A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET

IJIRST –International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology| Volume 3 | Issue 08 | January 2017 ISSN (online): 2349-6010

A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET Vasukidevi G. Assistant Professor R.M.K. College of Engineering and Technology, Puduvoyal, India

Dr. R.Sethukarasi Professor R.M.K. College of Engineering and Technology, Puduvoyal, India

Abstract Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) is an emerging technology for enhancing the safety measures of vehicles. To ensure safety and to keep track of accident prone zones, there is a need for communication between vehicles. The advantages of VANETs are that they upgrade traffic safety and vehicle security while shielding drivers' protection from assaults executed by enemies. Security is a standout amongst the most basic issues identified with VANETs since the data transmitted is dispersed in an open get to environment. VANETs confront many difficulties. This paper shows a study of the security issues and the difficulties they create. The different classes of uses in VANETs are presented, and additionally some security prerequisites, dangers and certain structures are proposed to take care of the security issue. Here, various authentication and secure key management mechanisms in VANET are reviewed and their advantages are listed. The performance metrics used in different technique for analysis are also studied.

Keywords: VANET, Security, Key Management, Authentication _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ I.

INTRODUCTION

Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks, (VANET), are a specific sort of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, (MANET), in which vehicles go about as hubs and every vehicle is prepared with transmission abilities which are interconnected to shape a system. The topology made by vehicles is normally extremely progressive and randomly circulated. Keeping in mind the end goal to exchange data about these sorts of systems, standard MANET directing calculations are not appropriate. The accessibility of route frameworks on every vehicle makes it mindful of its geographic area and in addition its neighbors. In any case, a specific sort of steering approach, called Geographic Routing, gets to be distinctly conceivable where parcels are sent to a goal basically by picking a neighbor who is topographically nearer to that goal. With the quick development of vehicles and roadside activity screens, the progression of route frameworks, and the ease of remote organize gadgets, promising shared (P2P) applications and remotely determined administrations to vehicles got to be distinctly accessible[1]. For this reason, the Intelligent Transportation Frameworks (ITS) have proposed the Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) norms that characterize a design that all things considered empowers vehicle-to- 2 vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-foundation (V2I) remote communications.

As indicated by models of system, VANET can be partitioned into three classifications, the first is the Wireless Wide Area Network (WWAN) in which the get to purposes of the cell doors are settled with a specific end goal to permit coordinate correspondence between the vehicles and the get to focuses[2]. Be that as it may, these get to focuses require expensive establishment, which is not possible. The second classification is the Half and half Wireless Architecture in which WWAN get to focuses are utilized at certain focuses while a specially appointed correspondence gives get to and correspondence in between those get to focuses. The third and last classification is the Ad Hoc V2V Correspondence which does not require any settled get to focuses all together for the vehicles to impart. Vehicles are outfitted with remote system cards, and a unconstrained setting up of a specially appointed system should be possible for every vehicle[3]. This review will concentrate on considering specially appointed V2V correspondence systems, which are otherwise called VANETs. The motivation behind VANET is to permit remote correspondence between vehicles on the street including the roadside remote sensors, empowering the exchange of data to guarantee driving wellbeing and making arrangements for element steering, permitting portable detecting and additionally giving in-auto stimulation.

As VANETs have extraordinary qualities which incorporate element topology, visit detachment of the systems, and differing situations for correspondence, the steering conventions for customary MANET, for example, Ad hoc On-request Distance Vector (AODV) are not specifically usable for VANETs.Scientists have built up an assortment of productive steering conventions for VANETs counting Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR). The present issue, in any case, is that the scope of the remote 3 sensors on vehicles is restricted to a couple of hundred meters at most and the movement conditions in a vehicular urban environment frequently change powerfully. Other than that, VANET directing conventions additionally confront different issues including the issue of unstructured streets, the distinction in the sizes of the crossing points in a specific range, the sharp bends of the streets, uneven inclines, and different obstructions, for example, vast structures, activity lights, trees, and sign sheets. As it is unfeasible to spend unnecessarily on remaking or rebuilding the current streets in urban situations, a steering convention with the end goal of a bigger separation of information correspondence in oneto-one what's more, one-to-many exchanges particularly for

