1 / 17

Partha Mukherjee & Sandip Sen Department of Math & CS University of Tulsa

Comparing Reputation Schemes for Detecting Malicious Nodes in Sensor Networks. Partha Mukherjee & Sandip Sen Department of Math & CS University of Tulsa. Motivation. ASSUMPTION : A network of sensors deployed for sensing data over a region Correlation between data sensed at different nodes

amir-hardin
Télécharger la présentation

Partha Mukherjee & Sandip Sen Department of Math & CS University of Tulsa

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comparing Reputation Schemes for Detecting Malicious Nodes in Sensor Networks Partha Mukherjee & Sandip Sen Department of Math & CS University of Tulsa

  2. Motivation • ASSUMPTION :A network of sensors deployed for sensing data over a region • Correlation between data sensed at different nodes • Correlation pattern may change over time • Colluding malicious nodes may attempt to subvert the data reported by the sensor network • GOAL: Comparing the performances of the reputation mechanisms used to detect malicious / erroneous nodes in the network

  3. Sensor Networks • Monitor physical / environmental conditions • Resource constraints • Sensed/aggregated data reported back to Base station • Susceptible to security breaches/compromise

  4. Sensor Network Organization • Sensor field consists of nodes laid out on a grid • Nodes organized in a hierarchy • Assumption:time-varying data sensed by different nodes are correlated • Example: Temperatures at different grid points over the day

  5. Schemes used to detect malicious nodes • Reinforcement learning • Q-learning approach • Statistically grounded scheme: • -reputation approach • Discount factors: weights on past / present experiences • Un-weighted • Linear • Exponential • Varying parameters: • Patterns in the sensed data • Delay of onset of malicious data

  6. Detecting Malicious Nodes • Collect sufficient data when sensor network is operating normally for mining correlation patterns • Use neural networks to model correlation between data sensed by siblings in the sensor node hierarchy • The value sensed at any node is predicted from the values sensed by its siblings • Offline training of the nets using back-propagation • Use learning techniques to discover patterns • Each malicious node adds a random offset in the range [0,] to the reported value

  7. Detecting Malicious Nodes • At each reporting time step error between actual and predicted data sensed by a node is calculated • This sequence of “errors” is used to incrementally update the reputation of the node • Node labeled malicious if reputation falls below threshold

  8. Detecting Malicious nodes • Choose Reputation Threshold,  • For each node: • Compute relative error at time t : t • Compute error statistic : (t) • Update Reputations : • Q-Learning :tQL = (1 - ). (t-1)QL + . (t) • Balance Factor :  • - Reputation :t = (t + 1) / (t + t + 1) • Cooperative Response: , Non-cooperative Response :  • Un-weighted : • Linear : • Exponential : Exponential discount factor :  Node is malicious : if QL< or if  < 

  9. Experiment • Computation of sensed data • Based on generation function : g • Model fluctuation • Add Gaussian Noise : N • Variation of the sensed parameter is represented by the stochastic function ƒ • ƒ(x,y,t) = g(x,y) + h(t) + N(0,) • h : T [l, u]

  10. Experiment • Considered two generation functions g to generate data patterns over the 85 node sensor network • g1: exp(-(x2 + y2)) • g2 : (x + y) / 2 • Considered error-free time interval set • D = {0,10,20,30,40,50} • Considered exponential discount factor set •  = {0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8}

  11. Q-learning and -reputation Schemes with Linear and Two Extreme Discount Factors • Q-learning scheme detects the erroneous nodes earlier than -reputation for distributionexp(-(x2 + y2))

  12. Q-learning and -reputation Schemes with Linear and Two Extreme Discount Factors • Q-learning scheme detects the erroneous nodes earlier than -reputation for distribution(x + y)/2

  13. Comparison Between -Reputation Schemes with Different discount factors • -reputation schemes of lower discount factors detects the erroneous nodes earlier for distributionexp(-(x2 + y2))

  14. Comparison Between -Reputation Schemes with Different discount factors • -reputation schemes of lower discount factors detects the erroneous nodes earlier for distribution(x + y)/2

  15. Conclusions • Q-Learning is more efficient than β-Reputation for higher values of initial error free time steps • β-Reputation is more efficient than Q-learning to detect first malicious node when the initial delay of attack is in between 0 to 4 iterations • Among β-Reputation schemes with discount factors, schemes with lower discount values exhibit higher efficiency. The un-weighted one ( = 1) is least efficient • The combination of learning and reputation management makes this scheme work with the following observations • All faulty nodes are detected (No false positives) • No normal node labeled faulty (No false negatives)

  16. Future Work • Testing with different complex data patterns. • Testing with different topologies. • Exploring the possibility of developing more robust scheme. • Handling sophisticated collusion. • Hierarchical structure : If nodes in higher level collude.

  17. THANK YOU

More Related