Topology Authentication in RPL

Landsmann, Martin; Wählisch, Matthias; Schmidt, Thomas C.

doi:10.1109/infcomw.2013.6970745

Cited by 49 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cryptography Challenges: The key management is one of the significant challenges for resource constrained networks, which requires attention. Several defense solutions [53], [54], [67], [92], [93] use cryptography techniques like Hash Chain Authentication, Merkle Tree Authentication, and Dynamic Keying impose computational, memory, and energy overhead on resource constrained devices. These overheads affect node lifetime, which is an essential criterion for critical IoT applications, e.g., industrial, forest, and landslide monitoring.…”

Section: Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Security of RPL based 6LoWPAN Networks in the Internet of Things: A Review

Verma¹,

Ranga²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<div>Internet of Things (IoT) is one of the fastest emerging networking paradigms enabling a large number of applications for the benefit of mankind. Advancements in embedded system technology and compressed IPv6 have enabled the support of IP stack in resource constrained heterogeneous smart devices. However, global connectivity and resource constrained characteristics of smart devices have exposed them to different insider and outsider attacks, which put users’ security and privacy at risk. Various risks associated with IoT slow down its growth and become an obstruction in the worldwide adoption of its applications. In RFC 6550, the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Network (RPL) is specified by IETF’s ROLL working group for facilitating efficient routing in 6LoWPAN networks, while considering its limitations. Due to resource constrained nature of nodes in the IoT, RPL is vulnerable to many attacks that consume the node’s resources and degrade the network’s performance. In this paper, we present a study on</div><div>various attacks and their existing defense solutions, particularly to RPL. Open research issues, challenges, and future directions specific to RPL security are also discussed. A taxonomy of RPL attacks, considering the essential attributes like resources, topology, and traffic, is shown for better understanding. In addition, a study of existing cross-layered and RPL specific network layer based defense solutions suggested in the literature is also carried out.</div>

show abstract

Section: Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Security of RPL based 6LoWPAN Networks in the Internet of Things: A Review

Verma¹,

Ranga²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other side, in the case of rank attack an adversary can attract the large traffic by advertising false rank value, so non-optimal routes might be established. Solutions to address this problem are given in [60] and [61].…”

Section: B Security and Attacks In Rplmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Separate keys for network segments [48] PS The solution was not implemented/simulated yet; Merkel trees authentication [54] PS Node uses a key to encrypt its messages; High jitter and E2E delay until tree has been established; Graph theoretic approach [55] PS Cryptographic techniques based on local broadcast keys; Low overhead, no synchronization needed; Sybil attack, Clone ID Distributed hash tables (DHT) to store the graphical location of nodes [48], [56] PS Problem in how to securely verify the node location; Might not scale well with large networks; DAG/DAO inconsistency attack Limit the rate of tickle timer resets [57] PS Threshold value is fixed, no network or node characteristics are taken into account; Adaptive threshold [58] PS Takes into account the network characteristics; Dynamic approach [59] PS Improved version as node specific parameters are used; Rank attack VeRa [60] PS Authentication mechanism based on hash operations; Low time overhead, but still vulnerable to rank attacks by forgery and replay; TRAIL [61] PS Improvement of VeRa, requires almost no cryptography, but shows dependency on network sizes; choose to selectively forward data or drop all received packets. In both scenarios the network operation would be disturbed.…”

Section: Psmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Potential Security Issues in Existing Wireless Sensor Network Protocols

Tomić

McCann

2017

IEEE Internet Things J.

232

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The increasing pervasiveness of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) in diverse application domains including critical infrastructure systems, sets an extremely high security bar in the design of WSN systems to exploit their full benefits, increasing trust while avoiding loss. Nevertheless, a combination of resource restrictions and the physical exposure of sensor devices inevitably cause such networks to be vulnerable to security threats, both external and internal. While several researchers have provided a set of open problems and challenges in WSN security and privacy, there is a gap in the systematic study of the security implications arising from the nature of existing communication protocols in WSNs. Therefore, we have carried out a deep-dive into the main security mechanisms and their effects on the most popular protocols and standards used in WSN deployments i.e. IEEE 802.15.4, B-MAC, 6LoWPAN, RPL, BCP, CTP, and CoAP, where potential security threats and existing countermeasures are discussed at each layer of WSN stack. This work culminates in a deeper analysis of network layer attacks deployed against the RPL routing protocol. We quantify the impact of individual attacks on the performance of a network using the Cooja network simulator. Finally, we discuss new research opportunities in network layer security and how to use Cooja as a benchmark for developing new defenses for WSN systems.

show abstract

“…Version number attacks have also been suggested previously [12,13], but their effects have not been analyzed to understand whether it would be prudent to mitigate such attacks or not. The Version Number and Rank Authentication (VeRA) [13] approach provides integrity of version numbers and ranks advertised in control messages via hash and signature operations.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of RPL DODAG Version Attacks

Mayzaud

Sehgal

Badonnel

et al. 2014

Monitoring and Securing Virtualized Networks and Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The IETF designed the Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (RPL) as a candidate for use in constrained networks. Keeping in mind the different requirements of such networks, the protocol was designed to support multiple routing topologies, called DODAGs, constructed using different objective functions, so as to optimize routing based on divergent metrics. A DODAG versioning system is incorporated into RPL in order to ensure that the topology does not become stale and that loops are not formed over time. However, an attacker can exploit this versioning system to gain an advantage in the topology and also acquire children that would be forced to route packets via this node. In this paper we present a study of possible attacks that exploit the DODAG version system. The impact on overhead, delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, rank inconsistencies and loops is studied.

show abstract

Topology Authentication in RPL

Cited by 49 publications

References 1 publication

Security of RPL based 6LoWPAN Networks in the Internet of Things: A Review

Security of RPL based 6LoWPAN Networks in the Internet of Things: A Review

A Survey of Potential Security Issues in Existing Wireless Sensor Network Protocols

A Study of RPL DODAG Version Attacks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About