Security Topic 7. Wireless Sensor Network Security.
Distributed Detection Of Node Replication Attacks In Sensor Networks Presenter: Kirtesh Patil Acknowledgement: Slides on Paper originally provided by Bryan.
Presented By : Ankita Jaiswal Guided By : Dr. Agrawal sir.
1 Security in Wireless Sensor Networks Group Meeting Fall 2004 Presented by Edith Ngai.
Roberto Di Pietro, Luigi V. Mancini and Alessandro Mei.
ITIS 6010/8010 Wireless Network Security Dr. Weichao Wang.
SUMP: A Secure Unicast Messaging Protocol for Wireless Ad Hoc Sensor Networks Jeff Janies, Chin-Tser Huang, Nathan L. Johnson.
A Secure Fault-Tolerant Conference- Key Agreement Protocol Wen-Guey Tzeng Source : IEEE Transactions on computers Speaker : LIN, KENG-CHU.
Co-operative Private Equality Test(CPET) Ronghua Li and Chuan-Kun Wu (received June 21, 2005; revised and accepted July 4, 2005) International Journal.
Random Key Predistribution Schemes for Sensor Networks Authors: Haowen Chan, Adrian Perrig, Dawn Song Carnegie Mellon University Presented by: Johnny Flowers.
INSENS: Intrusion-Tolerant Routing For Wireless Sensor Networks By: Jing Deng, Richard Han, Shivakant Mishra Presented by: Daryl Lonnon.
Random Key Predistribution Schemes For Sensor Networks Haowan Chen, Adrian Perigg, Dawn Song.
An Authentication Service Against Dishonest Users in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Edith Ngai, Michael R. Lyu, and Roland T. Chin IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big.
Sencun Zhu Sanjeev Setia Sushil Jajodia Presented by: Harel Carmit
Security in Wireless Sensor Networks Perrig, Stankovic, Wagner Jason Buckingham CSCI 7143: Secure Sensor Networks August 31, 2004.
Establishing Pairwise Keys in Distributed Sensor Networks Donggang Liu, Peng Ning Jason Buckingham CSCI 7143: Secure Sensor Networks October 12, 2004.
The Sybil Attack in Sensor Networks: Analysis & Defenses James Newsome, Elaine Shi, Dawn Song, Adrian Perrig Presenter: Yi Xian.
LEAP: Efficient Security Mechanisms for Large-Scale Distributed Sensor Networks By: Sencun Zhu, Sanjeev Setia, and Sushil Jajodia Presented By: Daryl Lonnon.
Cryptography and Network Security Chapter 10. Chapter 10 – Key Management; Other Public Key Cryptosystems No Singhalese, whether man or woman, would venture.
Computer Science 1 Research on Sensor Network Security Peng Ning Cyber Defense Laboratory Department of Computer Science NC State University 2005 TRES.
Alexander Potapov.  Authentication definition  Protocol architectures  Cryptographic properties  Freshness  Types of attack on protocols  Two-way.
Effect of Intrusion Detection on Reliability Jin-Hee Cho, Member, IEEE, Ing-Ray Chen, Member, IEEE, and Phu-Gui Feng IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY,
Secure Localization Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks proposed by A. Boukerche, H. Oliveira, E. Nakamura, and A. Loureiro (2008) Maria Berenice Carrasco.
S ecurity I N W IRELESS S ENSOR N ETWORKS Prepared by: Ahmed ezz-eldin.
Computer Science Secure Hierarchical In-network Data Aggregation for Sensor Networks Steve McKinney CSC 774 – Dr. Ning Acknowledgment: Slides based on.
MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK(MANET) SECURITY VAMSI KRISHNA KANURI NAGA SWETHA DASARI RESHMA ARAVAPALLI.
Leveraging Channel Diversity for Key Establishment in Wireless Sensor Networks Matthew J. Miller Nitin H. Vaidya University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Aggregation in Sensor Networks
Robust Sharing of Secrets when the Dealer Is Honest or Cheating Tal Rabin 1994 Brian Fry COEN
10. Key Management. Contents Key Management  Public-key distribution  Secret-key distribution via public-key cryptography.
Computer Science 1 CSC 774 Advanced Network Security Distributed detection of node replication attacks in sensor networks (By Bryan Parno, Adrian Perrig,
Distributed Detection of Node Replication Attacks in Sensor Networks Bryan Parno, Adrian perrig, Virgil Gligor IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2005.
Group Rekeying for Filtering False Data in Sensor Networks: A Predistribution and Local Collaboration-Based Approach Wensheng Zhang and Guohong Cao.
The Sybil Attack in Sensor Networks: Analysis & Defenses
Securing Distributed Sensor Networks Udayan Kumar Subhajit Sengupta Sharad Sonapeer.
Byzantine fault-tolerance COMP 413 Fall Overview Models –Synchronous vs. asynchronous systems –Byzantine failure model Secure storage with self-certifying.
Rushing Attacks and Defense in Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols ► Acts as denial of service by disrupting the flow of data between a source and.
A Two-Layer Key Establishment Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks Yun Zhou, Student Member, IEEE, Yuguang Fang, Senior Member, IEEE IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON.
Chapter 3 (B) – Key Management; Other Public Key Cryptosystems.
P2: Privacy-Preserving Communication and Precise Reward Architecture for V2G Networks in Smart Grid P2: Privacy-Preserving Communication and Precise Reward.
© 2007 Levente Buttyán and Jean-Pierre Hubaux Security and Cooperation in Wireless Networks Chapter 4: Naming and addressing.
Merkle trees Introduced by Ralph Merkle, 1979 An authentication scheme
Computer Science CSC 774 Adv. Net. Security1 Presenter: Tong Zhou 11/21/2015 Practical Broadcast Authentication in Sensor Networks.
Mangai Vetrivelan Snigdha Joshi Avani Atre. Sensor Network Vulnerabilities o Unshielded Sensor Network Nodes vulnerable to be compromised. o Attacks on.
Computer Science 1 TinySeRSync: Secure and Resilient Time Synchronization in Wireless Sensor Networks Speaker: Sangwon Hyun Acknowledgement: Slides were.
1 Chapter 10: Key Management in Public key cryptosystems Fourth Edition by William Stallings Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown (Modified by Prof. M. Singhal,
UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN-MADISON Computer Sciences Department
Copyright © 2005 May 5, On the Evolution of Adversary Models for Security Protocols* Virgil D. Gligor Electrical and Computer Engineering University.
PROACTIVE SECRET SHARING Or: How to Cope With Perpetual Leakage Herzberg et al. Presented by: Avinash Ravi Kevin Skapinetz.
Shambhu Upadhyaya 1 Sensor Networks – Hop- by-Hop Authentication Shambhu Upadhyaya Wireless Network Security CSE 566 (Lecture 22)
Informal Security Seminar: Key Pre-distribution Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks Joengmin Hwang Dept. Computer Science Univ. of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
A Key Management Scheme for Distributed Sensor Networks Laurent Eschaenauer and Virgil D. Gligor.
A Key Management Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks Using Deployment Knowledge Wenliang Du et al.
Efficient Pairwise Key Establishment Scheme Based on Random Pre-Distribution Keys in Wireless Sensor Networks Source: Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Lecture 9 Overview. Digital Signature Properties CS 450/650 Lecture 9: Digital Signatures 2 Unforgeable: Only the signer can produce his/her signature.
International Conference Security in Pervasive Computing(SPC’06) MMC Lab. 임동혁.
Security Review Q&A Session May 1. Outline  Class 1 Security Overview  Class 2 Security Introduction  Class 3 Advanced Security Constructions  Class.
Fall 2006CS 395: Computer Security1 Key Management.
Secure positioning in Wireless Networks Srdjan Capkun, Jean-Pierre Hubaux IEEE Journal on Selected area in Communication Jeon, Seung.
Fundamentals of Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computing In Asynchronous Environments Paper by Felix C. Gartner Graeme Coakley COEN 317 November 23, 2003.
A Secure Routing Protocol with Intrusion Detection for Clustering Wireless Sensor Networks International Forum on Information Technology and Applications.
Computer Science Least Privilege and Privilege Deprivation: Towards Tolerating Mobile Sink Compromises in Wireless Sensor Network Presented by Jennifer.
Path key establishment using multiple secured paths in wireless sensor networks CoNEXT’05 Guanfeng Li  University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA Hui Ling.
Presentation transcript:

Distribution and Revocation of Cryptographic Keys in Sensor Networks Amrinder Singh Dept. of Computer Science Virginia Tech

Agenda Introduction Contributions Key Distribution Schemes Proposed Protocol Properties of Key Revocation Proof of Properties Conclusions

Introduction Complexity of secure communication Large number of nodes No knowledge of topology before hand Limited resources Exposure of nodes to adversary Possible key revocation schemes Centralized Distributed

Contributions Rigorous definition of distributed revocation properties A general active adversary model Protocol for distributed Key revocation

Key Distribution Schemes Fully Pairwise-Shared Keys Every node shares key with every other node Large number of keys Use of Trusted KDC KDC distributes keys Small number of keys Centralized point of attack λ-Secure n x n Keys Property of λ-Security

Key Distribution Schemes Random Key Distribution Scheme Key Ring of size m Key pool of size |Q| 2 random subsets of size m will share at least 1 key with probability p Use of q-composite keys Tradeoff between initial resistance to subsequent weakness

Key Distribution Schemes Random Pairwise Keys Proposed by Chan et al Preload just m keys, where m<<n Node share a key with neighbor with probability p Can provide node authentication

Key Distribution Schemes MultiSpace Keys Select pools of keyspaces Common keyspace provide λ-security Deterministic Key Predistribution Allocation to ensure key sharing Memory is O(√n) Same keys could be shared between many nodes

Node Revocation Problem Takes place in presence of active adversaries Adversaries can modify and monitor messages Limited resources available Distributed Scheme is more useful Decisions made by neighbors Decision can be made faster More complex

Attacker & Communications Model Adversary has universal communication presence Adversary can perform chosen node compromise Compromised nodes collaborate Adversary cannot block or significantly delay communications

Assumptions Deployment Atomicity Do not occur while there are active revocation sessions in the network Locality Restriction of Compromised Nodes Nodes cannot replicate and move to other places in the network Node Degrees Number of local participants, d i >>t Adversary can attempt to reduce degree of legitimate nodes

Assumptions Node Revocation Events are visible to the neighborhood Malicious nodes providing spurious revocations Revocation Sessions are always available Revocation attempts by legitimate nodes are infrequent Malicious node tries to exhaust revocation sessions against target, known by neighborhood Do not assume time synchronization

Cryptographic Primitives Random polynomial q(x) = a 0 + a 1 x + a 2 x 2 +… + a t-1 x t-1 Cryptographic Hash 1 way function, hash of coefficients Authenticated Encryption Detect ciphertext forgeries Detect false decryption keys

Merkle Tree

Secret Share How to divide data D into n pieces in such a way that D is easily reconstructable from any k pieces, but even complete knowledge of k - 1 pieces reveals absolutely no information about D.

Offline Node Initialization

Stages of Revocation A is initially in pending state for session s When 1 st vote is cast or received, it moves to active state It records votes of other participants After Δs time, it moves to completed state For full dissemination of messages, Δs>2Δc, where Δc is the time to propagate a message in the neighborhood

Voting in Revocation Session When node A detects compromise, it votes in this session and the next It transmits (q Bs (X ABs ), X ABs ) Also transmits (log m) Merkle tree authentication hash values

Completing Revocation Session If A receives t votes Able to compute q Bs Transmits Hash of the polynomial Other nodes verify this hash and delete the shared keys with the target Otherwise Session number is updated All nodes privately notify base station of failed revocation

Properties of Distributed Revocation Completeness If a compromised node is detected by t or more uncompromised neighboring nodes, then it is revoked from the entire network permanently. Soundness If a node is revoked from the network using this scheme, then at least t nodes must have agreed on its revocation.

Properties of Distributed Revocation Bounded Time Revocation Completion Revocation decision and execution occur within a bounded time period from the time of sending of the first revocation vote. Unitary Revocation Revocations of nodes are unitary (all-or-nothing) in the network. Specifically, if a node is revoked in one part of the network, then it will be revoked in the whole network.

Properties of Distributed Revocation Revocation attack resistance If c nodes are compromised, then they can only revoke at most αc other nodes where α is a constant and α<<m/t. Comes from definition of Revocation Attack An attack where an adversary uses the distributed node revocation protocol to selectively revoke uncompromised nodes from the network.

Session Agreement Two nodes are in session agreement with respect to a target node at some instant in time if, for some session s, either session s is pending for both nodes, session s is active for both nodes, session s is active for one node B and session s is completed for another node A, but session s is completing within time Δc for node B, or session s is active for one node A and pending for the other node B, but node B is activating session s within Δc time.

Lemmas Every node is deployed with the correct current revocation session for its participants. At any given point in time, any two uncompromised local participants are in session agreement for any target node.

Proof of Lemma Case1 Session s is pending for both nodes at time T, and at time T+ε, node A activated session s. Case2 Session s is active for both nodes at time T. At time T+ε, node A completed session s, but node B still has the session active.

Proof of Lemma Case3 Session s is active for node B and session s is complete for node A at time T. At time T+ε, session s has completed for node B. Case4 At time t, session s is active for A and pending for B. At time T+ε, session s has completed for node A.

Proof for Completeness Node B has lowest session number Arbitrary Node A Case1 Session s is pending for B Node A has either session s pending or active Case2 Session s-1 is active for B Node A has session s-1 pending or s-1 active or s pending or s active

Proof for Soundness If Node C is revoked, H(q cs ) is broadcast For this q cs must be obtained By secret share, only possible from t shares

Proof for Bounded Time Revocation First vote cast at time T All nodes activate session within T+Δc Decision taken within time Δs Time to propagate decision is Δd Total time is bounded

Proof for Unitary Revocation Case 1 Node is revoked in 1 part of the network Correct value of q cs is received and transmitted and revoked in time Δd Case 2 If a node is not revoked in some part of the network, then it was not revoked in any part of the network in the time prior to the last Δd

Proof for Attack Resistance Each compromised node can form connections with d i nodes Thus, each compromised node can unmask at most d i votes each. The total number of unmasked votes is thus

Conclusions Overview of key distribution techniques Precise formulation of distributed revocation problem Protocol for distributed revocation Distributed algorithms are more complex but are faster than centralized Avoidance of single point of failure

Questions?