KEDS: Decentralised Network Security for the Smart Home Environment

  • Justin King-LacroixEmail author
  • Andrew Martin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8448)


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.


Wireless Sensor Network Smart Grid Smart Home Border Gateway Protocol Security Association 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 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. 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. 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. 4.
    Alliance, Z.: ZigBee Specification (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gregori, E., Improta, A., Lenzini, L., Rossi, L., Sani, L.: BGP and inter-AS economic relationships. In: Domingo-Pascual, J., Manzoni, P., Palazzo, S., Pont, A., Scoglio, C. (eds.) NETWORKING 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6641, pp. 54–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler, K., Farley, T., McDaniel, P., Rexford, J.: A survey of BGP security issues and solutions. Proc. IEEE 98(1), 100–122 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gohari, A.A., Pakbaz, R., Melliar-Smith, P.M., Moser, L.E., Rodoplu, V.: RMR: reliability map routing for tactical mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 29(10), 1935–1947 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Schumacher, H.J.J., Ghosh, S., Lee, T.S.: Top secret traffic and the public ATM network infrastructure. Inf. Syst. Secur. 7(4), 27–45 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    Hughes, B., Sharpe, T.: NATO Tacoms. In: MILCOM, IEEE, pp. 1–7 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 14.
    Alliance, Z.: ZigBee Smart Energy Profile Specification (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 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. 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. 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
  18. 18.
    Lee, J., Leung, V., Wong, K., Chan, H.: Key management issues in wireless sensor networks: current proposals and future developments. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Mag. 14(5), 76–84 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hartenstein, H., Laberteaux, K.: A tutorial survey on vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 46(6), 164–171 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations