Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
public:papers:spw2016 [2016-06-19 21:27] – [What is this paper about?] rostadalpublic:papers:spw2016 [2016-06-19 21:28] – rostadal
Line 39: Line 39:
   * Provided three additional attacker models compared to the one used (Random Key compromise): key exfiltration model, passive node control model, and active node control model. Based on attacker capabilities, we also distinguish the global and local attacker.   * Provided three additional attacker models compared to the one used (Random Key compromise): key exfiltration model, passive node control model, and active node control model. Based on attacker capabilities, we also distinguish the global and local attacker.
   * Proposed different ways of evaluation of SA protocols: a ratio of compromised and non-compromised link keys, a percentage of secure communication among neighbours, or the percentage of secure communication from nodes to the base station.   * Proposed different ways of evaluation of SA protocols: a ratio of compromised and non-compromised link keys, a percentage of secure communication among neighbours, or the percentage of secure communication from nodes to the base station.
-  * Extended the KMSforWSN framework. The whole framework including the documentation could be download here.+  * Extended the KMSforWSN framework. The whole framework including the documentation could be download {{:public:papers:kmsforwsn_src.zip|here}}.
   * Discussed different attacker capabilities and behaviour to parametrise the attacker.   * Discussed different attacker capabilities and behaviour to parametrise the attacker.
   * Performed an initial comparison of a local and global attacker on Random key compromise and Random node compromise pattern.   * Performed an initial comparison of a local and global attacker on Random key compromise and Random node compromise pattern.