A Security Overview of Wireless Sensor Network

A SECURITY OVERVIEW OF WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK
Muhammad Zulkifl Hasan1
, Zaka Ullah2
, Muhammad Zunnurain Hussain3
[1,2]
Department of Computer Science
[1,2]
Lahore Garrison University, Lahore, Pakistan, 3
Bahria University Lahore Campus, Lahore Pakistan
zulkifl.hasan@lgu.edu.pk, zakaullah@lgu.edu.pk, zunnurain.bulc@bahria.edu.pk
Abstract
As of late, remote sensor organize (WSN) is
utilized in numerous application zones, for
example, checking, following, and controlling. For
some utilizations of WSN, security is an essential
necessity. In any case, security arrangements in
WSN vary from conventional systems because of
asset confinement and computational
requirements. This paper investigates security
arrangements: Tiny Sec, IEEE 802.15.4, Twists,
Mini SEC, LSec, LLSP, LISA, and Drawl in
WSN. The paper additionally introduces qualities,
security prerequisites, assaults, encryption
calculations, and operation modes. This paper is
thought to be valuable for security planners in
WSNs.
Keywords: Tiny Sec, IEEE 802.15.4, Twists, Mini
SEC, LSec, LLSP, LISA, and Drawl in WSN.
Introduction
A wireless sensor network consists of substantial
number of distributed nodes which works to gather
information for making a decision about a logical
problem or issue. There comes a situation where
information security is a critical issue. Data loss or
integrity is questionable in some scenarios which
led to massive loss to applications which are
critical in context to military, home security & in
health sector. Senor networks are prone to several
traditional attacks with addition to newly
introduced attacks such as, Sinkholes. The main
aim of any attack is to interrupt the functioning of
existing network with modification in data as an
unauthorized user in the network. In this paper, we
will critically discuss the security issues &
handling with all types of attacks.(Abd-El-Barr,
Al-Otaibi, & Youssef, 2005)
Challenges in Wireless Sensor Networks
Few critical factors in WSNs which are considered
as challenges for the use of network are:
Power Constraints: Most of the applications of
sensor network requires more power to operate but
due to limited power many applications fail.
Limited Resources: Senor node size is a critical
factor for allocating bandwidth & computation
abilities. The smaller the size of node the more are
the limitation.
Flexibility & Portability of nodes: Due to
frequent movement of nodes in sensor network it
encounters situation where link failure changes the
nodes communication throughout the network.
(Anjali, Shikha, & Sharma, 2014)
Related Work
Sweeping examination is being done in the region
of Remote Sensor Systems. Analysts have been
focusing on settling an assortment of difficulties
extending from constrained asset capacities to
secure correspondence. Writing demonstrates that
sensor systems are conveyed in broad daylight or
relinquished zones, over unreliable remote
channels, it is along these lines charming for a
pernicious gadget/interloper to spy or infuse
messages into the system. The customary answer
for this issue has been to take up procedures, for
example, message confirmation codes, open key
cryptography and symmetric key encryption plans.
In any case, since there are asset shortages for bits,
the real test is to devise these encryption strategies
in an effective way without yielding their rare
assets. One strategy for protecting any system
against outer assaults is to apply a direct key
foundation. Be that as it may, it is realized that
worldwide keys don't give arrange flexibility and
match shrewd keys are most certainly not hearty
arrangement. A more instinctive arrangement is
required for WSNs(Bin Lu, Habetler, Harley, &
Gutierrez, 2005).
Security Requirements in WSNs
It imparts a few shared traits to a run on the mill
PC organize, yet in addition shows numerous
qualities which are remarkable to it. The security
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2018
94 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

