I have recently started a research on security issues in Cognitive Radio networks based on Software Defined Radios. Although I have studied some surveys on this topic, I don't have a solid opinion about jamming in practical scenarios.
In this regard, what kind of jamming attack is more harmful (more challenging to deal)? Receiver jamming attack? Spectrum sensing jamming attack? Others?
Thank you in advance for your time.
All kinds of attacks are harmful. The word 'more' heavily depends on your scenario and the problem you want to consider.
But from the point of view that saying Spectrum Sensing is a key enabling for Cognitive Radio, I will say Spectrum Sensing since it can corrupt the whole process and also can interfer the stackeholder.
Thanks
Dear, check the following links, will help you:
Attacks & Preventions of Cognitive Radio Network-A Survey
http://ijarcet.org/wp-content/uploads/IJARCET-VOL-2-ISSUE-3-1002-1006.pdf
Future Directions in Cognitive Radio Network Research
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~prs/NSF_CRN_Report_Final.pdf
As Kassem says, the understanding of the term harmful varies on context and different jamming attacks can be considered the "most harmful."
In one regard, completely occupying all available frequencies with extremely strong transmissions should be considered the most harmful, because no communication is possible at all. However, this kind of attack is costly and easy to detect. Attacking the spectrum sensing phase requires much less energy for almost the same effect, so it could be considered better. If the attacker only wants to target chosen receivers, getting close to them and jam their transmissions selectively would be both effective and efficient.
You should first define the attacker's goals and then choose the method that can 100% reach them, at the lowest cost and detectability, to find the best one.
If you are interested in reactive (selective) jamming, you can check my publication:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221551521
I have also some work on reactive jamming detection:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235641655
Hope this helps!
Conference Paper Short Paper: Reactive Jamming in Wireless Networks—How Reali...
Conference Paper Detection of Reactive Jamming in DSSS-based Wireless Networks
Hello, I guess there is some clarity required regarding the receiver jamming and spectrum sensing jamming you are talking about. You need to understand the spoofing is slightly different from classical jamming, and yes both can happen in CR networks.
Most Cognitive Radio implementations are slotted: a sensing slot for spectrum sensing and a data transmission slot for sending data. When rogue nodes emit some power in the sensing slot of other legitimate nodes, it is called spoofing. The extra spoofed power along with appropriate primary preamble may lead to the belief that a primary is present. This is more serious if you have an equal power partial band spoofing which can leave you virtually spectrumless. Conversely, it is also possible to induce the opposite by manipulating the noise floor. Then it will cause other nodes to believe that primary is absent. Both of these cause policy violations, which you have to concede is much more serious than when your transmission of data is jammed during the transmission slot. If your data is lost you can hop to some other channel and may be you get lucky next. A denial of service can lead you spectrum less with an available or candidate channels, or policy violation could see you lose your spectrum license. In my opinion, spoofing of power in the sensing slot, is more harmful than the such spoofed signals in transmission slots. More details you check out the following papers, where we talk about the two different aspects of jamming
Article Collaborative jamming and collaborative defense in cognitive...
Article Vulnerabilities in cognitive radio networks: A survey
Dear Sir,
Out of all the attack, Primary User Emulation attack is more powerful. Here Secondary will act as primary and steal/utilize the spectrum. It is having lot of scope.
Others are
sink hole attack
hello flood attack
Thank you
We define an attack on cognitive networks as any activity that results in :
(a) unacceptable interference to the licensed primary users
Or
(b) missed opportunities for secondary users.
An attack is considered (strong) if it involves a minimal number of adversaries performing minimal operations but causing maximum damage/loss to the primary and or secondary users in the network.
The successful deployment of CRNs relies on the design of several mechanisms, such as spectrum sensing in order to detect spectrum holes and ensure non-interfering coexistence with primary users, or spectrum management schemes to fairly distribute the available bandwidth among secondary users.
Sybil attack :(against sensor networks)
Cyber attacks (reconnaissance or cyber intelligence)
Traffic Analysis Attack
Eavesdropping attack
Primary user emulation attacks
jamming attacks: constant, deceptive, random, and reactive
PSK Brute Force Dictionary Attack
ets (Layer Attacks )
so for more harmful (more challenging to deal)? Receiver jamming attack? Spectrum sensing jamming attack? you can find any still open problem for latest thesis then can working on this field with your capabilities .
Regards...
A cognitive jammer would cause more harm to cognitive radio network. The reason is that the cognitive jammer has the ability to sense its environment and can detect the secondary user activity in the network. So it will jam only if find some target otherwise it will not transmit jamming signal and will save its power resources.
- Badges
- Science topic