VAMPIRE ATTACKS:DRAINING LIFE FROM WIRELESS AD-HOC SENSOR NETWORKS

Guided By: Presented By:Prof. R.R Welekar Rashmi Jangre

TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED

INTRODUCTION

APPLICATIONS

CHARACTERISTICS

ATTACKS

EXISTING SYSTEM

PROPOSED SYSTEM

FUTURE SCOPE

REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

Wireless Sensor Network :o Wireless Sensor Networks are a special

category of ad hoc networks that are used to provide a wireless communication infrastructure among the sensors deployed in a specific application domain.

o A sensor network is a collection of a large number of sensor nodes that are deployed in a particular region.

AD HOC WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK :

Ad hoc

Each node participates in routing by forwarding packets.

decentralized type of wireless network

all devices have equal status in the network

APPLICATIONS:

Continuous connectivity

Instantly deployable communication for military and first responders

Ubiquitous on demand computing power

Monitor environmental conditions , factory performance and troop deployment.

CHARACTERISTICS OF WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS Wireless Sensor Networks mainly consists of

sensors. Sensors are - low power limited memoryenergy constrained due to their small size.

Wireless networks can also be deployed in extreme environmental conditions and may be prone to enemy attacks.

Although deployed in an ad hoc manner they need to be self organized and self healing and can face constant reconfiguration.

ATTACK

N/W LAYER DOS ATTACK DDOS

ATTACK

Resource Consumption attack Replay Flooding VAMPIRE ATTACKS

VAMPIRE ATTACKS

VAMPIRE ATTACK:

Definition: Vampire attack means creating and sending

messages by malicious node which causes more energy consumption by the network leading to slow depletion of node’s battery life.

Features:o Vampire attacks are not protocol specifico They don’t disrupt immediate availabilityo Transmit little data with largest energy draino Vampires do not disrupt or alter discovered

paths

VAMPIRE ATTACKS

CAROUSEL ATTACK

adversary composes packets

with purposely introduced

routing loops

sends packets in circles

targets source routing protocols

STRECH ATTACK

An adversary constructs artificially long routes

Increases packet path lengths,

Honest hop count = 3

Malicious hop count =6

MITIGATION METHODS

CAROUSEL ATTACK:

o Forwarding nodes check source route for loops

STRETCH ATTACK:

o more challenging to prevent

o Loose source routing

EXISTING SYSTEMProvable Logical Protocol(PLGP):o Developed by Parno,Luk,Gaustad & Perrigo Used to resist vampire attackso Two phases:

- TOPOLOGY DISCOVERY PHASE - PACKET FORWARDING PHASE

TOPOLOGY DISCOVERY PHASE

Each node starts as its own group size one, with virtual address zero

Groups merge with smallest neighbouring group

Each member prepends group address to their own address

Network converges to a single group

PACKET FORWARDING PHASE All decisions made

independently by each node

Node when receives packet finds next hop by finding most significant bit

Every forwarding event shortens logical distance to destination

PLGP IN PRESENCE OF VAMPIRES

Forwarding nodes don’t know the path of a packet

Honest node may be farther away from destination than malicious nodes

Theoretical energy increases by O(d)

Worse if packet returns to vampire as it can reroute

PROVABLE SECURITY AGAINST VAMPIRE ATTACKS No backtracking property implies vampire

resistance

PLGP doesnot satisfy no-backtracking property - packets are forwarded along the shortest

route

- nodes cannot be certain of path previously traversed by a packet

-adverseries always lie about local metric cost.

-PLGP still vulnerable

PROPOSED SYSYEM PLGP with attestations(PLGPa):

-> add a verifiable path history to every

PLGP packet

-> attestations are nothing but signatures

to validate its path

-> every forwarding node verifies attestation chain

PLGP SATISFIES NO-BACKTRACKING All messages signed by originator

Hopcount of packet p

THEOREM: A PLGPa packet p satisfies no-backtracking in

the presence of an adversary controlling m < N - 3 nodes if p passes through at least one honest node.

COMPARISON OF EXISTING VS PROPOSED SYSTEM

Doesnot have attestation

Forwading nodes doesn’t know path of packet

Backtracking

Vulnerable to vampire attacks

It is PLGP with attestation

Each packet has a verifiable path history

No Backtracking

Resistant to vampire attacks

PLGP PLGPa

FUTURE SCOPE

Ad hoc wireless sensor networks promise exciting new applications in the near future.

As WSN’s become more and more crucial to everyday life availability faults become less tolerable

Thus high availability of these nodes is critical and must hold even under malicious conditions.

REFERENCES

o Eugene Y. Vasserman and Nicholas Hopper “Vampire Attacks: Draining Life from Wireless Ad Hoc Sensor Networks”- IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. 12, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2013.

o Mr M Rajesh Khanna,S.Divya, Dr. A.Rengerajan “Securing Data Packets From Vampire Attacks in

Adhoc-Sensor Networks” International Journal of innovative research in computer and communication enginnering Vol.2 ,special issue 1, march 2014

o Sarvesh Tanwar,Prema .K.V. “Threats and security issues in ad-hoc network” IJSCE Vol. 2,issue 6,january 2013

THANKYOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!