Hierarchical Blockchain-Based Multi-Chaincode Access Control for Securing IoT Systems

Abstract

The rapid growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) and its attributes of constrained devices and a distributed environment make it difficult to manage such a huge and growing network of devices on a global scale. Existing traditional access-control systems provide security and management to the IoT system. However, these mechanisms are based on central authority management, which introduces issues such as a single point of failure, low scalability, and a lack of privacy. In order to address these problems, many researchers have proposed using blockchain technology to achieve decentralized access control. However, such models are still faced with problems such as a lack of scalability and high computational complexity. In this paper, we propose a light-weight hierarchical blockchain-based multi-chaincode access control to protect the security and privacy of IoT systems. A clustering concept with BC managers enables the extended scalability of the proposed system. The architecture of the proposed solution contains three main components: an Edge Blockchain Manager (EBCM), which is responsible for authenticating and authorizing constrained devices locally; an Aggregated Edge Blockchain Manager (AEBCM), which contains various EBCMs to control different clusters and manage ABAC policies, and a Cloud Consortium Blockchain Manager (CCBCM), which ensures that only authorized users access the resources. In our solution, smart contracts are used to self-enforce decentralized AC policies. We implement a proof of concept for our proposed system using the permissioned Hyperledger Fabric. The simulation results and the security analysis show the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed solution.

Blockchain-Based Access Control Techniques for IoT Applications

“…Hierarchical blockchain architecture for access control in IoT environment was presented in Abdi et al [37]. The proposed solution reduced network overhead and transaction latency where authors used three types of managers.…”

“…Some authors deployed a private one in [27,34,36,41,44,49,52]. In parallel, others used a consortium blockchain in [37,42,57,58,61,68]. This choice of type is determined by the nature of the information relating to the access control process.…”

“…This information is generally confidential and sensitive, with an obligation of not being publicly accessible. Regarding the number of the blockchains, the authors in [37] employed a hierarchical blockchain architecture to ensure good scalability, high throughput, and less transaction latency. In [52], Hussein et al used two blockchains, namely policy chain and data chain.…”

“…In [40,43], the authors used the proof of work (PoW) algorithm despite the fact that there is the strong requirement of a large computational capacity leading to large consumption of energy. In [37,44,48], the practical Byzantine fault tolerance (PBFT) algorithm was used. This algorithm offers high processing transactions with low latency.…”

“…These solutions can lead to policy manipulation attacks. In [27,37,40,48], several smart contracts were used.…”