Evaluation Of Key Distribution Schemes For Wireless Networks – Article Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

Wireless Network SecurityKey Distribution SchemesIntroductionWireless network security is critical and they must have sufficient security similar to their wired counterpart. However, wireless networks security is far more complicated than wired since radio frequencies are more vulnerable to eavesdropping and data interception. This is because wireless transmitted data can be breached while in transit without physical contact with network devices. For this reason, network services rely on secure communication and efficient key distribution. Regrettably, key management is a complicated predicament in secure communication and therefore requires a bulletproof key distribution schemes that would ensure safety of data transmission.

This paper will discussed the various scheme being proposed by a number of experts in the field of network security such as Self-Healing, Random Key Pre-Distribution Schemes (RKPS) with I-HARPS, and Matrix Threshold Key Pre-Distribution (MTKP) and Polynomial Threshold Key Pre-Distribution (PTKP) that are based on Blom’s scheme and secret sharing. Wireless Network Security“Almost all wireless networks are at risk of compromise” (Nicopolitidis 2003, p. 22) but regrettably solving this predicament is not that straightforward and even with the fact that they are absolutely vulnerable, they are generally accepted and still achieving success.

The most important motivation is ease of use and performance. Similar to wired networks, wireless networks must have adequate security to keep interlopers at bay and guarantee the veracity and confidentiality of information. As a rule, security is done through customary process like merging passwords, authorizations, authentication, and encryption schemes. However, wireless networks cause security risk that are not shared by their wired counterparts and if radio frequencies are used to transmit data over longer distances, hacker’s intent of eavesdropping or intercepting data is possible.

This is because data can be breached while in transit without the need to be actually near to the communicating devices or network. Therefore, if wireless networks provide an entry into wired ones, hackers can effortlessly access the entire corporate systems (Hayes 2003, p. 295). On the other hand, those wireless networks that are designed to transmit straight through line-of-sight light transmission like infrared are intrinsically secure from eavesdropping (Hayes 2003, p. 296). The remaining type of wireless networks relies on traditional mechanisms, which may be built-in to keep information secure.

People in the field of networking persistently check the security of wireless networks for weakness and enhancement, and persuade vendors to devise a more bulletproof wireless networks. For instance, vulnerabilities in the security protocol for 802.11 wireless LANs or WEP and a certain gateways (WAP) were exposed (Hayes 2003, p. 296). Although wireless networks vary in their security approach, it is incumbent that companies fully understand the security offered, and enhance it with other commercially accessible products, operating policies, and procedures comparable to their wired networks. It is expected that companies should at all times determine the value of information travelling over the wireless networks, and take corresponding measure to warrant its security. Key Distribution SchemesTo deliver data without being compromised, network services rely on secure communication and efficient key distribution.

However, key management is a difficult problem in secure communication, primarily because of social rather than technical factors. Cryptographically secure ways of creating and distributing keys have been developed and are strong. However, the weakest link in any secure system is that humans are accountable for keeping secret and private keys classified.

For this reason, human factor will always be an issue that needs adequate checks to ensure that keys have not been compromised. For a small number of communicating unit, it is realistic to create a key and manually deliver it but in most wide-scale corporation, this procedure is uncomfortable and obsolete. Since secret key encryption is time and again used in application requiring confidentiality, it is practical to suppose the existence of a secret key per session, a session being “any single communication data transfer between two entities” (Kaeo 2003, p. 165).

For a large network with hundreds of communication hosts, each holding numerous sessions per hour, assigning and transferring secret key is a great problem. Key distribution is regularly achieved through centralized ‘key distribution centres’ or KDCs or through public key algorithm that create secret keys in a secure, distributed fashion (Kaeo 2003, p. 165).

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us