benefits in a WSN ought to ensure the data
conveyed over the system and the assets from
assaults and misconduct o hubs. The most vital
security necessities in WSN are recorded
underneath:
Information privacy: The security instrument
ought to guarantee that no message in the system is
comprehended by anybody aside from expected
beneficiary. a sensor hub ought not enable its
readings to be gotten to by its neighbors unless
they are approved to do as such, key dispersion
component ought to be to a great degree hearty,
open data, for example, sensor characters, and
open keys on the hubs ought to likewise be
encoded in specific bodies of evidence to secure
against movement investigation assaults.
Information trustworthiness: The component
ought to guarantee that no message can be adjusted
by an element as it navigates from the sender to
the beneficiary.
Accessibility: These prerequisites guarantees that
the administrations on a WSN ought to be
accessible constantly even in nearness on an inside
or outer assaults, for example, a dissent on
administration assault. While a few instruments
make utilization on extra correspondence among
hubs, others propose utilization on a local access
control framework to guarantee effective
conveyance on each message to its beneficiary.
Security vulnerabilities of WSN:
Remote Sensor Systems are powerless against
different sorts of assaults. These assaults are for
the most part of three sorts. Assaults on mystery
and confirmation: standard cryptographic
procedures can secure the mystery and legitimacy
of correspondence channels from pariah assaults
for example, listening stealthily, parcel replay
assaults, and adjustment or mocking of parcels.
Assaults on arrange accessibility: assaults on
accessibility of WSN are regularly alluded to as
dissent of-benefit (DoS) assaults. Stealthy assault
against benefit respectability: in a stealthy assault,
the objective of the assailant is to influence the
system to acknowledge a false information esteem.
For instance, an assailant bargains a sensor hub
and infuses a false information esteem through that
sensor hub. In these assaults, keeping the sensor
arrange accessible for its proposed utilize is basic.
DoS assaults against WSNs may allow genuine
harm to the wellbeing and security of individuals.
The DoS assault more often than not alludes to an
enemy's endeavor to upset, subvert, or crush a
system. Be that as it may, a DoS assault can be any
occasion that reduces or disposes of a system's
ability to play out its normal capacities (Dr. G.
Padmavathi, 2009).
Feasibility of Basic Security Schemes in
Wireless Sensor Networks
Security is a comprehensively utilized term
including the qualities of verification, honesty,
protection, nonrepudiation, and hostile to playback
The more the dependency on the information
provided by the networks has been increased, the
more the risk of secure transmission of information
over the networks has increased. For the secure
transmission of various types of information over
networks, several cryptographic, stenographic and
other techniques are used which are well known.
In this section, we discuss the network security
fundamentals and how the techniques are meant
for wireless sensor networks.
Cryptography
The encryption-decryption techniques devised for
the traditional wired networks are not feasible to
be applied directly for the wireless networks and in
particular for wireless sensor networks. WSNs
consist of tiny sensors which really suffer from the
lack of processing, memory and battery power/
Applying any encryption scheme requires
transmission of extra bits, hence extra processing,
memory and battery power which are very
important resources for the sensors’ longevity.
Applying the security mechanisms such as
encryption could also increase delay, jitter and
packet loss in wireless sensor networks Moreover,
some critical questions arise when applying
encryption schemes to WSNs like, how the keys
are generated or disseminated. How the keys are
managed, revoked, assigned to a new sensor added
to the network or renewed for ensuring robust
security for the network. As minimal (or no)
human interaction for the sensors, is a fundamental
feature of wireless sensor networks, it becomes an
important issue how the keys could be modified
time to time for encryption. Adoption of pre-
loaded keys or embedded keys could not be an
efficient solution.
Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2018
ISSN 1947-5500

