Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 64–78 | Cite as

A Model for the Analysis of QoS and Security Tradeoff in Mobile Platforms



Today, mobile platforms are multimedia devices that provide different types of traffic with the consequent particular performance demands and, besides, security concerns (e.g. privacy). However, Security and QoS requirements quite often conflict to a large degree; the mobility and heterogeneous paradigm of the Future Internet makes coexistence even more difficult, posing new challenges to overcome. Probably, one of the main challenges is to identify the specific reasons why Security and QoS mechanisms are so related to each other. In this paper, we present a Parametric Relationship Model (PRM) to identify the Security and QoS dependencies, and to elaborate on the Security and QoS tradeoff. In particular, we perform an analysis that focus on the mobile platform environment and, consequently, also considers subjective parameters such user’s experience, that is crucial for increasing the usability of new solutions in the Future Internet. The final aim of our contribution is to facilitate the development of secure and efficient services for mobile platforms.


Security QoS Dependencies Relationships Parameters Tradeoff 



This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the projects ARES (CSD2007-00004) and SPRINT (TIN2009-09237), being the last also co-funded by FEDER. Additionally, it has been funded by Junta de Andalucia through the project FISICCO (TIC-07223). The first author has been funded by the Spanish FPI Research Programme.


  1. 1.
    La Polla M, Martinelli F, Sgandurra D (2013) A survey on security for mobile devices. Commun Surv Tutor, IEEE 15(1):446. doi: 10.1109/SURV.2012.013012.00028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoog A, Strzempka K (2011) IPhone and IOS forensics: investigation analysis and mobile security for apple IPhone, IPad and IOS devices (Syngress)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delac G, Silic M, Krolo J (2011) Emerging security threats for mobile platforms. In: MIPRO, 2011 Proceedings of the 34th International Convention, pp 1468–1473Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohan S, Agarwal N (2011) A convergent framework for QoS-driven social media content delivery over mobile networks. In: Wireless communication, vehicular technology. information theory and aerospace & electronic systems technology (Wireless VITAE), 2011 2nd International Conference on (IEEE), pp 1–7Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lorentzen C, Fiedler M, Johnson H, Shaikh J, Jorstad I (2010) On user perception of web login - a study on QoE in the context of security. In: Telecommunication networks and applications conference (ATNAC), 2010 Australasian, pp 84–89. doi: 10.1109/ATNAC.2010.5680262
  6. 6.
    De Moor K, Ketyko I, Joseph W, Deryckere T, De Marez L, Martens L, Verleye G (2010) Proposed framework for evaluating quality of experience in a mobile, testbed-oriented living lab setting. Mob Netw Appl 15(3):378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nieto A, Lopez J (2012) Security and QoS relationships in mobile platforms. In: Computer science and its applications. Springer, pp 13–21Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke N, Furnell S (2007) Authenticating mobile phone users using keystroke analysis. Int J Inf Secur 6(1):1. doi: 10.1007/s10207-006-0006-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anastasi G, Conti M, Gregori E, Passarella A (2003) Balancing energy saving and QoS in the mobile internet: an application-independent approach. In: System sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (IEEE), 10–ppGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellasi P, Bosisio S, Carnevali M, Fornaciari W, Siorpaes D (2010) Constrained power management: application to a multimedia mobile platform. In: Design, automation test in Europe conference exhibition (DATE), 2010, pp 989–992Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kao YW, Luo GH, Lin HT, Huang YK, Yuan SM (2011) Physical access control based on QR code. In: Cyber-enabled distributed computing and knowledge discovery (CyberC), 2011 International Conference on, pp 285–288. doi: 10.1109/CyberC.2011.55
  12. 12.
    Kieseberg P, Leithner M, Mulazzani M, Munroe L, Schrittwieser S, Sinha M, Weippl E (2010) QR code security. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advances in mobile computing and multimedia. ACM, New York, NY, USA, MoMM ’10, pp 430–435.
  13. 13.
    Cheon WB, il Heo K, Lim WG, Park WH, Chung TM (2011) The new vulnerability of service set identifier (SSID) using QR code in android phone. In: Information science and applications (ICISA), 2011 International Conference on, pp 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICISA.2011.5772367
  14. 14.
    Damme GV, Wouters K (2009) Practical experiences with NFC security on mobile phones. Katholieke Universiteit LeidenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madlmayr G, Langer J, Kantner C, Scharinger J (2008) NFC devices: security and privacy. In: Availability, reliability and security, 2008. ARES 08. Third International Conference on, pp 642–647. doi: 10.1109/ARES.2008.105
  16. 16.
    Mulliner C (2009) Vulnerability analysis and attacks on NFC-enabled mobile phones. In: Availability, reliability and security, 2009. ARES ’09. International Conference on, pp 695–700. doi: 10.1109/ARES.2009.46
  17. 17.
    Verdult R, Kooman F (2011) Practical attacks on NFC enabled cell phones. In: Near field communication (NFC), 2011 3rd International Workshop on (IEEE), pp 77–82Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roland M, Langer J, Scharinger J (2011) Security vulnerabilities of the NDEF signature record type. In: Near field communication (NFC), 2011 3rd International Workshop on, pp 65–70. doi: 10.1109/NFC.2011.9
  19. 19.
    Glisson W, Storer T, Mayall G, Moug I, Grispos G (2011) Electronic retention: what does your mobile phone reveal about you?Int J Inf Secur 10:337. doi: 10.1007/s10207-011-0144-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uddin M, Haseeb S, Ahmed M, Pathan AS (2011) Comprehensive QoS analysis of MIPL based mobile IPv6 using single vs. dual interfaces. In: Electrical, control and computer engineering (INECCE), 2011 International Conference on, pp 388–393. doi: 10.1109/INECCE.2011.5953912
  21. 21.
    Kiminki S, Saari V, Hirvisalo V, Ryynanen J, Parssinen A, Immonen A, Zetterman T (2011) Design and performance trade-offs in parallelized RF SDR architecture. In: Cognitive radio oriented wireless networks and communications (CROWNCOM), 2011 Sixth International ICST Conference on (IEEE), pp 156–160Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Malaga (Spain)MalagaSpain

Personalised recommendations