Game theoretic approach of eavesdropping attack in millimeter-wave-based WPANs with directional antennas

Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a game theoretic framework to analyze a passive eavesdropping attack in millimeter-wave-based wireless personal area networks. As the interaction between defenders and attackers in network security issues can be considered as a game, devices can be considered as players. Usually a player has insufficient information of other players such as strategies and payoffs especially in static situation. We assume that each player selects its strategy based on its belief about the information on opponents and the belief is known as a prior probability. The Bayesian game model is a relevant framework for this situation. It is assumed that each device is equipped with a directional antenna and knows the channel state. In the analysis, the exposure region (ER) that is determined by the antennas directions of players is considered and the ratio of ER for the total area of a network is calculated by using the probability density function of distance between players. The optimal strategies of two players, a transmitter and an eavesdropper, are derived in terms of Bayesian Nash equilibriums and payoffs for the players are computed for pure and mixed strategies in static situation. The analysis shows how the effects of using a directional antenna and the prior probability of transmitters belief are involved in the Nash equilibriums. Numerical results show the equilibriums and two players payoffs. Those values depend on several parameters such as beamwidth and prior probability of belief as well as its opponents strategies. It also shows the effect of directional antennas in the eavesdropping attack; the use of directional antenna seems to increase the transmitters payoff, while it seems to decrease the eavesdroppers payoff. The obtained results will provide the criteria for selecting appropriate strategy to transmitters when an eavesdropper exists in the network.

Keywords

Eavesdropping attack Game theory Directional antenna Bayesian game Nash equilibrium 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuable comments. This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program and Mid-career Research Program through NRF grant funded by the MEST (NRF-2016R1D1A1B03931037, NRF-2013R1A2A2A01067452) and supported by the Korea University Grant.