Steganography
While cryptography aims at hiding the content of a
message, steganography aims at hiding the
existence of the message. Steganography is the art
of covert communication by embedding a message
into the multimedia data (image, sound, video,
etc.)]. The main objective of steganography is to
modify the carrier in a way that is not perceptible
and hence, it looks just like ordinary. It hides the
existence of the covert channel, and furthermore,
in the case that we want to send a secret data
without sender information or when we want to
distribute secret data publicly, it is very useful.
However, securing wireless sensor networks is not
directly related to steganography and processing
multimedia data (like audio, video) with the
inadequate resources of the sensors is difficult and
an open research issue.
Physical Layer Secure Access
Physical layer secure access in wireless sensor
networks could be provided by using frequency
hopping. A dynamic combination of the
parameters like hopping set (available frequencies
for hopping), dwell time (time interval per hop)
and hopping pattern (the sequence in which the
frequencies from the available hopping set is used)
could be used with a little expense of memory,
processing and energy resources. Important points
in physical layer secure access are the
efficient design so that the hopping sequence is
modified in less time than is required to discover it
and for employing this both the sender and
receiver should maintain a synchronized clock. A
scheme as proposed in could also be utilized which
introduces secure physical layer access employing
the singular vectors with the channel synthesized
modulation.
Security Threats and Issues in Wireless Sensor
Networks
Most of the threats and attacks against security in
wireless networks are almost similar to their wired
counterparts while some are exacerbated with the
inclusion of wireless connectivity. In fact, wireless
networks are usually more vulnerable to various
security threats as the unguided transmission
medium is more susceptible to security attacks
than those of the guided transmission medium. The
broadcast nature of the wireless communication is
a simple candidate for eavesdropping. In most of
the cases various security issues and threats related
to those we consider for wireless ad hoc networks
are also applicable for wireless sensor networks.
These issues are well-enumerated in some past
researches and also a number of security schemes
are already being proposed to fight against them.
However, the security mechanisms devised for
wireless ad hoc networks could not be applied
directly for wireless sensor networks because of
the architectural disparity of the two networks.
While ad hoc networks are self-organizing,
dynamic topology, peer to peer networks formed
by a collection of mobile nodes and the centralized
entity is absent the wireless sensor networks could
have a command node or a base station
(centralized entity, sometimes termed as sink). The
architectural aspect of wireless sensor network
could make the employment of a security schemes
little bit easier as the base stations or the
centralized entities could be used extensively in
this case. Nevertheless, the major challenge is
induced by the constraint of resources of the tiny
sensors. In many cases, sensors are expected to be
deployed arbitrarily in the enemy territory
(especially in military reconnaissance scenario) or
over dangerous or hazardous areas. Therefore,
even if the base station (sink) resides in the
friendly or safe area, the sensor nodes need to be
protected from being compromised.
Attacks in Wireless Sensor Networks
Attacks against wireless sensor networks could be
broadly considered from two different levels of
views. One is the attack against the security
mechanisms and another is against the basic
mechanisms (like routing mechanisms). Here we
point out the major attacks in wireless sensor
networks
Denial of Service
Denial of Service (DoS) is produced by the
unintentional failure of nodes or malicious action.
The simplest DoS attack tries to exhaust the
resources available to the victim node, by sending
extra unnecessary packets and thus prevents
legitimate network users from accessing services
or resources to which they are entitled. DoS attack
is meant not only for the adversary’s attempt to
subvert, disrupt, or destroy a network, but also for
any event that diminishes a network’s capability to
provide a service. In wireless sensor networks,
several types of DoS attacks in different layers
might be performed. At physical layer the DoS
attacks could be jamming and tampering, at link
layer, collision, exhaustion, unfairness, at network
layer, neglect and greed, homing, misdirection,
black holes and at transport layer this attack could
be performed by malicious flooding and
desynchronization. The mechanisms to prevent
DoS attacks include payment for network
resources, pushback, strong authentication and
identification of traffic.
Attacks on Information in transit
Sensors in sensor organize watch the varieties of
different factors or qualities and state to the sink as
Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2018
ISSN 1947-5500

indicated by the necessity. While sending the
report, the data in travel might be adjusted, mock,
replayed again or vanished. As remote
correspondence is powerless against listening
stealthily, any aggressor can screen the movement
stream and get vigorously to intrude on, block,
alter or create parcels in this way, give wrong data
to the base stations or sinks. As sensor hubs
ordinarily have short scope of transmission and
rare asset, an assailant with high preparing power
and bigger correspondence range could assault a
few sensors in the meantime to change the genuine
data amid transmission.
Sybil Attack
Much of the time, the sensors in a remote sensor
system may need to cooperate to achieve an
assignment, thus they can utilize appropriation of
sub undertakings and excess of data. In such a
circumstance, a hub can put on a show to be more
than one hub utilizing the personalities of other
true blue hubs (Figure 1). This kind of assault
where a hub manufactures the personalities of
more than one hub is the Sybil assault. Sybil
assault tries to corrupt the respectability of
information, security and asset use that the
disseminated calculation endeavors to accomplish.
Sybil assault can be performed for assaulting the
dispersed stockpiling, directing component,
information accumulation, voting, reasonable asset
designation and bad conduct location. Essentially,
any distributed system (particularly remote adhoc
systems) is defenseless against sybil assault.
Notwithstanding, as WSNs can have a type of base
stations or entryways, this assault could be avoided
utilizing productive conventions. Douceur
demonstrated that, without a sensibly concentrated
expert, sybil assaults are constantly conceivable
aside from under outrageous and improbable
presumptions of asset equality and coordination
among substances. Notwithstanding, location of
sybil hubs in a system isn't so natural. Newsome
utilized radio asset testing to recognize the
nearness of sybil node(s) in sensor arrange and
demonstrated that the likelihood to distinguish the
presence of a sybil hub is:
Where, n is the quantity of hubs in a neighbor set,
s is the quantity of Sybil hubs, m malignant hubs,
g number of good hubs, c is the quantity of hubs
that can be tried at once by a hub, of which S are
Sybil hubs, M are pernicious (flawed) hubs, G are
great (revise) hubs and r is the quantity of rounds
to repeat the test.
Black hole/Sinkhole Attack
In this assault, a pernicious hub goes about as a
dark gap to draw in all the movement in the sensor
organize. Particularly in a flooding based
convention, the assailant tunes in to demands for
courses at that point answers to the objective hubs
that it contains the high caliber or briefest way to
the base station. Once the vindictive gadget has
possessed the capacity to embed itself between the
imparting hubs (for instance, sink and sensor hub),
it can do anything with the parcels going between
them. Truth be told, this assault can influence even
the hubs those are extensively a long way from the
base stations. Figure 2 demonstrates the reasonable
perspective of a black hole/sinkhole assault.
Hello Flood Attack
Hi Flood Attack is presented in this assault utilizes
HELLO bundles as a weapon to persuade the
sensors in WSN.
In this kind of assault an aggressor with a high
radio transmission (named as a PC class assailant
in) range and preparing power sends HELLO
bundles to various sensor hubs which are scattered
in a substantial territory inside a WSN. The
sensors are along these lines convinced that the
enemy is their neighbor. As a result, while sending
the data to the base station, the casualty hubs
endeavor to experience the assailant as they realize
that it is their neighbor and are eventually parodied
by the aggressor.
Wormhole Attack
Wormhole assault is a basic assault in which the
aggressor records the parcels (or bits) at one area
in the system and passages those to another area.
The burrowing or retransmitting of bits should be
Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2018
ISSN 1947-5500

