| Literature DB >> 33799459 |
Abstract
As cloud technology advances, devices such as IoT (Internet of Things) are being utilized in various areas ranging from transportation, manufacturing, energy, automation, space, defense, and healthcare. As the number of IoT devices increases, the safety of IoT information, which is vulnerable to cyber attacks, is emerging as an important area of interest in distributed cloud environments. However, integrity techniques are not guaranteed to easily identify the integrity threats and attacks on IoT information operating in the distributed cloud associated with IoT systems and CPS (Cyber-Physical System). In this paper, we propose a blockchain-based integrity verification technique in which large amounts of IoT information processed in distributed cloud environments can be guaranteed integrity in security threats related to IoT systems and CPS. The proposed technique aims to ensure the integrity of IoT information by linking information from IoT devices belonging to subgroups in distributed cloud environments to information from specific non-adjacent IoT devices and blockchain. This is because existing techniques rely on third-party organizations that the data owner can trust to verify the integrity of the data. The proposed technique identifies IoT information by connecting the paths of IoT pre- and subsequent blocks into block chains so that synchronization can be achieved between subgroups in distributed cloud environments. Furthermore, the proposed technique uses probabilistic similarity information between IoT information blocks to react flexibly to subgroups that constitute distributed clouds so that IoT information blocks are not exploited maliciously by third parties. As a result of performance evaluation, the proposed technique averaged 12.3% improvement in integrity processing time over existing techniques depending on blockchain size. Furthermore, the proposed technique has to hash the IoT information that constitutes a subgroup with probability-linked information, validating the integrity of large-capacity IoT information, resulting in an average of 8.8% lower overhead than existing techniques. In addition, the proposed technique has an average improvement of 14.3% in blockchain-based integrity verification accuracy over existing techniques, depending on the hash chain length.Entities:
Keywords: IoT; blockchain; distributed cloud; integrity; probability; security
Year: 2021 PMID: 33799459 PMCID: PMC8001599 DOI: 10.3390/s21062049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of centralized ledger management technology with a distributed ledger management structure.
| Division | Centralized Ledger Management | Distributed Ledger Management |
|---|---|---|
| Cloud Storage |
|
|
| Type | Centralized management | Distributed management |
| Notarization and management entity | Notarize all transaction details by the central third party | -All transaction participants view, notarize, and manage transaction details |
| Cost | The high cost of maintenance(management) | -Low system deployment costs |
| Characteristics | -Advantages: (1) quick transaction speed, (2) ease of control | -Advantages: (1) Maintaining transparency in transaction information, (2) No DDos attack, (3) No forgery of transaction details. |
Distributed cloud-based blockchain service features.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Seamless blockchain provisioning | Provides a very simple model for creating blockchain as part of a PaaS environment. |
| Elastic scalability | Simplifies adding and removing nodes to a blockchain network. |
| Global Availability | Cloud environments enable blockchain provisioning anywhere in the world. |
| Simple programming model | Provides a simple programming model for creating blockchain applications by abstracting the underlying blockchain infrastructure. |
Figure 1The overall behavioral structure of the proposed technique.
Figure 2IoT (Internet of Things) information extraction using blockchain.
Figure 3Layer processing with multiple hash chains.
Figure 4Multi-path hash chain for connecting IoT devices.
Figure 5Process for creating subgroup keys of IoT.
Environment setup.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| The transmit/receive the power of the users | 0.1 W/0.05 W |
| The network coverage radius | 400 m |
| The static circuit power | 0.1 W |
| The path loss exponent | 3 |
| The available bandwidth for | 12 MHz/6 MHz |
| The maximum size of the blockchain | 2 Mbytes |
| The power of noise | −174 dBm/Hz |
| The mean value of Rayleigh fading | 1 |
| Input data size | 5 kbits/s |
| Delay threshold | 10 s |
| Computation workload/intensity | 18,000 CPU cycles/bit |
| Computation energy efficiency coefficient of the processor’s chip in the APs/users |
|
| The computational capability of the Aps | 10–100 GHz CPU cycles/s |
| The Computational capability of the users | 1–10 GHz CPU cycles/s |
| The unit price of energy | 0.1 Token/J |
Rate of change according to blockchain length.
| Number of Blockchain | Blockchain Generation Time (ms) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Using Transaction Cumulative | Using 3 Average Transaction Cumulative | Using 5 Average Transaction Cumulative | Using 10 Average Transaction Cumulative | |
| 10 | 5.71 | 4.82 | 3.53 | 2.45 |
| 25 | 6.43 | 5.27 | 4.39 | 3.26 |
| 50 | 7.12 | 6.68 | 5.23 | 4.48 |
| 100 | 8.96 | 8.34 | 7.34 | 6.74 |
| 150 | 13.25 | 12.39 | 10.54 | 9.17 |
| 200 | 20.38 | 16.83 | 14.75 | 12.47 |
| 250 | 26.34 | 21.16 | 18.61 | 16.31 |
| 300 | 33.66 | 27.31 | 24.36 | 20.79 |
Figure 6IoT device for simulation.
Latency time for IoT information processing in a blockchain-based overlay network.
| Number of IoT Info. | Latency Time for IoT Information Processing (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Common Network | Overlay Network | Overlay Network Based on Blockchain | |
| 100 | 73.25 | 58.74 | 46.29 |
| 250 | 66.57 | 52.69 | 43.48 |
| 500 | 61.15 | 48.53 | 40.26 |
| 750 | 58.83 | 46.75 | 39.27 |
| 1000 | 57.18 | 45.03 | 37.74 |
Comparison of integrity verification processing times by blockchain size.
| Number of IoT Info. | Integrity Verification Processing Times by Blockchain Size (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Common Network | Overlay Network | Overlay Network Based on Blockchain | |
| 100 | 13.74 | 11.21 | 9.91 |
| 250 | 15.67 | 13.31 | 10.37 |
| 500 | 18.31 | 15.76 | 13.32 |
| 750 | 21.08 | 18.65 | 17.84 |
| 1000 | 25.17 | 22.39 | 19.08 |
Blockchain-based integrity verification overhead comparison.
| Number of IoT Info. | Latency Time for IoT Information Processing (ms) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Overlay Network | Overlay Network | |||||
| No Using RSA | Only Using RSA | Using TCA and RSA | No Using RSA | Only Using RSA | Using TCA and RSA | |
| 100 | 63.19 | 57.81 | 54.82 | 60.79 | 54.72 | 51.71 |
| 250 | 67.71 | 63.94 | 57.65 | 64.67 | 57.69 | 53.27 |
| 500 | 71.54 | 67.62 | 60.74 | 66.54 | 60.92 | 57.62 |
| 750 | 76.13 | 72.64 | 65.93 | 71.32 | 64.81 | 54.58 |
| 1000 | 81.32 | 77.63 | 69.78 | 76.14 | 67.34 | 60.42 |
TCA: Top Certificate Authority; RCA: Region Certificate Authority.
Comparison of blockchain-based integrity verification accuracy.
| Number of IoT Info. | Verification Accuracy for IoT Information Processing (ms) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Overlay Network | Overlay Network | |||||
| No Using RSA | Only Using RSA | Using TCA and RSA | No Using RSA | Only Using RSA | Using TCA and RSA | |
| 100 | 63.94 | 67.93 | 73.98 | 70.19 | 73.17 | 76.93 |
| 250 | 66.76 | 69.86 | 75.19 | 72.91 | 75.31 | 78.84 |
| 500 | 70.03 | 72.64 | 77.25 | 73.94 | 77.83 | 81.16 |
| 750 | 73.85 | 75.04 | 80.37 | 76.75 | 80.16 | 84.75 |
| 1000 | 77.39 | 81.06 | 84.63 | 83.68 | 85.95 | 89.42 |
TCA: Top Certificate Authority; RCA: Region Certificate Authority.
Rate of change according to blockchain length.
| Evaluation Item | Key Length in Blockchain | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 | |
|
| 53.148 | 53.967 | 54.525 | 54.742 |
|
| 41.521 | 42.161 | 42.597 | 42.767 |
|
| 4.424 | 4.258 | 4.892 | 4.923 |
|
| 4.017 | 3.879 | 4.325 | 4.415 |
: Blockchain average key length; : Average blockchain key conversion probability; : Converted blockchain key length standard variance; : Converted average blockchain key distribution probability.