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org

107

A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET (IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

VANETs should be created. As a matter of first importance, element distinguishing proof forces that each partaking element ought to have a diverse and one of a kind identifier. In any case, recognizable proof itself does not infer that the element demonstrates that it is its real personality – this necessity is called substance verification. Each of the application bunches has diverse needs in regards to these prerequisites.V2V cautioning spread needs recognizable proof to perform message steering and sending – identifiers are fundamental to fabricate directing tables. Fig 1 illustrates the security architecture of VANET.

Fig. 1: Security in VANET

Sender validation is additionally required for obligation purposes. Envision that a normal vehicle sends a warning as though it were a police watch. It ought to be then expected to demonstrate the character of the radiating hub. In gathering communications it is not required to distinguish or verify the imparting peers. The main need is to demonstrate that both taking interest substances have the required credits to wind up gathering individuals – this is the quality confirmation necessity[4]. Truth be told, this is the main correspondence design that needs this necessity. In beaconing, recognizable proof what's more, confirmation of the sender is required. Close-by vehicles can then form a dependable neighbor table. Both necessities are likewise present in I2V notices, where just messages sent by the framework are believable. Framework notices are sent to every passing vehicle inside a zone, so ID or confirmation of the recipient is not required. Despite what might be expected, V2I notices additionally require the discharging vehicle to be recognized and verified. Along these lines, as it were vehicles with a dependable personality will have the capacity to send such messages. Finishing the referred to prerequisites ought not suggest less security. Truth be told, security protection is basic for vehicles. In the vehicular setting, security is accomplished when two related objectives are fulfilled – untraceability and unlinkability.

To start with property states that vehicle's activities xoughtnot to be followed. Then again, second property sets up that it ought to be unthinkable for an unapproved element to interface a vehicle's character with that of its driver/proprietor.

Nevertheless, this security assurance ought to be evacuated when required by movement powers for obligation acknowledgment.

This prerequisite is available in all V2V messages. Indeed, security ought not to get bargained regardless of the possibility that distinctive messages are sent by a similar vehicle. It doesn't matter to I2V notices, as the sender (i.e. the framework) does not have security needs. Non-renouncement necessity guarantees that it will be outlandish for a substance to deny having sent or got some message. It is required for the sender in V2V notices and reference points. Along these lines, if a vehicle sends some vindictive information, there will be a proof that could be utilized for obligation purposes. In gathering interchanges it is not by and large required, as the radiating hub could be any of the gathering individuals. As for I2V and V2I notices, nonrepudiation of starting point is required, so wrong cautioning messages can be without a doubt connected to the sending hub. Non-denial of

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org

108

A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET (IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

receipt is not as of now required, but rather it will be later on. As of now, mishap duty depends just on the human driver. Be that as it may, later on there are some imagined applications that would computerize in part the driving undertaking.

In such circumstance, not accepting a notice message could be basic for risk attribution. Another essential security necessity in vehicular interchanges is secrecy, that is, to guarantee that messages might be perused by approved gatherings. This necessity is as it were exhibit in gathering interchanges, in which just gathering individuals are permitted to peruse such data. The rest of the VANET settings transmit open data. Indeed, this prerequisite is not considered in some past works. In any case, for fulfillment, it will be considered in this diagram. The accessibility necessity suggests that each hub ought to be equipped for sending any data whenever. As most exchanged messages influence street movement wellbeing, this necessity is basic in this environment.

Planned correspondence conventions and instruments ought to spare however much data transmission and computational power as could be expected, while satisfying these security necessities. It is available on all correspondence designs, that is, it influences not just V2V interchanges, additionally I2V ones. At long last, identified with the data itself, information trustworthiness and precision must be guaranteed. Information in question ought not to be modified and, more imperatively, it ought to be honest. False or changed information ought to prompt to potential accidents, bottlenecks and other activity security issues. Hence, information trust must be given on all VANET communications.

