4.2 Article

Exploiting Wireless Received Signal Strength Indicators to Detect Evil-Twin Attacks in Smart Homes

期刊

MOBILE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
卷 2017, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2017/1248578

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61672427, 61672428, 61272461]
  2. Key Project of Chinese Ministry of Education [211181]
  3. International Cooperation Foundation of Shaanxi Province, China [2013KW01-02, 2015 KW-003]
  4. Research Project of Shaanxi Province Department of Education [15JK1734]
  5. Research Project of NWU, China [14NW28]
  6. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/M01567X/1, EP/M015793/1]
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M015793/1, EP/M01567X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. EPSRC [EP/M01567X/1, EP/M015793/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evil-Twin is becoming a common attack in smart home environments where an attacker can set up a fake AP to compromise the security of the connected devices. To identify the fake APs, The current approaches of detecting Evil-Twin attacks all rely on information such as SSIDs, the MAC address of the genuine AP, or network traffic patterns. However, such information can be faked by the attacker, often leading to low detection rates and weak protection. This paper presents a novel Evil-Twin attack detection method based on the received signal strength indicator (RSSI). Our approach considers the RSSI as a fingerprint of APs and uses the fingerprint of the genuine AP to identify fake ones. We provide two schemes to detect a fake AP in two different scenarios where the genuine AP can be located at either a single or multiple locations in the property, by exploiting the multipath effect of the Wi-Fi signal. As a departure from prior work, our approach does not rely on any professional measurement devices. Experimental results show that our approach can successfully detect 90% of the fake APs, at the cost of a one-off, modest connection delay.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据