Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Min Song
ChunSheng Xin
EECS Dept.
University of Toledo
Toledo, OH 43606
changlong.chen@rockets.utoledo.edu
EECS Dept.
University of Toledo
Toledo, OH 43606
min.song@utoledo.edu
ECE Dept.
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529
cxin@odu.edu
I. I NTRODUCTION
With wireless devices and applications booming, the
problem of inefficient utilization of the precious radio spectrum has arisen. Recent studies showed that
a considerable amount of licensed spectrum is rarely
occupied [1]. Cognitive radio is a key technology to
improve spectrum utilization [2]. A major challenge in
cognitive radio networks is spectrum sensing, which
detects if a spectrum band is being used by primary
users (PU) or not. The local spectrum sensing by a
single secondary user (SU) is often inaccurate as the
623
Recently, the design of distributed SSDF countermeasure schemes for cognitive radio networks has received
considerable attention. In [5], we proposed a decentralized scheme to detect malicious users which launch
the SSDF attack in cooperative spectrum sensing. The
scheme utilizes spatial correlation of received signal
strengths among SUs in close proximity and is based
on robust outlier-detection technique. A neighborhood
majority voting approach is used for SUs to decide
if a specific user is malicious. A more sophisticated
attack called covert adaptive data injection attack was
considered in [6], where the attackers can adjust attack strategies via learning. The authors proposed a
distributed outlier detection scheme and used a majority
voting approach to detect malicious users.
DBSD excludes all abnormal sensing reports, including the sensing reports from both malicious
users and ill-functioned SUs, which improves the
success probability to detect the PU activity.
We have developed an approach to effectively test
the normality of sensing reports.
(1)
624
1X 1
x xi
q(x) =
K(
)
m
n
h
h
(2)
i=1
(3)
q(x) =
(yi i )2
1X
1
e 22 .
n
h2 2
(4)
i=1
4
5
3n
51
,
(5)
625
(6)
Therefore, the mean of the probability distribution represented by the kernel density estimator in (4), denoted
as , can be calculated as
=
n
1 X
i .
nh2
(7)
i=1
(
T (xi ) =
normal,
h
i
if xi z , + z
2
abnormal, otherwise
(8)
At last, we describe our density based SSDF detection
scheme in Algorithm 1.
Fig. 1.
PU detection success probability versus , with 15%
malicious users
V. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
noted. In the simulation, we assume that the PU is active.
The results of detecting that PU is not active are similar
and omitted due to space limit. The simulation results
are obtained from 10000 rounds of simulations using
different seeds. We use the success probability to detect
the PUs activity as the performance metrics.
Fig. 1 illustrates the success probability of DBSD
to detect the PUs activity versus (the corresponding
confidence interval is 100(1 )%), with total 40, 60,
and 80 number of SUs, respectively. In this experiment,
15% of the SUs are simulated as malicious users to
launch the SSDF attack. We can see that when
increases, i.e., when the confidence interval decreases,
the PU detection success probability increases. This is
because a narrower confidence interval excludes more
sensing reports as abnormal data and hence the abnormal
We evaluate the performance of DBSD through simulations. The cognitive radio network is assumed as a
circular area with a radius = 1000 meters. One PU is
located at the center and N SUs are deployed at random
locations. In the simulations, the pass loss exponent
is assumed 2, and the PU transmission power Pt is
assumed 20. The standard deviation of the power loss
due to shadowing fading, , is assumed 1. The results
for using different values for have similar trends and
are omitted due to space limit. If SU i is a benign
SU, then the sensing report is generated as a Gaussian
random variable with mean i from Eq. (6) and standard
deviation . If SU i is a malicious user, then the sensing
reports is generated using an enlarged mean i , where
> 1 is called abnormality factor. The abnormality
factor is set as 1.1 in the simulation if not otherwise
4
626
Fig. 2.
627
628