II. AUTHENTICATION AND KEY MANAGEMENT The difference between unicasting and multicasting is that the packets are transmitted several times in unicasting, whereas in multicasting the packets are forwarded to multiple destinations once. Answer for hinder access of information in the gathering is cryptography in which keys are particularly scattered. This key is known as the gathering key in the specific circumstance of gathering correspondence. Just those individuals from the gathering will translate the gathering message that perceives the aggregate key. Key administration is a fundamental part of any protected correspondence. Most cryptosystem relies on upon a few major secure, incredible, and profitable key administration structure. At whatever point enrollment changes when a late part leaves the gathering then again new part joins the gathering this gathering key ought to be revived. This operation is called rekeying. Bunch key administration suggests dispersion and support required in rekeying and encryption. One of the troubles of gathering key management [5] is the best approach to ensure rekeying using least transmission capacity overhead without augmenting stockpiling overhead.

There are different diverse approaches to bargain out with gathering key administration; we can parcel them into three guideline classes: Centralized Group Key Management In this system, key circulation capacity is ensured by one element which is responsible for producing and conveying keys at whatever point required [5, 6]. So a gathering key administration convention hopes to constrict stockpiling needs, computational drive on both client and server sides, and information exchange limit utilization [6][7].

Decentralized Group Key Management Decentralized arrangement will tackle issues of get-together work in single space, in which substantial gathering is part among subgroup administrators. To keep a key separation from a bottleneck [8] and single level of disappointment chain of key administrator offers the work of scattering key [7].

Distributed Group Key Management The fact that in that regard there is no plain Key circulation focus (KDC). Get to control is performed by all individuals and key era can be either contributing which implies that each one part in gathering contributes some data to get the key or done by one in every one of the individuals.

Table – 1 Comparative Analysis of Task Offloading and Scheduling Techniques Task Offloading Author and References

Year

Techniques

Kargl, et al. [9]

2016

Message authentication at physical layer

Buttner, et al.

[10]

2015

Key agreement protocol for anonymous authentication

Sanchez, et al.[11]

2016

Authentication based on driver ID cards

Baldini,et al.

[12]

2013

Identity based cryptographic scheme

Advantages 1)

Performance Metrics

Increases bandwidth utilization 2) Reduces packet collision 3) Decreases end-to-end and transmission delay 1)

1)

On time delivery of messages 2) Fast execution

Driver and vehicle details can be gathered in an efficient way 1) High level of security and privacy 2) Resolves the key escrow problem

1) Transmission delay 2) End-to-end delay 1) Message size 2) Execution time 3) Faulty messages 1) Message transmission rate 2) Retransmission rate 1) Time for distribution phase 2) Time for satisfying the requests.

3) ID-based private key

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org

109

A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET (IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

computation time 4) Sign time 5) Verification time Chim, et al.

[13]

2012

Multi-level authentication scheme

2016

K-means clustering based Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)

2016

Group Diffie-Hellman key Generation scheme

2014

Key management using time stamp

2014

Lightweight privacy authentication scheme

Wang, et al.

[18]

2016

TWO-Factor LIghtweight Privacy preserving authentication scheme (2FLIP)

Lu, et al. [19]

2012

Liu, et al. [20]

2014

Zhu, et al. [21]

Hamida, et al.

[14]

1) Good authentication Privacy preservation based on conditions 3) Traeability

2)

1)

1) Mejri, et al.[15] Bandak, et al.

