The quest for security in mobile ad hoc networks
MobiHoc '01 Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking & computing
PGP: Pretty Good Privacy
A Distributed Light-Weight Authentication Model for Ad-hoc Networks
ICISC '01 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Seoul on Information Security and Cryptology
Establishing trust in pure ad-hoc networks
ACSC '04 Proceedings of the 27th Australasian conference on Computer science - Volume 26
Security in wireless sensor networks
Communications of the ACM - Wireless sensor networks
Trust evaluation in ad-hoc networks
Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Wireless security
Reputation-based framework for high integrity sensor networks
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Security of ad hoc and sensor networks
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS)
Decentralized trust management
SP'96 Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE conference on Security and privacy
Behavior-Based trust in wireless sensor network
APWeb'06 Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Advanced Web and Network Technologies, and Applications
A survey of security issues in mobile ad hoc and sensor networks
IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
Designing secure sensor networks
IEEE Wireless Communications
IEEE Network: The Magazine of Global Internetworking
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Ad hoc and sensor networks highly depend on the distributed cooperation among network nodes. Trust establishment frameworks provide the means for representing, evaluating, maintaining and distributing trust within the network, and serve as the basis for higher level security services. This paper provides a state-of-the-art review of trust establishment frameworks for ad hoc and sensor networks. Certain types of frameworks are identified, such as behavior-based and certificate-based, according to their scope, purpose and admissible types of evidence. Moreover, hierarchical and distributed frameworks are discussed, based on the type of ad hoc and sensor networks they are designed for. The review is complemented by a comparative study built both on criteria specific to each category and on common criteria, grouped into three distinct classes: supported trust characteristics, complexity and requirements, and deployment complexity and flexibility.