Abstract

We investigate the secure degrees of freedom (s.d.o.f.) of three new channel models: broadcast channel with combating helpers, interference channel with selfish users, and multiple access wiretap channel with deviating users. The goal of introducing these channel models is to investigate various malicious interactions that arise in networks, including active adversaries. That is in contrast with the common assumption in the literature that the users follow a certain protocol altruistically and transmit both message-carrying and cooperative jamming signals in an optimum manner. In the first model, over a classical broadcast channel with confidential messages (BCCM), there are two helpers, each associated with one of the receivers. In the second model, over a classical interference channel with confidential messages (ICCM), there is a helper and users are selfish. By casting each problem as an extensive-form game and applying recursive real interference alignment, we show that, for the first model, the combating intentions of the helpers are neutralized and the full s.d.o.f. is retained; for the second model, selfishness precludes secure communication and no s.d.o.f. is achieved. In the third model, we consider the multiple access wiretap channel (MAC-WTC), where multiple legitimate users wish to have secure communication with a legitimate receiver in the presence of an eavesdropper. We consider the case when a subset of users deviate from the optimum protocol that attains the exact s.d.o.f. of this channel. We consider two kinds of deviation: when some of the users stop transmitting cooperative jamming signals, and when a user starts sending intentional jamming signals. For the first scenario, we investigate possible responses of the remaining users to counteract such deviation. For the second scenario, we use an extensive-form game formulation for the interactions of the deviating and well-behaving users. We prove that a deviating user can drive the s.d.o.f. to zero; however, the remaining users can exploit its intentional jamming signals as cooperative jamming signals against the eavesdropper and achieve an optimum s.d.o.f.

Highlights

  • Physical layer security techniques allow secure transmission of information without the need for encryption keys [1]

  • The physical layer security framework was extended to various multiuser settings such as: the multiple access wiretap channel (MAC-WTC) [4], broadcast channel with confidential messages (BCCM) [5,6,7,8,9], interference channel with confidential messages (ICCM) [5], multireceiver wiretap channels [10,11], and relay-eavesdropper channels [12]

  • We investigate extended versions of BCCM, ICCM, and MAC-WTC channel models

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Physical layer security techniques allow secure transmission of information (in absolute sense) without the need for encryption keys [1]. We investigate BCCM, ICCM, and MAC-WTC channel models in the case of selfish and malicious behavior, where the users/helpers do not perform the system-wide-optimal altruistic behavior but apply a selfish strategy and/or take sides by aiming to help one user and potentially hurt the other. These new models are extensions of the ones studied in [4,5,13] and are a step forward in studying channel models with active adversaries. We first give the formal description of the channel model, we present our proposed achievable schemes

System Model and Assumptions
Achievable Scheme
For General kth Frame
Calculation of the Secure Degrees of Freedom
Reducing the Secure Rate for Zero Leakage Rate
Reducing the Leakage to a Single Dimension
Malicious Deviation
When the Jammer Responds to the Users
When the Users Respond to the Jammer
Conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.