[16]

Prevents from man-in-the-middle attack 2) Guarantees secure communication

1) BSM received power 2) Average end-to-end BSM delay 3) Average cryptographic loss 4) Average security delay 1)

1) Simulation time 2) End-to-end delay 3) Message loss ratio 4) Packet delivery ratio

Prevents from Denial of Service (DoS) attack 2) Minimized communication overhead and computation cost

No vehicles can be traced due to high privacy preservation

A dynamic privacy-preserving key management scheme called DIKE Location based privacy preservation key management

High level of key privacy is preserved using group key management

2013

Distributed pseudonym management scheme

Less communication overhead Highly robust

Boloorchi, et al. [22]

2014

Symmetric Threshold Multipath key management

Efficient key management in online High security Secure key sharing technique

Zhang, et al.

[23]

2013

RFID key management scheme

Horng, et al.

[24]

2012

Batch verification for secure authentication

Decentralized certificate verification Robust to attacks Better response time Less message overhead High transmission rate

Paranjothi, et al.[25]

2016

Message authentication

Decreases the rate of road accidents

Punitha, et al.

[26]

2016

Secure group authentication

Secure and robust Complete safety and privacy

Shao, et al.

[27]

2016

Threshold anonymous authentication

Vehicles are highly traceable Better message link ability

2013

Cooperative Message Authentication

High forward and backward secrecy Fast key update

1) Network delay 2) Packet loss ratio 1) Average message delay 2) Average message loss ratio 3) Percentage signature verified 1) 2)

Reduced authentication overhead

Average key update delay Average key update ratio

1)

Authenticated message probability 2) Average message length 1) Space cost 2) Communication cost 3) Message compromising probability 1) CRL verification latency 2) Communication overhead 1)

Verification delay Transmission overhead 1) Delay analysis 2) Message authentication probability 3) Message delivery quality 1) Delay 2) Delivery ratio 3) Packet drop ratio 4) Throughput 5) Overhead 2)

1) 2)

Lin, et al.[28]

Key establishment duration

1) Enhances bit rate 2) Reduces the packet loss 1)

Wang, et al.

[17]

Provides better authentication for basic safety messages even in the presence of dense traffic.

Computational cost

Number of verified messages 3) Number of required authentication 4) Effort per vehicle

III. CONCLUSION This paper presented a review of existing key management and authentication techniques available in VANET. The road safety is ensured in VANET through secure communication between vehicles. The security issues are the one of the major drawbacks of VANET. These problems can be resolved by allowing only authorized users for communication. The authorized users are

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org

110

A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET (IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

identified via authentication and the messages are transmitted in a secure way. The Keys to decrypt the messages are also transmitted through a secure channel. The key management techniques are discussed along with their advantages. The metrics used to evaluate performance of those techniques are also studied.

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

W. Liang, Z. Li, H. Zhang, S. Wang, and R. Bie, "Vehicular ad hoc networks: architectures, research issues, methodologies, challenges, and trends," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2015, p. 17, 2015.

S. Zeadally, R. Hunt, Y.-S. Chen, A. Irwin, and A. Hassan, "Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETS): status, results, and challenges," Telecommunication Systems, vol. 50, pp. 217-241, 2012.

B. T. Sharef, R. A. Alsaqour, and M. Ismail, "Vehicular communication ad hoc routing protocols: A survey," Journal of network and computer applications, vol. 40, pp. 363-396, 2014.

R. G. Engoulou, M. Bellaïche, S. Pierre, and A. Quintero, "VANET security surveys," Computer Communications, vol. 44, pp. 1-13, 2014.

R. Barskar and M. Chawla, "A Survey on Efficient Group Key Management Schemes in Wireless Networks," Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 9, 2016.

Y. Challal and H. Seba, "Group key management protocols: A novel taxonomy," International journal of information technology, vol. 2, pp. 105-118, 2005.

S. Rafaeli and D. Hutchison, "A survey of key management for secure group communication," ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 35, pp. 309-329, 2003.

B. Jiang and X. Hu, "A survey of group key management," in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2008 International Conference on, 2008, pp.

994-1002.

F. Kargl and C. Waldschmidt, "Physical Layer-Based Message Authentication in VANETs," in Fachgespräch Inter-Vehicle Communication 2016-(interveh-comm-2016), 2016.

