KEDS: Decentralised Network Security for the Smart Home Environment
The increasingly wide deployment of smart grid technologies in the home has resulted in home automation networks becoming multi-stakeholder, with the number of stakeholders increasing over time.
However, the technologies underpinning these networks universally feature a heavily centralised security model, with policy data held on privileged machines that are both security- and availability-critical. On a multi-stakeholder network, no single stakeholder can be trusted with the authority to operate such privileged machines.
This paper presents a novel network architecture for multi-stakeholder networking. It also proposes a set of modifications to ZigBee, an emerging industry standard in the smart grid domain, that would cause it to conform to this architecture. These are used as the basis for an example application: the smart home.
KeywordsWireless Sensor Network Smart Grid Smart Home Border Gateway Protocol Security Association
- 1.Paverd, A.: Trustworthy remote entities in the smart grid. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium On Applied Computing (SAC) Student Research Competition, pp. 9–10 (2013)Google Scholar
- 2.National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST special publication 1108R2: NIST framework and roadmap for smart grid interoperability standards, release 2.0. Technical report (2012)Google Scholar
- 3.IEEE: Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications. IEEE Std 802.11-2012Google Scholar
- 4.Alliance, Z.: ZigBee Specification (2008)Google Scholar
- 8.Gibson, T.: An architecture for flexible multi-security domain networks. In: Proceedings of the Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium, San Diego, February 2001Google Scholar
- 10.Mason, A.R.: Exploring of wireless technology to provide information sharing among military, United Nations and civilian organizations during complex humanitarian emergencies and peacekeeping operations. Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, March 2003Google Scholar
- 11.Hughes, B., Sharpe, T.: NATO Tacoms. In: MILCOM, IEEE, pp. 1–7 (2006)Google Scholar
- 12.Wentz, L.: An ICT primer: Information and communication technologies for civil-military coordination in disaster relief and stabilization and reconstruction. Technical report, National Defense University Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Washington, DC, USA (2006)Google Scholar
- 13.IEEE: Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks, Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks. IEEE Std 802.15.4-2011Google Scholar
- 14.Alliance, Z.: ZigBee Smart Energy Profile Specification (2011)Google Scholar
- 15.Gupta, V., Millard, M., Fung, S., Gura, N., Eberle, H.: Sizzle: a standards-based end-to-end security architecture for the embedded Internet. In: IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, pp. 247–256 (2005)Google Scholar
- 16.Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J.D., Briscoe, B.: Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction. RFC 4082 (Informational), June 2005Google Scholar
- 17.Welch, V., Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Mulmo, O., Pearlman, L., Gawor, J., Meder, S., Siebenlist, F.: X.509 proxy certificates for dynamic delegation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual PKI R&D Workshop (2004)Google Scholar
- 20.Li, F., Mittal, P., Caesar, M., Borisov, N.: SybilControl. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Workshop on Scalable Trusted Computing, pp. 67–78, October 2012Google Scholar