| Literature DB >> 22163983 |
Wan Tang1, Min Chen, Jin Ni, Ximin Yang.
Abstract
The traditional Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system, in which the information maintained in tags is passive and static, has no intelligent decision-making ability to suit application and environment dynamics. The Second-Generation RFID (2G-RFID) system, referred as 2G-RFID-sys, is an evolution of the traditional RFID system to ensure better quality of service in future networks. Due to the openness of the active mobile codes in the 2G-RFID system, the realization of conveying intelligence brings a critical issue: how can we make sure the backend system will interpret and execute mobile codes in the right way without misuse so as to avoid malicious attacks? To address this issue, this paper expands the concept of Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) by introducing context-aware computing, and then designs a secure middleware for backend systems, named Two-Level Security Enhancement Mechanism or 2L-SEM, in order to ensure the usability and validity of the mobile code through contextual authentication and role analysis. According to the given contextual restrictions, 2L-SEM can filtrate the illegal and invalid mobile codes contained in tags. Finally, a reference architecture and its typical application are given to illustrate the implementation of 2L-SEM in a 2G-RFID system, along with the simulation results to evaluate how the proposed mechanism can guarantee secure execution of mobile codes for the system.Entities:
Keywords: context-aware computing; mobile code; radio frequency identification (RFID); role-based access control (RBAC)
Year: 2011 PMID: 22163983 PMCID: PMC3231674 DOI: 10.3390/s110706743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Time variable construction grammar.
Examples for time variable.
| 2009-12-30-*-12:00:00 | 2009-12-30 12:00:00 |
| 2009-12-30-*-12:**:** | 2009-12-30 12:00:00 -12:59:59 |
| 2009-12-**-1,3,5-**:**:** | Any time on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday in Dec. 2009 |
| ****-01-**-*-**:**:** | Any time in January in each year |
Relationship between variables and function InTimeRange.
| 2009-12-30-3-12:35:45 | (2009-12-30-*-12:00:00, 2009-12-30-*-13:00:00) | True |
| 2009-12-30-3-12:35:45 | (2009-12-30-*-12:**:**, 2009-12-30-*-12:30:**) | False |
| 2009-12-30-3-12:35:45 | (2009-12-**-1,5-**:**:**, 2009-**-**-2-**:**:**) | False |
| 2009-12-30-3-12:35:45 | (****-1-**-*-**:**:**, ****-12-**-*-**:**:**) | True |
| 2010-02-01-1-12:35:45 | (****-12-**-*-**:**:**, ****-1-**-*-**:**:**) | False |
Figure 2.Reference architecture for 2L-SEM-based system.
Mapping relationship between subject and time restriction.
| Tag_001 | Private Car | MC_001 | Null | Null | 0 | 6 hours |
| Tag_002 | Private Car | MC_002 | Null | 2012-12-31-*-12:59:59 | 0 | 0 |
| Tag_003 | Ambulance | MC_001 | Null | Null | 0 | 0 |
| Tag_004 | Ambulance | MC_002 | 2010-9-1-*-00:00:00 | 2010-10-31-*-12:59:59 | 0 | 0 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Mobile code;
Max number of activities recorded;
DurationTime.
Figure 3.Processing sequence of 2L-SEM-based system.
Figure 4.Highway simulation scenario.
Figure 5.Distribution of the tags execution time.
Figure 7.Ratio of executed mobile codes.
Figure 6.Average tag processing time.
Statistic results under different service time of rule database (s).
| 0.01 | 0.0003 | 0.1771 | 0.5241 | 0 | 0.004 | 1 | 0 | 0.0004 | 0.1148 |
| 0.02 | 0.0003 | 0.2866 | 0.8154 | 0 | 0.022 | 1 | 0 | 0.0017 | 0.2569 |
| 0.03 | 0.0003 | 0.3830 | 1.1155 | 0 | 0.061 | 1 | 0 | 0.0087 | 0.4539 |
| 0.04 | 0.0003 | 0.4919 | 1.4513 | 0 | 0.144 | 2 | 0 | 0.0320 | 0.7971 |
| 0.05 | 0.0003 | 0.6295 | 2.0787 | 0 | 0.236 | 3 | 0 | 0.0742 | 1.2397 |
| 0.06 | 0.0003 | 0.7705 | 2.4900 | 0 | 0.331 | 3 | 0 | 0.1338 | 2.0976 |
| 0.07 | 0.0003 | 0.9445 | 3.3102 | 0 | 0.466 | 3 | 0 | 0.2221 | 2.0030 |
| 0.08 | 0.0003 | 1.2873 | 4.8508 | 0 | 0.828 | 5 | 0 | 0.5057 | 4.0512 |
| 0.09 | 0.0003 | 1.4438 | 5.6199 | 0 | 0.866 | 5 | 0 | 0.5792 | 4.7174 |
| 0.10 | 0.0003 | 2.0405 | 8.7454 | 0 | 1.426 | 8 | 0 | 1.1033 | 7.4734 |
| 0.12 | 0.6512 | 24.2337 | 39.9250 | 0 | 20.827 | 36 | 0 | 23.0921 | 38.9538 |
| 0.15 | 0.8876 | 156.7548 | 319.2479 | 0 | 107.695 | 229 | 0 | 155.3244 | 318.6637 |
t: average service time of rule database; et: processing time of tags; ql: length of waiting queue; wt: waiting time for processing.