Localization Error Reduction and Faulty Node

improve the localization error. This might include various ways of disregarding, or correcting for false data. The metric would be the ability to improve the localization given the same environmental and network attack parameters.

Overall, this research demonstrates the feasibility of this type of system. The implementation in hardware would provide a final proof of concept, and other research could be included to give a broader scope.

Bibliography

1. R. Matin and R. Thomas, “Trust and Skepticism in Wireless Network Discovery,”

tech. rep., Air Force Institute of Technology, 2010.

2. N. Patwari, J. Ash, S. Kyperountas, A. H. III, R. Moses, and N. Correal, “Lo-cating the Nodes,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 22, pp. 54–69, July 2005.

3. V. Marojevic, J. Salazar, X. Revs, and A. Gelonch, “On Integrating Radio, Com-puting, and Application Resource Management in Cognitive Radio Systems,” in IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications, 2007.

4. W. Krenik and A. Batra, “Cognitive Radio Techniques for Wide Area Networks,”

in Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference, pp. 409 – 412, Jun. 2005.

5. Y. Zhao, B. Le, and J. Reed, Cognitive Radio Technology, ch. Network Support:

The Radio Environment Map, pp. 325–363. Academic Press, 2nd ed., Apr. 2008.

6. Y. Zhao, L. Morales, J. Gaeddert, K. Bae, J. Um, and J. Reed, “Applying Radio Environment Maps to Cognitive Wireless Regional Area Networks,” in IEEE In-ternational Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, 2007.

7. R. Martin and R. Thomas, “Algorithms and Bounds for Estimating Location, Directionality, and Environmental Parameters of Primary Spectrum Users,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 8, pp. 5692–5701, 2009.

8. D. Estrin, D. Culler, K. Pister, and G. Sukhatme, “Connecting the Physical World with Pervasive Networks,” IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 1, pp. 59 – 69, Jan.

2002.

9. M. Ibrahim and M. Youssef, “CellSense: A Probabilistic RSSI-Based GSM Posi-tioning System,” in IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, pp. 1 –5, Dec.

2010.

10. X. Sheng and Y. Hu, “Maximum Likelihood Multiple-Source Localization Using Acoustic Energy Measurements with Wireless Sensor Networks,” IEEE Transac-tions Signal Processing, vol. 53, pp. 44–53, Jan. 2005.

11. X. Wei, L. Wang, and J. Wan, “A New Localization Technique Based on Network TDOA Information,” in International Conference on ITS Telecommunications Proceedings, 2006.

12. C. Rondeau, “Navigation with Limited Prior Information Using Time Difference of Arrival Measurements from Signals of Oppurtunity,” Master’s thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dec. 2010.

13. Y. Chan, B. Lee, R. Inkol, and Q. Yuan, “Direction Finding With a Four-Element Adcock-Butler Matrix Antenna Array,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 37, pp. 1155 –1162, Oct. 2001.

14. S. Wang, R. Inkol, S. Rajan, and F. Patenaude, “Comparison of two Angle of Ar-rival Averaging Strategies,” in Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, pp. 1105–1110, May 2009.

15. W. Wang and Q. Zhu, “RSS-Based Monte Carlo Localisation for Mobile Sensor Networks,” IET Communications, vol. 2, pp. 673–681, May 2008.

16. R. Malaney, “Nuisance Parameters and Location Accuracy in Log-Normal Fading Models,” IEEE Transactions On Wireless Communications, vol. 6, pp. 937–947, 2007.

17. A. Weiss, “On the Accuracy of a Cellular Location System Based on RSS Mea-surements,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 6, pp. 1508–1518, 2003.

18. X. Li, “Designing Localization Algorithms Robust to Signal Strength Attacks,”

in IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor Mesh and Ad Hoc Com-munications and Networks (SECON), 2010.

19. Y. Chen, W. Sun, and J. Juang, “Outlier Detection Technique for RSS-Based Localization Problems in Wireless Sensor Networks,” in SICE Annual Conference, 2010.

20. J. Dulmage, R. Cioffi, M. Fitz, and D. Cabric, “Characterization of Distance Error with Received Signal Strength Ranging,” in Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, 2010.

21. S. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory. Pren-tice Hall Signal Processing Series, 2009.

22. J. Devore and N. Farnum, Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Brook-s/Cole, 2005.

23. M. Momani, S. Challa, and R. Alhmouz, “BNWSN: Bayesian Network Trust Model for Wireless Sensor Networks,” in Mosharaka International Conference on Communications, Computers and Applications, 2008, pp. 110 –115, 2008.

24. T. Chen and V. Venkataramanan, “Dempster-Shafer Theory for Intrusion Detec-tion in Ad Hoc Networks,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 35 – 41, 2005.

25. Y. Zhang and W. Lee, “Intrusion Detection in Wireless Ah-Hoc Networks,” in Proc 6th Ann ACM Int’l Conf. Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom), pp. 275–283, Aug. 2000.

26. W. Du, J. Deng, Y. Han, and P. Varshney, “A Witness-Based Approach for Data Fusion Assurance in Wireless Sensor Networks,” in IEEE Global Telecommunica-tions Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1435 – 1439 vol.3, 2003.

27. R. Khanna, L. Huaping, and C. Hsiao-Hwa, “Reduced Complexity Intrusion De-tection in Sensor Networks Using Genetic Algorithm,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications, pp. 1 –5, 2009.

28. Z. Yang, N. Meratnia, and P. Havinga, “Outlier Detection Techniques for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 159 –170, 2010.

29. H. L. V. Trees, Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968.

30. T. Hardy, R. Martin, and R. Thomas, “Malicious Node Detection via Physical Layer Data,” in Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Nov.

2010.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704–0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD–MM–YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From — To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE

17. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

24–03–2011 Master’s Thesis June 2009-March 2011

Malicious and Malfunctioning

Graduate School of Engineering and Management (AFIT/EN) 2950 Hobson Way

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED;

THIS MATERIAL IS DECLARED A WORK OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES

There are many mechanisms that can cause inadequate or unreliable information in sensor networks. A user of the network might be interested in detecting and classifying specific sensors nodes causing these problems. Several network layer based trust methods have been developed in previous research to assess these issues; in contrast this work develops a trust protocol based on observations of physical layer data collected by the sensors. Observations of physical layer data are used for decisions and calculations, and are based on just the measurements collected by the sensors. Although this information is packaged and distributed on the network layer, only the physical measurement is considered. This protocol is used to detect faulty nodes operating in the sensor network. The context of this research is Wireless Network Discovery (WND), which refers to modeling all layers of a non-cooperative wireless network. The focus in particular is the localization of transmitters, and detection of sensors affecting the localization. To accomplish this, a model for faulty sensors and two methods of detection are developed. Detection rates are analyzed with Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, and the trade-off of detection versus localization error is discussed. Classification between faulty sensors is also considered to determine appropriate response to potential network attacks.

Detection and Estimation, Wireless Sensor Networks, Network Security, Received Signal Strength

74

Dr. Richard K. Martin (ENG)