Security for Sensor Networks: Cryptography and Beyond David Wagner University of California at Berkeley In collaboration with: Chris Karlof, David Molnar,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TinySec: Security for TinyOS C. Karlof, N. Sastry, D. Wagner November 20, 2002.
Advertisements

Chris Karlof and David Wagner
Cellphone Security David Wagner U.C. Berkeley. Cellular Systems Overview  Cellphone standards from around the world: North America AnalogAMPS DigitalCDMA,
Dan Boneh Authenticated Encryption Active attacks on CPA-secure encryption Online Cryptography Course Dan Boneh.
WEP 1 WEP WEP 2 WEP  WEP == Wired Equivalent Privacy  The stated goal of WEP is to make wireless LAN as secure as a wired LAN  According to Tanenbaum:
Wireless Security Why Swiss-Cheese Security Isn’t Enough David Wagner University of California at Berkeley.
15-1 Last time Internet Application Security and Privacy Public-key encryption Integrity.
Wireless Security David Wagner University of California at Berkeley.
Wireless Security David Wagner University of California, Berkeley.
TinySec: Security for TinyOS Chris Karlof Naveen Sastry David Wagner January 15, 2003
TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks C. Karlof, N. Sastry, D. Wagner SPINS: Security Protocol for Sensor Networks A.
WEP Weaknesses Or “What on Earth does this Protect” Roy Werber.
TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks Seetha Manickam.
1 Enhancing Wireless Security with WPA CS-265 Project Section: 2 (11:30 – 12:20) Shefali Jariwala Student ID
Intercepting Mobiles Communications: The Insecurity of Danny Bickson ACNS Course, IDC Spring 2007.
Security for ad-hoc networks: Cryptography and beyond David Wagner U.C. Berkeley.
Secure Routing in Sensor Networks: Attacks and Countermeasures First IEEE International Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications 5/11/2003.
Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP)
7/13/2007 AIIT Summer Course - F2 Security 1 Wireless Embedded Systems and Networking Foundations of IP-based Ubiquitous Sensor Networks WSN Security David.
1 CS 577 “TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks” Chris Karlof, Naveen Sastry, David Wagner UC Berkeley Summary presented.
TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks Chris Karlof, Naveen Sastry, David Wagner SenSys 2004.
1 TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks Chris Karlof, Naveen Sastry, David Wagner Presented by Paul Ruggieri.
Privacy and Security in Embedded Sensor Networks Daniel Turner 11/18/08 CSE237a.
Security In Wireless Sensor Networks by Adrian Perrig, John Stankovic, and David Wagner.
Department of Computer Science Southern Illinois University Carbondale Wireless and Network Security Lecture 9: IEEE
TinySec: Link Layer Security Chris Karlof, Naveen Sastry, David Wagner University of California, Berkeley Presenter: Todd Fielder.
Secure Group Communications in Wireless Sensor Networks December 8, 2003 CS 526 Advance Internet and Web Systems Patrick D. Cook.
Security for Sensor Networks: Cryptography and Beyond David Wagner University of California at Berkeley In collaboration with: Chris Karlof, David Molnar,
SPINS: Security Protocols for Sensor Networks Adrian Perrig, Robert Szewczyk, Victor Wen, David Culler, and J.D. Tygar – University of California, Berkeley.
SPINS: Security Protocols for Sensor Networks Adrian Perrig Robert Szewczyk Victor Wen David Culler Doug TygarUC Berkeley.
TinySec: Performance Characteristics Chris K :: Naveen S :: David W January 16, 2004.
IEEE Platforms, Progress, and TinyOS Joe Polastre.
WLAN What is WLAN? Physical vs. Wireless LAN
Security in Wireless Sensor Networks. Wireless Sensor Networks  Wireless networks consisting of a large number motes  self-organizing  highly integrated.
Wireless security & privacy Authors: M. Borsc and H. Shinde Source: IEEE International Conference on Personal Wireless Communications 2005 (ICPWC 2005),
CWNA Guide to Wireless LANs, Second Edition Chapter Eight Wireless LAN Security and Vulnerabilities.
Security Considerations for IEEE Networks Karthikeyan Mahadevan.
1 TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks Hai Yan Computer Science & Engineering University of Connecticut.
TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks – Chris Karlof, Naveen Sastry & David Wagner Dr. Xiuzhen Cheng Department of Computer.
COEN 350 Mobile Security. Wireless Security Wireless offers additional challenges: Physical media can easily be sniffed. War Driving Legal? U.S. federal.
Done By : Ahmad Al-Asmar Wireless LAN Security Risks and Solutions.
Intercepting Mobile Communications: The Insecurity of Nikita Borisov Ian Goldberg David Wagner UC Berkeley Zero-Knowledge Sys UC Berkeley Presented.
Secure routing in wireless sensor network: attacks and countermeasures Presenter: Haiou Xiang Author: Chris Karlof, David Wagner Appeared at the First.
Network Security David Lazăr.
Sensor Network Security: Survey Team Members Pardeep Kumar Md. Iftekhar Salam Ah. Galib Reza 110/28/2015.
Security on Sensor Networks Presented by Min-gyu Cho SPINS: Security Protocol for Sensor Networks TinySec: Security for TinyOS SPINS: Security Protocol.
Security in WSN Vinod Kulathumani West Virginia University.
Secure Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks: Attacks and Countermeasures Chris Karlof and David Wagner (modified by Sarjana Singh)
TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks Chris Karlof :: Naveen Sastry :: David Wagner Presented by Roh, Yohan October.
TinySec : Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks Chris Karlof :: Naveen Sastry :: David Wagner Presented by Anil Karamchandani 10/01/2007.
1 Intrusion Tolerance for NEST Bruno Dutertre, Steven Cheung SRI International NEST PI Meeting January 29, 2003.
TinySec: Performance Characteristics Chris K :: Naveen S :: David W January 16, 2004.
Main Issues Three major issues that we are concerned with in sensor networks are – Clustering Routing and Security To be considered against the backdrop.
Wireless Security: The need for WPA and i By Abuzar Amini CS 265 Section 1.
Wireless Security Rick Anderson Pat Demko. Wireless Medium Open medium Broadcast in every direction Anyone within range can listen in No Privacy Weak.
Chapter 14 Network Encryption
TinySec: A Link Layer Security Architecture for Wireless Sensor Networks Seetha Manickam Modified by Sarjana Singh.
802.11b Security CSEP 590 TU Osama Mazahir. Introduction Packets are sent out into the air for anyone to receive Eavesdropping is a much larger concern.
June All Hands Meeting Security in Sensor Networks Tanya Roosta Chris Karlof Professor S. Sastry.
Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) Chris Overcash. Contents What is WEP? What is WEP? How is it implemented? How is it implemented? Why is it insecure? Why.
Erik Nicholson COSC 352 March 2, WPA Wi-Fi Protected Access New security standard adopted by Wi-Fi Alliance consortium Ensures compliance with different.
Wireless LAN Security Daniel Reichle Seminar Security Protocols and Applications SS2003.
Lecture 10 Page 1 CS 236 Online Encryption and Network Security Cryptography is widely used to protect networks Relies on encryption algorithms and protocols.
Encryption and Network Security
TinySec: Security for TinyOS
Security Of Wireless Sensor Networks
Outline Using cryptography in networks IPSec SSL and TLS.
Wireless Security Why Swiss-Cheese Security Isn’t Enough
Security of Wireless Sensor Networks
Outline A. Perrig, R. Szewczyk, V. Wen, D. Culler, and J. D. Tygar. SPINS: Security protocols for sensor networks. In Proceedings of MOBICOM, 2001 Sensor.
Presentation transcript:

Security for Sensor Networks: Cryptography and Beyond David Wagner University of California at Berkeley In collaboration with: Chris Karlof, David Molnar, Naveen Sastry, Umesh Shankar

Learn From History… analog cellphones: AMPS analog cloning, scanners  fraud pervasive & costly digital: TDMA, GSM TDMA eavesdropping [Bar] more TDMA flaws [WSK] GSM cloneable [BGW] GSM eavesdropping [BSW,BGW] Future: 3 rd gen.: 3GPP, … cellphones , WEP WEP broken [BGW] WEP badly broken [FMS] WPA Future: i 2003  attacks pervasive wireless networks Berkeley motes 2002 TinyOS 1.0 TinyOS 1.1, TinySec 2003 sensor networks Let’s get it right the first time!

Sensor Nets: So What? What’s different about sensor nets? Stringent resource constraints Insecure wireless networks No physical security Interaction with the physical environment Back to the 90’sNewBack to the 70’s

Where Are We Going? Some research challenges in sensor net security: Securing the communication link Securing distributed services Tolerating captured nodes In this talk: Techniques and thoughts on these problems.  Cryptography and beyond

I. Communications Security: The TinySec Architecture “It doesn’t matter how good your crypto is if it is never used.”

TinySec Design Philosophy The lesson from : Build crypto-security in, and turn it on by default! TinySec Design Goals: 1. Encryption turned on by default 2. Encryption turned on by default 3. Encryption turned on by default  Usage must be transparent and intuitive  Performance must be reasonable 4. As much security as we can get, within these constraints

Challenges Must avoid complex key management TinySec must be super-easy to deploy Crypto must run on wimpy devices We’re not talking 2GHz P4’s here! Dinky CPU (1-4 MHz), little RAM (  256 bytes), lousy battery Public-key cryptography is right out Need to minimize packet overhead Radio is very power-intensive: 1 bit transmitted  1000 CPU ops TinyOS packets are  28 bytes long Can’t afford to throw around an 128-bit IV here, a 128-bit MAC there

Easy Key Management networ k base station k k k k k k Making key management easy: global shared keys

Be Easy to Deploy Making deployment easy: plug-n-play crypto + link-layer security SecureGenericComm App Radio GenericComm App Radio

Perform Well on Tiny Devices Use a block cipher for both encryption & authentication Skipjack is good for 8-bit devices; low RAM overhead Radio Stack [MicaHighSpeedRadioM/ CC1000RadioIntM] TinySecM CBC-ModeM SkipJackM CBC-MACM

Minimize Packet Overhead Minimize overhead: cannibalize, cheat, steal dest AM IV len dataMAC Encrypted MAC’ed Key Differences No CRC -2 bytes No group ID -1 bytes MAC +4 bytes IV +4 bytes Total: +5 bytes

Tricks for Low Overhead CBC mode encryption, with encrypted IV Allows flexible IV formatting: 4 byte counter, + cleartext hdr fields (dest, AM type, length); gets the most bang for your birthday buck IV robustness: Even if IV repeats, plaintext variability may provide an extra layer of defense Ciphertext stealing avoids overhead on variable-length packets CBC-MAC, modified for variable-length packets Small 4-byte MAC trades off security for performance; the good news is that low-bandwidth radio limits chosen-ciphertext attacks Can replace the application CRC checksum; saves overhead On-the-fly crypto: overlap computation with I/O

More Tricks & Features Early rejection for packets destined elsewhere Stop listening & decrypting once we see dst addr  us Support for mixed-mode networks Interoperable packet format with unencrypted packets, so network can carry both encrypted + unencrypted traffic Crypto only where needed  better performance Length field hack: steal 2 bits to distinguish between modes Support fine-grained mixed-mode usage of TinySec Add 3 settings: no crypto, integrity only, integrity+secrecy These come with performance tradeoffs Select between settings on per-application or per-packet basis

More Performance Tricks App-level API for end-to-end encryption TinySec focuses mainly on link-layer crypto, but end-to-end crypto also has value End-to-end secrecy enables performance optimizations (don’t decrypt & re-encrypt at every hop), enables more sophisticated per-node keying, but incompatible with in-network transformation and aggregation; thus, not always appropriate End-to-end integrity less clear-cut, due to DoS attacks

TinySec: Current Status Design + implementation stable Released in TinyOS 1.1 Integration with RFM & Chipcon radio stacks; supports nesC 1.1 Simple key management; should be transparent Several external users Including: SRI, BBN, Bosch

TinySec Evaluation Wins: Performance is ok Integration seems truly easy Neutral: Out of scope: per-node keying, re-keying, sophisticated key mgmt; PKI; secure link-layer ACKs No security against insider attacks; What if a node is captured, stolen, or compromised? Losses: Not turned on by default in TinyOS yet 