possible specifically. Wormhole assault is a
noteworthy danger to remote sensor systems,
since; this kind of assault does not require
bargaining a sensor in the system rather, it could
be performed even at the underlying stage when
the sensors begin to find the neighboring data.
Figure 3 (an and b) demonstrates a circumstance
where a wormhole assault happens. At the point
when a hub B (for instance, the base station or
some other sensor) communicates the steering
demand bundle, the assailant gets this parcel and
replays it in its neighborhood. Each neighboring
hub accepting this replayed bundle will view itself
as in the scope of Node B, and will check this hub
as its parent. Henceforth, regardless of whether the
casualty hubs are multi-hop separated from B,
assailant for this situation persuades them that B is
just a solitary jump far from them, along these
lines makes a wormhole.
In the current years, remote sensor arrange security
has possessed the capacity to draw in the
considerations of various analysts around the
globe. In this segment we audit and guide different
security plans proposed or executed so far for
remote sensor systems. The below tables were
taken from the source. (Sen 2010)
Security Schemes for Wireless Sensor Networks
Gives an investigation of secure directing in
remote sensor systems. Concentrates how to
configuration secure appropriated sensor systems
with numerous supply voltages to lessen the
vitality utilization on calculation and in this
manner to expand the system's lifetime. Goes for
expanding vitality productivity for enter
administration in remote sensor systems and
employments.
System demonstrate for its application thinks
about DoS assaults against various layers of sensor
convention stack displays a mapping convention
which recognizes a stuck district in the sensor
system and evades the broken area to keep steering
inside the system, accordingly handles DoS
assaults caused by sticking.
Table 1: Different Security Techniques applied to
Wireless Sensor Networks
Security
Methods
Attacks Main Features
JAM Dos Attack Point to point
nodes used to
Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2018
ISSN 1947-5500

stop avoidance of
the jammed
region.
Based on
wormhole
Dos Attack Utilizes
wormholes to
avoid jamming
Random key
pre-
distribution,
radio resource
testing, etc.
Sybil Attack By using radio
resources,
random key pre-
distribution,
registration
procedure,
verification of
position, and
code testing Sybil
entity attacks are
detecting.
Two-directional
verification
Multi-base
station routing,
multi-routing
Hello flood
Attack
Two-directional
verification and
multiple base
station routing
and multi routing
are used. And
also adopts a
secret,
probabilistic,
sharing
compartment.
Based on
communication
security
Information
or data
spoofing
Efficient use of
the resources.
Protects the
network even if
part of the
network is
compromised.
Pre-distribution
of random key
Data and
information
spoofing.
Attacks
information
in transit
Provides
flexibility in the
network protects
the network,
even if part of the
network is
compromised,
provides
authentication
measures for
senor nodes.
REWARD Black-hole
attacks
Uses geographic
routing and takes
advantage of
being the sender
to see the nearer
transmission and
detects black-
hole attacks.
TinySec Data and
information
spoofing,
the
messages
repeat the
attacks.
Centered on
providing
message
authenticity,
integrity and
confidentiality
messages works
in the link layer.
SNEP y µTESLA Data and
information
spoofing,
the
messages
repeat the
attacks.
Semantic
security, Replay
protection, data
authentication,
low
communication
overhead.
REWARD is a steering calculation which battles
against dark gaps in the system. Proposes isolate
security plans for information with different
affectability levels and an area based plan for
remote sensor arranges that ensures whatever
remains of the system, notwithstanding when parts
of the system are traded off. Executes symmetric
key cryptographic calculations with deferred key
exposure on bits to build up secure correspondence
channels between a base station and sensors inside
its range. What's more, propose key pre-
appropriation plans, which focus to enhance the
flexibility of the system. In Table 1 we condense
different security conspires alongside their
fundamental properties proposed so far for remote
sensor systems.(Kaschel, Mardones et al. 2013)
All-encompassing Security in Wireless Sensor
Networks
An all-encompassing methodology goes for
enhancing the execution of remote sensor systems
as for security, life span and network under
Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2018
ISSN 1947-5500