References

  1. 1.
    Liang, X., & Xiao, Y. (2013). Game theory for network security. IEEE Communications Survey and Tutorials, 15(1), 472–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roy, S., Ellis, C., Shiva, S., Dasgupta, D., Shandilya, V., & Qishi Wu, Q. (2010). A survey of game theory as applied to network security. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manshaei, M. H., Zhu, Q., Alpcan, T., Basar, T., & Hubaux, J.-P. (2013). Game theory meets network security and privacy. Journal of ACM Computing Surveys, 45(3), 25.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rao, N. S., Poole, S. W., Ma, C. Y., He, F., Zhuang, J., & Yau, D. K. (2016). Defense of cyber infrastructures against cyber-physical attacks using game-theoretic models. Risk Analysis, 36(4), 694–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abdalzaher, M. S., Seddik, K., Elsabrouty, M., Muta, O., Furukawa, H., & Abdel-Rahman, A. (2016). Game theory meets wireless sensor networks security requirements and threats mitigation: A survey. Sensors, 16(7), 1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mao, Y., Zhu, P., & Wei, G. (2013). A game theoretic model for wireless sensor networks with hidden-action attacks. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 9(8), 836056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shen, S., Huang, L., Fan, E., Hu, K., Liu, J., & Cao, Q. (2016). Trust dynamics in WSNs: An evolutionary game-theoretic approach. Journal of Sensors, 2016, 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdalzaher, M. S., Seddik, K., Muta, O., & Abdelrahman, A. (2016). Using Stackelberg game to enhance node protection in WSNs. In Proceedings of CCNC (pp. 853–856).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shan, X., & Zhuang, J. (2013). Hybrid defensive resource allocations in the face of partially strategic attackers in a sequential defender–attacker game. European Journal of Operational Research, 228(1), 262–272.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu, J., & Zhuang, J. (2016). Modeling costly learning and counter-learning in a defender–attacker game with private defender information. Annals of Operations Research, 236(1), 271–289.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ralescu, A. L. (1989). Concept learning from examples and counter examples. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 30, 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korzhyk, D., Yin, Z., Kiekintveld, C., Conitzer, V., & Tambe, M. (2011). Stackelberg vs. Nash in security games: An extended investigation of interchangeability, equivalence, and uniqueness. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 41, 297–327.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saad, W., Han, Z., Basar, T., Debbah, M., & Hjorungnes, A. (2009). Coalitional games for distributed eavesdroppers cooperation in wireless networks. In Proceedings of valuetools (p. 66).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dong, R., Liu, L., Liu, J., & Xu, X. (2009). Intrusion detection system based on payoff matrix for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of WGEC (pp. 3–6).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shiva, S., Roy, S., Bedi, H., Dasgupta, D., & Wu, Q. (2010). A stochastic game model with imperfect information in cyber security. In Proceedings of ICIW (pp. 308–318).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beckery, S., Jeff Seibert, J., David Zage, D., Cristina Nita-Rotaru C., & Radu Statey, R. (2011). Applying game theory to analyze attacks and defenses in virtual coordinate systems. In Proceedings of DSN (pp. 133–144).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garnaev, A., Baykal-Gursoy, M., & Poor, H. V. (2014). Incorporating attack type uncertainty into network protection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 9, 1278–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yuksel, M., Liu, X., & Erkip, E. (2011). A secure communication game with a relay helping the eavesdropper. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 6(3), 818–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mukherjee, A., & Swindlehurst, A. L. (2013). Jamming games in the MIMO wiretap channel with an active eavesdropper. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 61(1), 82–91.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niu, H., Sun, L., Ito, M., & Sezaki, K. (2014). User cooperation analysis under eavesdropping attack: A game theory perspective. In Proceedings of PIMRC (pp. 139–144).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu, Q., Saad, W., Han, Z., Poor, H. V. , & Basar, T. Q. (2011). Eavesdropping and jamming in next-generation wireless networks: A game-theoretic approach. In Proceedings of MILCOM (pp. 119–124).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garnaev, A., & Trappe, W. (2017). Bargaining over the fair trade-off between secrecy and throughput in OFDM communications. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 12(1), 242–251.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cao, B., Sun, X., Li, Y., Wang, C., & Mei, H. (2016). Understanding the impact of employing relay node on wireless networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 66, 4287–4299.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adu-Gyamf, D., Wang, Y., Zhang, F., Kamenyi, D. M., Memon, I., & Gustav, Y. H. (2013). Modeling the spreading behavior of passive worms in mobile social networks. In Proceedings of ICIMIMIE (pp. 380–383).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khan, S., & Pathan, A.-S. K. (2013). Wireless networks and security issues, challenges and research trends. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garnaev A., & Trappe, W. (2014). Secret communication when the eavesdropper might be an active adversary. In Proceedings of MACOM, Lecture notes of computer science (Vol. 8715 , pp. 121–136).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boonyakarn, P., Komolkiti, P., & Aswakul, C. (2011). Game-based analysis of eavesdropping defense strategy in WMN with directional antenna. In Proceedings of JCSSE (pp. 29–33).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goel, V., Aggarwal, V., Yener, A., & Calderbank, A. R. (2010). Modeling location uncertainty for eavesdroppers: A secrecy graph approach. In Proceedings of ISIT (pp. 2627–2631).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, X., Xu, J., Dai, H.-N., Zhao, Q., Cheang, C. F., & Wang, Q. (2015). On modeling eavesdropping attacks in wireless networks. Journal of Computational Science, 11, 196–204.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fan, L., Lei, X., Duong, T. Q., Elkashlan, M., & Karaglannidis, T. Q. (2014). Secure multiuser communications in multiple amplify-and-forward relay networks. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 62(9), 3299–3310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dai, H.-N., Wang, Q., Li, D., & Wong, R. C.-W. (2013). On eavesdropping attacks in wireless sensor networks with directional antennas. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 9, 760834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Curiac, D.-I. (2016). Wireless sensor network security enhancement using directional antennas: State of the art and research challenges. Sensors, 16(488), 1–15.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang, Q., Hong-Ning Dai, H.-N., & Zhao, Q. (2013). Eavesdropping security in wireless ad hoc networks with directional antennas. In Proceedings of WOCC (pp. 687–692).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhou, X., Ganti, R. K., & Andrews, J. G. (2011). Secure wireless network connectivity with multi-antenna transmission. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 10(2), 425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhu, J., Zou, Y., Wang, G., Yao, Y.-D., & Karagiannidis, G. K. (2016). On secrecy performance of antenna-selection-aided MIMO systems against eavesdropping. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 65(1), 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li, X., Wang, H., Dai, H.-N., Wang, Y., & Zhaol, Q. (2016). An analytical study on eavesdropping attacks in wireless nets of things. Mobile Information Systems, 2016, 1–10.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Valliappan, N. (2012). Antenna subset modulation for secure millimeter-wave wireless communication. M.S. dissertation, Chap 4, Science in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim, M., Hwang, E., & Kim, J.-N. (2015). Analysis of eavesdropping attack in mmWave-based WPANs with directional antennas. Wireless Networks, 23(2), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim, M., Kim, Y., & Lee, W. (2012). Performance analysis of directional CSMA/CA for IEEE 802.15.3c under saturation environments. ETRI Journal, 34(1), 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kim, M., Kim, Y. S., & Lee, W. (2013). Analysis of directional neighbour discovery process in millimetre wave wireless personal area networks. IET Networks, 2(2), 92–101.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim, M., Kim, Y., & Lee, W. (2014). Resource allocation scheme for millimeter wave-based WPANs using directional antennas. ETRI Journal, 36(3), 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim, M. (2016). Multi-hop communications in directional CSMA/CA over mmWave WPANs. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 16, 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kim, M. (2017). Optimal packet length for throughput maximization in mmWave WPANs. International Journal of Electronics, 104, 1700–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mathworld. (2005). Square line picking. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareLinePicking.html. Accessed October 1, 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Information and Communication TechnologyKorea UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations