9 II February 2021

https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2021.33005
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 9 Issue II Feb 2021- Available at www.ijraset.com

Survey on Advanced Data Communication Using

Protocol
Shahul Hameed A1, Dr. A. Shaji George2, Bashiru Aremu3
1
Ph.D. Research Scholar, Department of Information and Communication Technology, Crown University, Int’l. Chartered Inc.
(CUICI) Argentina Campus, South America.
2
Professor, Department of Information and Communication Technology, Crown University, Int’l. Chartered Inc. (CUICI) Argentina
Campus, South America.
3
Vice Chancellor, Crown University, Int’l. Chartered Inc. (CUICI) Argentina Campus, South America.

Abstract: There are various remote sensor organization (WSN) applications being created day to day. These applications range
from straightforward natural checking, for example, gathering temperatures in an agrarian ranch to complex applications, for
example, observing front lines. As the applications increment so are the assaults. Subsequently, a few security conventions have
been acquainted with be utilized with the various applications which have changing security necessities; this infers that the
decision for the WSNs application ought to be very much thought of. This paper talks about the remote sensor organization
security prerequisites, the most well-known assaults and the most mainstream conventions utilized with WSNs. Center is likewise
given to the qualities and restrictions of WSN security conventions to empower planners of the WSNs pick the correct convention
for their applications.
Keywords: WSN, Access control, Framework, Private key, Cloud computing

I. INTRODUCTION
A wireless sensor network (WSNs) contains numerous indistinguishable hubs with restricted assets. Sensor hubs impart remotely
and they brilliantly measure flags and send information over the organizations. These hubs are typically spread over the entire
organization region for observing, information assortment, handling, and sending to a base station to handle further (Sharma, Chaba
and Singh, 2010). The Sensors are little in size, restricted in terms of intensity and their expense is regularly low.
Sensors have the accompanying capacities:
correspondence is over short distances, they can detect or peruse information from the climate, furthermore, their information
handling capacity is restricted. Regularly sensor works at 2.4 GHz recurrence, 250Kbps information rate, streak memory is 128KB,
memory of 512KB for reason for recording estimations, they communicate powers going from 100uW and 1mW, and
correspondence range is between 30m to 100m. Accordingly, the best plan thought ought to be energy proficiency of WSN
conventions (Uluagac et al., 2008). The best test for WSNs are security issues, and for certain sensor networks applications, similar
to medical care applications and military applications security turns out to be significantly more critical. These challenges are as per
the following;
I. It's hard to ensure remote correspondence since it is finished by broadcasting. Bundles can be infused, snoopping is a probability,
capture of moving information, and information sent can be modified effectively by enemies.
ii. The WSNs might be introduced in conditions that are possibly shaky; where there is a chance for enemies to take on the
appearance of approved hubs in the organization, and hubs taking can happen.
iii. The WSNs are vulnerable to assaults of utilization of assets. Aggressors can squander network data transmission and often send
bundles to debilitate a hub battery. Because of these elements, it's basic for the delicate computerized data to be safely sent over the
sensor organizations.

II. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

WSNs are utilized in bunches of utilizations with distinctive security prerequisites. E.g., an application for natural checking requests
less security though; war zone checking applications requests high security levels. For natural checking applications in-network
handling is indispensable to lessen the organization conflict (Ahmed, 2009). As indicated by Sharma, Chaba and Singh, 2010 the
security prerequisites or administrations are for example, accessibility, approval, confirmation, privacy, uprightness, non-disavowal,
information newness, vigor, self-association and time synchronization.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 140

 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 9 Issue II Feb 2021- Available at www.ijraset.com

A. Accessibility
This is a security administration that verifies whether a given hub can use the assets and additionally if the organization is accessible
to impart messages. The WSN can be imperiled if the sink (base station) or group head comes up short. Accordingly accessibility is
significant for an organization to be operational (Padmavathi and Shanmugapriya, 2009). The accessibility security administration
for WSNs has been taken a gander at top to bottom from the Denialof-Service (DoS) type assaults measurement in expansion,
properties for interfacing WSNs as concerns accessibility has additionally been concentrated in extraordinary length (Uluagac et al.,
2008).

B. Approval/Access control
This guarantees that lone approved clients and gadgets approach the WSN.

C. Confirmation
This security necessity guarantees that there is legitimate correspondence from an offered hub to another hub; this implies an
untrusted hub can't imagine as a confided in hub (Rajkumar.et al., 2012.).

D. Secrecy
Secrecy is alluded to as the ability to conceal messages from any given foe (aggressor) to guarantee any message sent through the
WSN is secret (Padmavathi and Shanmugapriya, 2009). In case an adversary, gets to the substance, he ought to not have the option
to interpret the messages traded in the organization. To give a secret security administration to WSNs applications you require the
utilization of cryptographic instruments, for example, encryption strategies. By and large, two sorts of encryption approaches are
utilized;
1) Symmetric encryption
2) Unbalanced encryption.
Symmetric encryption utilizes the indistinguishable key at both the sender and collector hubs to encode and unscramble the data
from plain content to encode text and the other way around. While lopsided key based encryption, utilizes different keys, one public
and the other private which are utilized to change over and recuperate the data (Uluagac et al., 2008).
There is no single encryption component that one can guarantee is superior to another as it is essentially an issue to do with size of
the key and the computational exertion that can be used to break the encryption calculation.
Another feature to privacy research in WSNs is on issue of planning effective key the board plans. The keys must continuously be
accessible to all the hubs imparting and this guarantees security of channels is kept up (Uluagac et al., 2008). The way toward
overseeing keys includes two essential advances;
a) Key age
b) Keys appropriation
This cycle is set off by keying occasions like organization assault. Nonetheless, it is anything but a straightforward undertaking and
in various applications it very well might be overpowering activity to go toeach and every sensor considering their numerous
numbers and updating of their keys, for-example underwater sensor applications. Therefore, management of keys intelligently is
essential for WSNs (Uluagac et al., 2008).

E. Integrity
Trustworthiness is essentially affirmation of a message not being changed, altered or then again changed (Padmavathi and
Shanmugapriya, 2009). On the message content a substance digest is added to give uprightness of content traded. On receipt of
message by the getting hub content condensation is checked to affirm that substance digest processed and gotten digest are
equivalent. When affirmed to be equivalent or same at that point it's treated as a genuine message.
Hashing calculations are utilized to make content condensations (Uluagac et al., 2008). There are a few calculations for hashing
accessible and these calculations don't as a rule require the keys presence except if planned explicitly to work with keyed-hashing
forexample Keyed-Hashing for message Validation Code (HMAC) and Cipherbased Message Authentication Code (CMAC)
(Uluagac et al., 2008). Respectability administration checks information lifelessness since a few choices for certain applications
relies upon whether the information is later or it's not. For-instance, waters of a given region can be ensured with sinks exploded
mines. Message newness and its exact planning from the sensor hubs in this sort of application are basic (Uluagac et al., 2008).
Honesty administration likewise is intended to give a component for recuperation from any substance that has been changed
(Uluagac et al., 2008).

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 141

 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 9 Issue II Feb 2021- Available at www.ijraset.com

F. Non-repudiation
Non-repudiation security service ensuresthat a node cannot deny the messages it hassent (Rajkumar et al., 2012). To offer
nonrepudiation service digital signature scheme (DSS), which utilizes encryption methods,can be used. DSS can use either
symmetricor asymmetric encryptions (Uluagac et al., 2008).
When you use symmetric encryption theWSN may be in danger of another sensormasquerading as the sensor’s originalsignature.
On the other hand, using asymmetric encryption may be expensive. Basically non-repudiation service facilitatesthe approval by
another entity for messagesent or received in WSNs. Therefore, alegitimate node, such as the base station(sink) can offer the service
(Uluagac et al.,2008).

G. Data Freshness
This guarantees that the data over the WSNis current and not replicated

H. Robustness
This guarantees that in the event of somenodes being compromised, the WSNcontinues to operate.

I. Self-organization
This ensures that the sensor nodes areindependent and can be flexible in the eventof adding new nodes or some nodes fail.WSNs are
basically ad hoc networks; thischaracteristic makes it prone to securityissues. Therefore, in the circumstance self-organization and
self-healing is impossiblethen the damage could be overwhelming.

J. Time Synchronization
WSNs applications rely on timesynchronization for purposes such as; powerconservation, packets end-to-end delaycomputation, and
group synchronization fortracking applications.

K. Secure Localization
This is a requirement for the sensor nodes tobe able to securely identify its location(Pathak &Quaz, 2017)3. Attacks on Wireless
Sensor Networks Wireless sensor networks attacks are categorized by different authors as follows;
1) Active attacks and passive attacks. The active attacks modify data and include Blackhole, Sybil, HELLO Flood attack, denial of
service and wormhole attack. The passive attacks are such as; attacks against privacy, eavesdropping and traffic analysis
(Padmavathi&Shanmugapriya, 2009).
2) According to Sunitha&Chandrakanth (2012), wireless sensor networks attacks are in three categories;
a) Secrecy and authentication attacks –These attacks are such as spoofing, eavesdropping, and packet replay attacks.
b) Attacks on network availabilityThese attacks are also known as denial-of-service (DoS) attacks.
c) Stealthy attack against service integrity-The attacker makes the WSN acknowledge a false data value. E.g. through injection of
false data value.
3) Attacks against security mechanism and attacks against routing mechanisms (Pathan, Lee & Hong, 2006)

The major WSN attacks are

 Wormhole attack The attacker near a base station tunnels the traffic to a low latency link thus disrupting the traffic
 Hello flood attack This attack happens when assumption is made that the node broadcasting HELLO packets is a genuine
neighbor. This can cause a large number of nodes to attempt to use this route, thus sending packets into oblivion.
 Blackhole attack This attack is when all packets are dropped, meaning none is transmitted.
 Sinkhole attack This kind of attack occurs when a malicious node attracts maximum traffic through it
 Denial of service attack (DoS) The attacker ensures that the legitimate users don’t gain access
 Sybil attack This is when a node masquerades with multiple identities in the network.
 Attacks on information in transit
 Selective forwarding This attack makes some packets to be dropped and others are transmitted
 Spoofing

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 142

 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 9 Issue II Feb 2021- Available at www.ijraset.com

III. SECURITY CHALLENGES IN WSN

The universal approach for defense against cyber-attacks is cryptography, but there exists challenges in keeping required level of
security and safety of critical data transmitted over wireless sensor network. WSN has myriad of inherent challenges when
compared to the conventional computer networks. The table below compares the WSN and the traditional networks.