changing natural conditions. The comprehensive
approach of security worries about including every
one of the layers for guaranteeing general security
in a system. For such a system, a solitary security
answer for a solitary layer won't not be a
productive arrangement rather utilizing a
comprehensive approach could be the best choice.
The comprehensive approach has some essential
standards like, in a given system; security is to be
guaranteed for every one of the layers of the
convention stack, the cost for guaranteeing
security ought not outperform the evaluated
security chance at a particular time, if there is no
physical security guaranteed for the sensors, the
safety efforts must have the capacity to show an
elegant debasement if a portion of the sensors in
the system are traded off, out of request or caught
by the foe and the safety efforts ought to be
produced to work in a decentralized manner. On
the off chance that security isn't considered for the
majority of the security layers, for instance; if a
sensor is some way or another caught or stuck in
the physical layer, the security for the general
system breaks in spite of the way that, there are
some effective security components working in
different layers. By building security layers as in
the comprehensive approach, assurance could be
built up for the general system.
Conclusion
The vast majority of the assaults against security in
remote sensor systems are caused by the addition
of false data by the traded off hubs inside the
system. For shielding the consideration of false
reports by bargained hubs, a method is required for
distinguishing false reports. In any case, growing
such a discovery component and making it
effective speaks to an extraordinary research
challenge. Once more, guaranteeing
comprehensive security in remote sensor arrange is
a noteworthy research issue. A considerable lot of
the present proposed security plans depend on
particular system models. As there is an absence of
joined push to take a typical model to guarantee
security for each layer, in future however the
security components turn out to be entrenched for
every individual layer, consolidating every one of
the systems together to make them work, as a team
with each other will cause a hard research
challenge. Regardless of whether all-encompassing
security could be guaranteed for remote sensor
arranges, the cost-adequacy and vitality
productivity to utilize such systems could in any
case posture incredible research challenge in the
coming days.
References
Abd-El-Barr, M. L., Al-Otaibi, M. M., & Youssef,
M. a. (2005). Wireless sensor networks- part
II: routing protocols and security issues.
Canadian Conference on Electrical and
Computer Engineering, 2005., (May).
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCECE.2005.155687
9
Anjali, Shikha, & Sharma, M. (2014). Wireless
Sensor Networks : Routing Protocols and
Security Issues. 5th ICCNT, 3–7.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT.2014.69629
92
Bin Lu, Habetler, T. G., Harley, R. G., &
Gutierrez, J. A. (2005). Applying Wireless
Sensor Networks in Industrial Plant Energy
Management Systems - Part I: A Closed-
Loop Scheme. IEEE Sensors, 2005., 2005,
145–150.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSENS.2005.15976
57
Dr. G. Padmavathi, M. D. (2009). A Survey of
Attacks, Security Mechanisms and
Challenges in Wireless Sensor Networks.
International Journal of Computer Science
and Information Security, IJCSIS, Vol. 4,
No. 1 & 2, August 2009, USA, 9.
KASCHEL, H., MARDONES, J. and QUEZADA,
G., 2013. Safety in Wireless Sensor Networks:
Types of Attacks and Solutions. Studies in
Informatics and Control, 22(3), pp. 323-329.
SEN, J., 2010. A survey on wireless sensor
network security. arXiv preprint arXiv:1011.1529,
.
Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2018
ISSN 1947-5500

A Security Overview of Wireless Sensor Network

Related slideshows

Recommended for you

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to A Security Overview of Wireless Sensor Network

Similar to A Security Overview of Wireless Sensor Network (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Security Overview of Wireless Sensor Network