1 / 25

A Location Privacy Protection Framework with Mobility Using Host Identity Protocol

Keiji Maekawa Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University Yasuo Okabe Academic Center for Computing and Media Studies, Kyoto University. A Location Privacy Protection Framework with Mobility Using Host Identity Protocol. Introduction. Mobility and location privacy

phiala
Download Presentation

A Location Privacy Protection Framework with Mobility Using Host Identity Protocol

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Keiji Maekawa Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University Yasuo Okabe Academic Center for Computing and Media Studies, Kyoto University A Location Privacy Protection Framework with MobilityUsing Host Identity Protocol

  2. Introduction • Mobility and location privacy • Capability of preventing others from learning one’s location • Your location might be leaked out to others… • Correspondents • Eavesdroppers Alice is now connecting from that college’s network . Alice (Mobile Node) Bob (Correspondent Node) This person in my network is probably Alice! Eve

  3. Introduction • Desired conditions • Anonymity against eavesdroppers • They cannot identify the sender and the receiver of packets. • Both end-points can authenticate each other,but they don’t know about exact location. This is surely from Alice, though I don’t know where she is. Alice (Mobile Node) Bob Who the hell is this??? Eve

  4. Introduction • Case study: Mobile IP • Home Address is the identifier. • Care-of Address is the locator. Never knows MN’s location Always knows MN’s location Mobile Node Home Agent Correspondent Node MN’s Home Network Mobile Node Mobile Node

  5. Introduction • Case study: Mobile IP (Route Optimization) • CN, HA, and eavesdroppers on the path can trace the MN’s location simply looking at IP headers. Mobile Node Home Agent Correspondent Node MN’s Home Network Mobile Node Mobile Node

  6. Introduction • It is difficult to design a protocol so that ANY node doesn’t know the MN’s location. • Including trusted nodes such as Home Agent • It’s trade-off between privacy and performance. • In some case, privacy may be more important than performance.

  7. Overview • Related Works • HIP and BLIND • Problem Statement • What is to be solved • Our Proposal • Protocol Design • Conclusion

  8. Host Identity Protocol (HIP) • ID/locator separation • Host Identity is a public key pair • Host Identity Tag (HIT) is the identifier • 128-bit hash of Host identity • Base Exchange • 2 round trip key exchange • Exchange public keys for authentication • Establish SAs (IPsec ESP)

  9. Mobility in HIP (1) • Rendezvous Mechanism • HIT & IP address stored in a Rendezvous Server (RVS) • MN’s IP address is kept up to date • The first (I1) packet is forwarded • Then, end-points start to communicate directly RVS Registration / Location Update To: HIT of B IP of RVS A B

  10. Mobility in HIP (2) • MN sends UPDATE messages to CN and RVS on roaming. • Sessions in upper layers are kept UPDATE A B A UPDATE RVS

  11. BLIND Framework [Ylitalo and Nikander ’06] • Complete identity protection • Only end-points can recognize the IDs in packets. • Eavesdroppers can’t identify them. A B HIT(A) HIT(B) HIT(A) HIT(B) ???

  12. BLIND Framework • src/dst IDs are Blinded HIT with nonce N • BHIT= hash(N || HIT) • Nonce is randomly generated in each session • Extended Base Exchange • A variation of Diffie-Hellman A B HIT(A) HIT(B) HIT(A) HIT(B) BHIT(A) BHIT(B)

  13. Extended Base Exchange BHIT[I] = hash(Nonce || HIT[I]) BHIT[R] = hash(Nonce || HIT[R]) Initiator Responder Determines HIT[R] by trying all own HITs. I1: BHIT[I] → BHIT[R] , Nonce Generates the Key by DH Encrypt HI[I] with the Key R1: BHIT[R] → BHIT[I] , DH[R] Generates the Key by DH Decrypt HI[I] with the Key Encrypt HI[R] with the Key I2: BHIT[I] → BHIT[R] , DH[I] , { HI[I] } R2: BHIT[R] → BHIT[I] , { HI[R] }

  14. BLIND with Forwarding Agent • Location privacy for the BLIND • Forwarding Agent (FA) • SPINAT • FA conceals MN’s location from CN • FA doesn’t know both IDs. Not know A’s ID Not know A’s address A FA B HIP communication

  15. Our Proposal • Goal • To achieve both Mobility and Location Privacy • Approach • The protocol is based on BLIND • Good identity protection • Introduce mobility into BLIND

  16. Our Proposal • To realize mobility with BLIND • Rendezvous mechanism dealing with blinded HIT • Movement transparency support

  17. Blind Rendezvous • Problems are: • RVS cannot resolve blinded HIT. • Raw HITs should be concealed.

  18. Blind Rendezvous • HIP-in-HIP tunneling • Establish SAs with RVS with BLIND, then securely send a packet with raw HITs as a HIP option. • The raw HIT info is deletedat RVS on forwarding. BHIT[B]+HIT[B] RVS F BHIT[B] A B Blinded Channel

  19. Movement Transparency • Mobility support by Forwarding Agents • Use a temporary HIT for FA registration • Intra-FA handover • MN sends update message only to FA. • MN is identified by the temporary HIT • This roaming is traced by FA and nodes in MN-FA. A F B A

  20. Mobility Support by FA (2) • Inter-FA handover • The MN registers to another FA with a new temporary HIT after roaming. • All identifiers are changed at once. • There’s possibly packet loss. • Expects retransmission in upper layers THIT(A) IP(A) SPI F1 RVS A B update update F2 AHIT(A) IP(A) THIT(A)’ THIT(A)’ IP(A)’ SPI’ IP(A)’

  21. Analysis • Single Points of Failure • There may be some extensions for robustness. • Forwarding Agents • Multiplexing • Rendezvous Server • DHT-based

  22. Analysis • Collusion • If CN and FA collude, MN’s ID and location can be combined. • When some incident happens,police can inspect MN’s location.

  23. Implementation and Evaluation • Implementation and evaluation is ongoing.

  24. Conclusion • We proposed the Mobile BLIND Framework • Achievement • Anonymity for eavesdroppers • Conceal location from correspondents • Movement Transparency • Extensions to BLIND • Blind Rendezvous Mechanism • Mobility support by extended Forwarding Agents

  25. Thank you!

More Related