UNION: A Trust Model Distinguishing Intentional and Unintentional Misbehavior in Inter-UAV Communication

[EN] Ensuring the desired level of security is an important issue in all communicating systems, and it becomes more challenging in wireless environments. Flying Ad Hoc Networks (FANETs) are an emerging type of mobile network that is built using energy-restricted devices. Hence, the communications interface used and that computation complexity are additional factors to consider when designing secure protocols for these networks. In the literature, various solutions have been proposed to ensure secure and reliable internode communications, and these FANET nodes are known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). In general, these UAVs are often detected as malicious due to an unintentional misbehavior related to the physical features of the UAVs, the communication mediums, or the network interface. In this paper, we propose a new context-aware trust-based solution to distinguish between intentional and unintentional UAV misbehavior. The main goal is to minimize the generated error ratio while meeting the desired security levels. Our proposal simultaneously establishes the inter-UAV trust and estimates the current context in terms of UAV energy, mobility pattern, and enqueued packets, in order to ensure full context awareness in the overall honesty evaluation. In addition, based on computed trust and context metrics, we also propose a new inter-UAV packet delivery strategy. Simulations conducted using NS2.35 evidence the efficiency of our proposal, called UNION., at ensuring high detection ratios > 87% and high accuracy with reduced end-to-end delay, clearly outperforming previous proposals known as RPM, T-CLAIDS, and CATrust.This research is partially supported by the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) under Grant no. 31T065.Barka, E.; Kerrache, CA.; Lagraa, N.; Lakas, A.; Tavares De Araujo Cesariny Calafate, CM.; Cano, J. (2018). UNION: A Trust Model Distinguishing Intentional and Unintentional Misbehavior in Inter-UAV Communication. Journal of Advanced Transportation. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7475357S112Ghazzai, H., Ben Ghorbel, M., Kadri, A., Hossain, M. J., & Menouar, H. (2017). Energy-Efficient Management of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Underlay Cognitive Radio Systems. IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking, 1(4), 434-443. doi:10.1109/tgcn.2017.2750721Sharma, V., & Kumar, R. (2016). Cooperative frameworks and network models for flying ad hoc networks: a survey. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 29(4), e3931. doi:10.1002/cpe.3931Sun, J., Wang, W., Kou, L., Lin, Y., Zhang, L., Da, Q., & Chen, L. (2017). A data authentication scheme for UAV ad hoc network communication. The Journal of Supercomputing, 76(6), 4041-4056. doi:10.1007/s11227-017-2179-3He, D., Chan, S., & Guizani, M. (2017). Drone-Assisted Public Safety Networks: The Security Aspect. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(8), 218-223. doi:10.1109/mcom.2017.1600799cmSeong-Woo Kim, & Seung-Woo Seo. (2012). Cooperative Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle Control for Spatially Secure Group Communications. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 30(5), 870-882. doi:10.1109/jsac.2012.120604Singh, A., Maheshwari, M., Nikhil, & Kumar, N. (2011). Security and Trust Management in MANET. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 384-387. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20573-6_67Kerrache, C. A., Calafate, C. T., Cano, J.-C., Lagraa, N., & Manzoni, P. (2016). Trust Management for Vehicular Networks: An Adversary-Oriented Overview. IEEE Access, 4, 9293-9307. doi:10.1109/access.2016.2645452Li, W., & Song, H. (2016). ART: An Attack-Resistant Trust Management Scheme for Securing Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(4), 960-969. doi:10.1109/tits.2015.2494017Raghunathan, V., Schurgers, C., Sung Park, & Srivastava, M. B. (2002). Energy-aware wireless microsensor networks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 19(2), 40-50. doi:10.1109/79.985679Feeney, L. M. (2001). Mobile Networks and Applications, 6(3), 239-249. doi:10.1023/a:1011474616255De Rango, F., Guerriero, F., & Fazio, P. (2012). Link-Stability and Energy Aware Routing Protocol in Distributed Wireless Networks. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 23(4), 713-726. doi:10.1109/tpds.2010.160Hyytia, E., Lassila, P., & Virtamo, J. (2006). Spatial node distribution of the random waypoint mobility model with applications. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 5(6), 680-694. doi:10.1109/tmc.2006.86Wang, Y., Chen, I.-R., Cho, J.-H., Swami, A., Lu, Y.-C., Lu, C.-T., & Tsai, J. J. P. (2018). CATrust: Context-Aware Trust Management for Service-Oriented Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 11(6), 908-921. doi:10.1109/tsc.2016.2587259Kumar, N., & Chilamkurti, N. (2014). Collaborative trust aware intelligent intrusion detection in VANETs. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 40(6), 1981-1996. doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2014.01.00

Service Quality Assessment for Cloud-based Distributed Data Services

The issue of less-than-100% reliability and trust-worthiness of third-party controlled cloud components (e.g., IaaS and SaaS components from different vendors) may lead to laxity in the QoS guarantees offered by a service-support system S to various applications. An example of S is a replicated data service to handle customer queries with fault-tolerance and performance goals. QoS laxity (i.e., SLA violations) may be inadvertent: say, due to the inability of system designers to model the impact of sub-system behaviors onto a deliverable QoS. Sometimes, QoS laxity may even be intentional: say, to reap revenue-oriented benefits by cheating on resource allocations and/or excessive statistical-sharing of system resources (e.g., VM cycles, number of servers). Our goal is to assess how well the internal mechanisms of S are geared to offer a required level of service to the applications. We use computational models of S to determine the optimal feasible resource schedules and verify how close is the actual system behavior to a model-computed \u27gold-standard\u27. Our QoS assessment methods allow comparing different service vendors (possibly with different business policies) in terms of canonical properties: such as elasticity, linearity, isolation, and fairness (analogical to a comparative rating of restaurants). Case studies of cloud-based distributed applications are described to illustrate our QoS assessment methods. Specific systems studied in the thesis are: i) replicated data services where the servers may be hosted on multiple data-centers for fault-tolerance and performance reasons; and ii) content delivery networks to geographically distributed clients where the content data caches may reside on different data-centers. The methods studied in the thesis are useful in various contexts of QoS management and self-configurations in large-scale cloud-based distributed systems that are inherently complex due to size, diversity, and environment dynamicity

A flexible architecture for privacy-aware trust management

In service-oriented systems a constellation of services cooperate, sharing potentially sensitive information and responsibilities. Cooperation is only possible if the different participants trust each other. As trust may depend on many different factors, in a flexible framework for Trust Management (TM) trust must be computed by combining different types of information. In this paper we describe the TAS3 TM framework which integrates independent TM systems into a single trust decision point. The TM framework supports intricate combinations whilst still remaining easily extensible. It also provides a unified trust evaluation interface to the (authorization framework of the) services. We demonstrate the flexibility of the approach by integrating three distinct TM paradigms: reputation-based TM, credential-based TM, and Key Performance Indicator TM. Finally, we discuss privacy concerns in TM systems and the directions to be taken for the definition of a privacy-friendly TM architecture.\u