Asymmetric End-to-End Security for Human-to-Thing Communications in the Internet of Things

  • Somia SahraouiEmail author
  • Azeddine Bilami
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 1)


The Internet of Things (IoT) vision is a groundbreaking networking evolution that connects all things that were not meant to be connected to the Internet. Thus, identification technologies and Internet-enabled wireless sensor nodes will be incorporated in homes, cities, vehicles, watches, etc. making them uniquely identified and able to process and communicate information via Internet. Hence, the emergence of the Internet of Things paradigm will bring a lot of smartness to our daily life and will improve the way people monitor their goods, expenses, environment and health status. The smart connected things in the IoT interact with each other and/or with the regular Internet hosts according to two communications styles: Thing-to-Thing(s) (T2T) and Human-to-Thing (H2T). Enabling security for such communications is a real issue especially in H2T interactions. This is mainly due to scarce resources of the connected objects and the asymmetric nature of the communications between those smart things and the ordinary Internet hosts. In this paper we address this problematic and we propose an asymmetric security model that mitigates H2T communication heterogeneities and provides reasonable security costs.


Internet of things (IoT) Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) Human to thing communications End-to-end security IPsec 


  1. 1.
    Vans, D.E.: The Internet of things: how the next evolution of the internet is changing everything. Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG) (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., Pellegrinia, F.D., Chlamtaca, I.: Internet of things: vision, applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Netw. 10(7), 1497–1516 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akyildiz, I.F., Su, W., Sankarasubramaniam, Y., Cayirci, E.: Wireless sensor networks: a survey. Comput. Netw. 38(4), 393–422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia-Morchon, O., Keoh, S., Kumar, S., Hummen, R., Struik, R.: Security Considerations in the IP-based Internet of Things. draft-garcia-core-security-04 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geng, W., Talwar, S., Johnsson, K., Himayat, N., Johnson, K.D.: M2M: from mobile to embedded internet. IEEE Commun. Mag. 49(4), 36–43 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., Dijk, E.: Guidelines for HTTP-CoAP Mapping Implementations. draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-06 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kasinathan, P., Pastrone, C., Spirito, M. A., Vinkovits, M.: Denial-of-service detection in 6LoWPAN based internet of things. In: 9th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp. 600–607. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hui, J., Thubert, P.: Compression format for IPv6 datagrams in 6LoWPAN networks. Technical report, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-05 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., Frank, B.: The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). Request For Comments: 7252 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raza, S., Voigt, T., Roedig, U.: 6LoWPAN Extension for IPsec. In: The Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kent, S.: IP Authentication Header. Request for Comments: 4302 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kent, S.: IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). Request for Comments: 4303 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frankel, S., Kishnan, S.: IP Security (IPsec) and Internet Key Exchange (IKE) document roadmap. Request for Comments: 6071 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., Henderson, T.: Host Identity Protocol. IETF RFC 5201 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raza, S., Voigt, T., Jutvik, V.: Lightweight IKEv2: a key management solution for both the compressed IPsec and the IEEE 802.15.4 security. In: The IETF Workshop on Smart Object Security (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sahraoui, S., Bilami, A.: Efficient HIP-based approach to ensure lightweight end-to-end security in the internet of things. Comput. Netw. 91, 26–45 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ben-Saied, Y., Olivereau, A., Zeghlache, D., Laurent, M.: Lightweight collaborative key establishment scheme for the internet of things. Comput. Netw. 64, 273–295 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raza, S., Trabalza, D., Voigt, T.: 6LoWPAN compressed DTLS for CoAP. In: The 8th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems, pp. 287–289. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shafagh, H., Hithnawi, A.: Poster abstract: security comes first, a public-key cryptography framework for the internet of things. In: The 10th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems. DCOSS’14, pp. 135–136. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kothmary, T., Schmitt, C., Hu, W., Brunig, M., Carle, G.: DTLS based security and two-way authentication for the internet of things. Ad Hoc Netw. 11(8), 2710–2723 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL). AG Communication Systems 1–14Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sehgal, A.: Using the Contiki Cooja Simulator (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LaSTIC Laboratory, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Batna 2BatnaAlgeria

Personalised recommendations