A. Remote Sensor Networks Security

Conventions Security convention is characterized as a bunch of rules that decide how the connection between peer cycles to make
accessible guaranteed security administration (Aseri and Singla, 2011). A number of security conventions have been proposed to
date, and the most famous for WSN are talked about in this part.
1) SPINS: Twists was proposed by Perrig et al., 2002, what's more, it's an assortment of security conventions upgraded for sensor
organizations. Twists has two secure structure hinders explicitly Secure Network Encryption Protocol (SNEP) and u TESLA.
SNEP gives information verification for two gatherings, secrecy of information, and newness of information while u TESLA
verifies communicates. Restricted capacity obstacle is accomplished by conventions through the reuse of code for all crypto
natives, for example, message validation code, encryption, and hash irregular number generator. Moreover, to lessening the
correspondence overhead, it divides the basic state among correspondence parties. Semantic security is accomplished through
SNEP by joining counter in both sender and recipient closes. It's critical to take note of that the counter isn't fused with the
message in order to decrease the information transmission rate (Ahmed, 2009). SNEP bolsters just base-to-hub correspondence
and the other way around while uTESLA gives validated transmission. Customarily to confirm communicates you require
uneven keys to validate the beginning parcels, however u TESLA utilizes symmetric key to furnish security with symmetric
keys exposure deferred. Shockingly with a organization of numerous hubs synchronization is a challenge (Ahmed, 2009).
2) TINYSEC: TinySec is a connection layer security conventions for Remote sensor organizations (WSNs), and its primary
distinction with the SPINS is that it doesn't utilize counters. The arrangement of uninvolved correspondence (in-network
preparing) is finished by Link layer security among neighborhood hubs to kill interchanges that are covering with the sink (base
station) (Ahmed, 2009). Karlof et al., 2004 planned TinySec to supplant the inadequate Sensor Network Encryption Protocol
(SNEP), called TinySec. TinySec is interface layer security engineering for WSNs and it offers security administrations, for
example, access control, secrecy, and message uprightness
3) Link-layer security protocol (LLSP): Lighfoot et al., 2009; designed a Link-LayerProtocol (LLSP) and the goal was to developa
protocol with low energy requirements as compared to Tiny Sec. LLSP ensuresmessage confidentiality, messageauthentication,
replay protection and accesscontrol. LLSP supports early rejectioncapability in addition, it has lowperformance overhead.
Howevermaintaining a large network is difficult within node counter due to that it has lowscalability.
4) Light weight security protocol (LISP): LiSP is a lightweight security mechanismthat supports key renewability and puts
intobalance the need for security andconsumption of resources. LiSP from time to time renews the shared key to solve
theproblem of reuse of key stream-reuse andmaximize energy efficiency and scalability. LiSP also supports distribution of
keyswhich is reliable (Park & Shin, 2004). LiSP is efficient in terms of energy and isrobust to denial of service (DoS) attacks,
since it doesn't require retransmitting or anycontrol packets. LiSP has a joint authentication and recovery algorithm forrekeying,
where Key -Server (KS) from timeto time a new key is broadcast before it’sused for encryption and decryption. The
keyreceived is authenticated by client node andthen recovers all keys that have beenmissing (Park & Shin, 2004). The goal of
LiSP is to offer a lightweightsecurity solution for a large-scale network ofresource-limited sensor devices. LiSP divides the
whole network into clusters andselects a Group-head (GH) for each of themto offer scalability for a large number ofsensors
(Park & Shin, 2004).
5) Location aware end-to –endsecurity (LEDS): LEDS offers location aware end-to-endsecurity. Several sensing nodes
endorsegenuine event reports in LEDS and areencrypted with a unique secret key which isshared between the sink and event
sensingnodes. LEDS provides end-to-end authentication and en-route filtering capability to deal with the recognized attacksfor
injection of data. If there are no morethan a given stated number of compromisednodes in each single area of interest,
LEDSassures that a fake or false data report from agiven cell can be filtered by genuine in between sink or the nodes (Ren, Lou,
&Zhang, 2008). LEDS provides locationaware key management. LEDS can be usedin both small and large networks and the
keynumbers increases with size of the cell. Inaddition, LEDS doesn’t support dynamictopology. LEDS puts the network
intoseveral cell regions and when an eventoccurs in a given region, the event should besensed by several nodes (Ahmed, 2009).
Data availability is assured by LEDSbecause it deals with both report disruptingattack and selective forwarding attack at
thesame time. Wireless links are broadcast innature and so LEDS adopts one node tomany nodes data forwarding approach,

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 143

 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 9 Issue II Feb 2021- Available at www.ijraset.com

thisensures LEDS reports are authenticated byseveral next-hop nodes separately. Thismeans that no reports disappear due to
beingdropped by a single node. (Devi et al., 2011) LEDS ensures a very high level of securitywithout considering the costs
forcommunication and computing in additionLEDS provides data confidentiality andnode capture attacks to a reasonable level
(Ahmed, 2009).
IV. CONCLUSION
In the face of myriad of challenges facing WSNs architects of WSNs are confronted with hard decision of security convention to
actualize. This paper has summed up the distinctive security prerequisites for WSNs, the security conventions and the security
prerequisites they accomplish and of significance a outline has been given to show the qualities and constraints of every one of the
security convention. This will go in convenient to help facilitate the cycle of decision of security convention to be actualized in
different applications.

REFERENCES
[1] Aseri, T. C., &Singla, N. (2011).Enhanced Security Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control,
6(2), 214-221.
[2] Bhalla, M., Pandey, N., & Kumar, B. (2015, October). Security protocols for wireless sensor networks. In Green Computing and Internet of Things (ICGCIoT),
2015 International Conference on (pp. 1005-1009). IEEE.
[3] Boyle, D., &Newe, T. (2007, March). Security protocols for use with wireless sensor networks: A survey of security architectures. In Wireless and Mobile
Communications, 2007.ICWMC'07. Third International Conference on (pp. 54-54). IEEE.
[4] Devi, S. A., Babu, R. V., & Rao, B. S. (2011).A new approach for evolution of end to end security in wireless sensor network.International Journal on
Computer Science and Engineering, 3(6), 2531-2543.
[5] Dutta, R., Gupta, S., & Paul, D. (2014, December). Energy efficient modified spin protocol with high security in wireless sensor networks using tossim. In
Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing (PDGC), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 290- 294). IEEE.
[6] Karlof, C., Sastry, N., & Wagner, D. (2004, November).TinySec: a link layer security architecture for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd
international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems (pp. 162-175). ACM.
[7] Lighfoot, L.E., Jian R. &Tongtong L.(2009). An Energy Efficient Link-Layer Security Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE EIT Proceedings (pp 233-
238).
[8] Padmavathi, D. G., &Shanmugapriya, M. (2009).A survey of attacks, security mechanisms and challenges in wireless sensor networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:
0909.0576.
[9] Park, T., & Shin, K. G. (2004).LiSP: A lightweight security protocol for wireless sensor networks. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
(TECS), 3(3), 634-660.
[10] Pathak, P. &Quaz, M,A. (2017), Issues, Challenges and Solution for Security in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Review International Journal of Electrical,
Electronics ISSN No. (Online): 2277-2626 and Computer Engineering 6(1).
[11] Pathan, A. S. K., Lee, H. W., & Hong, C. S. (2006, February). Security in wireless sensor networks: issues and challenges. In Advanced Communication
Technology, 2006.ICACT 2006.The 8th International Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 6-pp).IEEE.
[12] Perrig, A., Szewczyk, R., Tygar, J. D., Wen, V., & Culler, D. E. (2002). SPINS: Security protocols for sensor networks. Wireless networks, 8(5), 521-534.
[13] Ren, K., Lou, W., & Zhang, Y. (2008). LEDS: Providing locationaware end-to-end data security in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile
Computing, 7(5), 585-598.
[14] Sharma, R., Chaba, Y., & Singh, Y. (2010). Analysis of security protocols in wireless sensor network. International journal of advanced networking and
applications, 2(3), 707-713.
[15] Sunitha, K., &Chandrakanth, H. (2012). A survey on security attacks in wireless sensor network. International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA), 2(4), 1684-1691.
[16] Uluagac, A. S., Lee, C. P., Beyah, R. A., & Copeland, J. A. (2008, October).Designing Secure Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks.In WASA (pp. 503-
514).
[17] Zhu, S., Setia, S., &Jajodia, S. (2006). LEAP+: Efficient security mechanisms for large-scale distributed sensor networks. ACM Transactions on Sensor
Networks (TOSN), 2(4), 500-528.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 144