| Literature DB >> 35721415 |
Abstract
The industrial wireless sensor network (IWSN) is a surface-type of wireless sensor network (WSN) that suffers from high levels of security breaches and energy consumption. In modern complex industrial plants, it is essential to maintain the security, energy efficiency, and green sustainability of the network. In an IWSN, sensors are connected to the Internet in a non-monitored environment. Hence, non-authorized sensors can retrieve information from the IWSN. Therefore, to ensure that data access between sensors remains sustainable and secure, energy-efficient authentication and authorization are required. In this article, a novel Quantum Readout Gradient Secured Deep Learning (QR-GSDL) model is proposed to ensure that only trustworthy sensors can access IWSN data. The major objective of this QR-GSDL model is to create secure, energy-efficient IWSN to attain green sustainability and reduce the industrial impact on the environment. First, using the quantum readout and hash function, a registration method is designed to efficiently perform the registration process. Next, a gradient secured deep learning method is adopted to implement the authentication and authorization process in order to ensure energy-saving and secure data access. Simulations are conducted to evaluate the QR-GSDL model and compare its performance with that of three well-known models: online threshold anomaly detection, machine learning-based anomaly detection, and dynamic CNN. The simulation outcomes show that the proposed model is secure and energy-efficient for use in the IWSN. Moreover, the experimental results prove that the QR-SGDL model outperforms the existing models in terms of energy consumption, authentication rate, authentication time, and false acceptance rate. ©2022 Alzubi.Entities:
Keywords: Authentication; Authorization; Data privacy; Deep learning; Energy consumption; Industrial wireless sensor network; Machine learning; Quantum readout; Security
Year: 2022 PMID: 35721415 PMCID: PMC9202624 DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.983
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ Comput Sci ISSN: 2376-5992
Figure 1System model for an industrial wireless sensor network.
Figure 2Registration activity diagram.
Figure 3Energy-efficient authentication and authorization activity diagram.
Figure 4Flow diagram of proposed authentication process.
Simulation parameters.
| Parameters | Description |
|---|---|
| Simulation time | 50 s |
| Area size | 1,500 m ×1,500 m |
| Number of sensors | 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 |
| Sensor placement | Random distribution |
| Transmission range | 400 m |
| Simulation runs | 10 |
Energy consumption for different models and sensors.
| Number of sensors | False acceptance rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QR-GSDL | Online threshold | Machine learning-based | Dynamic | |
| 50 | 13 | 18 | 23 | 25 |
| 100 | 21 | 28 | 35 | 39 |
| 150 | 34 | 40 | 46 | 50 |
| 200 | 49 | 59 | 64 | 67 |
| 250 | 63 | 70 | 73 | 76 |
| 300 | 76 | 85 | 89 | 90 |
| 350 | 94 | 101 | 105 | 108 |
| 400 | 107 | 115 | 118 | 120 |
| 450 | 118 | 126 | 129 | 132 |
| 500 | 134 | 142 | 145 | 149 |
Figure 5Comparisons of energy consumption.
False acceptance rate for different models and sensors.
| Number of sensors | False acceptance rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QR-GSDL | Online threshold | Machine learning-based | Dynamic | |
| 50 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 13 |
| 100 | 12 | 15 | 25 | 23 |
| 150 | 15 | 28 | 45 | 48 |
| 200 | 25 | 45 | 60 | 50 |
| 250 | 30 | 50 | 75 | 65 |
| 300 | 30 | 58 | 80 | 68 |
| 350 | 25 | 40 | 85 | 79 |
| 400 | 40 | 65 | 70 | 73 |
| 450 | 45 | 80 | 95 | 87 |
| 500 | 40 | 75 | 100 | 82 |
Figure 6Comparisons of false acceptance rate.
Authentication rate for different models and sensors.
| Number of sensors |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QR-GSDL | Online threshold | Machine learning-based | Dynamic | |
| 50 | 92 | 88 | 82 | 80 |
| 100 | 90 | 86 | 80 | 78 |
| 150 | 85 | 81 | 78 | 74 |
| 200 | 88 | 83 | 75 | 70 |
| 250 | 86 | 82 | 74 | 68 |
| 300 | 88 | 84 | 75 | 70 |
| 350 | 90 | 85 | 78 | 74 |
| 400 | 85 | 81 | 75 | 71 |
| 450 | 87 | 82 | 77 | 73 |
| 500 | 89 | 85 | 79 | 75 |
Figure 7Comparisons of authentication rate.
Authentication time for different models and sensors.
| Number |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QR-GSDL | Online threshold | Machine learning-based | Dynamic | |
| 50 | 28.50 | 35.50 | 43 | 47 |
| 100 | 42.40 | 55.25 | 65.35 | 69.75 |
| 150 | 65.25 | 70.35 | 80.25 | 85.35 |
| 200 | 83.50 | 100.25 | 125.55 | 130 |
| 250 | 105.25 | 125.35 | 135.35 | 138.45 |
| 300 | 125.35 | 140.55 | 145.55 | 150.25 |
| 350 | 145.55 | 175.35 | 180.25 | 186.75 |
| 400 | 170 | 190 | 200.35 | 220.15 |
| 450 | 182.35 | 195.25 | 225.55 | 238.15 |
| 500 | 190 | 200.35 | 245.55 | 250.55 |
Figure 8Comparisons of authentication time.