C. Büttner, F. Bartels, and S. A. Huss, "Real-world evaluation of an anonymous authenticated key agreement protocol for vehicular ad-hoc networks," in Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2015 IEEE 11th International Conference on, 2015, pp. 651-658.

J. Sánchez-García, J. García-Campos, D. Reina, S. Toral, and F. Barrero, "On-siteDriverID: A secure authentication scheme based on Spanish eID cards for vehicular ad hoc networks," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 64, pp. 50-60, 2016.

G. Baldini, V. Mahieu, I. N. Fovino, A. Trombetta, and M. Taddeo, "Identity-based security systems for vehicular ad-hoc networks," in 2013 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), 2013, pp. 672-678.

T. W. Chim, S.-M. Yiu, L. C. Hui, and V. O. Li, "MLAS: multiple level authentication scheme for VANETs," Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 10, pp. 1445-1456, 2012.

E. B. Hamida and M. A. Javed, "Channel-Aware ECDSA Signature Verification of Basic Safety Messages with K-Means Clustering in VANETs," in 2016 IEEE 30th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), 2016, pp. 603-610.

M. N. Mejri, N. Achir, and M. Hamdi, "A new group Diffie-Hellman key generation proposal for secure VANET communications," in 2016 13th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2016, pp. 992-995.

S. Bandak and R. Patil, "Public Key Cryptography based Secured Dynamic Routing in VANET Time Stamp based Key Management System," International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 3, pp. 2213-2217, 2014.

M. Wang, D. Liu, L. Zhu, Y. Xu, and F. Wang, "LESPP: lightweight and efficient strong privacy preserving authentication scheme for secure VANET communication," Computing, pp. 1-24, 2014.

F. Wang, Y. Xu, H. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and L. Zhu, "2FLIP: A Two-Factor Lightweight Privacy-Preserving Authentication Scheme for VANET," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, pp. 896-911, 2016.

R. Lu, X. Lin, X. Liang, and X. Shen, "A dynamic privacy-preserving key management scheme for location-based services in vanets," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 13, pp. 127-139, 2012.

B. Liu, L. Zhang, and J. Domingo-Ferrer, "On the Security of a Privacy-Preserving Key Management Scheme for Location Based Services in VANETs," in Foundations and Practice of Security, ed: Springer, 2014, pp. 323-335.

X. Zhu, Y. Lu, B. Zhang, and Z. Hou, "A distributed pseudonym management scheme in VANETs," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2013, 2013.

A. T. Boloorchi, M. Samadzadeh, and T. Chen, "Symmetric threshold multipath (STM): an online symmetric key management scheme," Information Sciences, vol. 268, pp. 489-504, 2014.

Q. Zhang, M. Almulla, and A. Boukerche, "Performance analysis of an RFID Key Management scheme for vehicular networks," in Mobile and Wireless Networking (MoWNeT), 2013 International Conference on Selected Topics in, 2013, pp. 25-29.

S.-J. Horng, S.-F. Tzeng, Y. Pan, P. Fan, X. Wang, T. Li, et al., "b-SPECS+: Batch verification for secure pseudonymous authentication in VANET," IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 8, pp. 1860-1875, 2013.

A. Paranjothi, M. S. Khan, M. Nijim, and R. Challoo, "MAvanet: Message authentication in VANET using social networks," in Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON), IEEE Annual, 2016, pp. 1-8.

A. Punitha and J. M. L. Manickam, "Secure Group Authentication Technique for VANET," Asian Journal of Information Technology, vol. 15, pp. 16371644, 2016.

J. Shao, X. Lin, R. Lu, and C. Zuo, "A threshold anonymous authentication protocol for VANETs," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, pp. 1711-1720, 2016.

X. Lin and X. Li, "Achieving efficient cooperative message authentication in vehicular ad hoc networks," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol.

62, pp. 3339-3348, 2013.

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org

111