Boundaries as an Enhancement Technique for Physical Layer Security

Abstract

In this paper, we study the receiver performance with physical layer security in a Poisson field of interferers. We compare the performance in two deployment scenarios: (i) the receiver is located at the corner of a quadrant, (ii) the receiver is located in the infinite plane. When the channel state information (CSI) of the eavesdropper is not available at the transmitter, we calculate the probability of secure connectivity using the Wyner coding scheme, and we show that hiding the receiver at the corner is beneficial at high rates of the transmitted codewords and detrimental at low transmission rates. When the CSI is available, we show that the average secrecy capacity is higher when the receiver is located at the corner, even if the intensity of interferers in this case is four times higher than the intensity of interferers in the bulk. Therefore boundaries can also be used as a secrecy enhancement technique for high data rate applications.

Physical layer security using boundary technique for emerging wireless communication systems

“…It was observed that the first‐hop feedback delay guards against secrecy throughput loss, unlike the second hop. In contrast, while focusing on receiver performance with PLS in a Poisson field of interferers, 13 results show that the receiver hidden at the given angle at high rates poses great benefits to the transmitted codewords. However, at low transmission rates, the reverse is the case.…”

“…Channel capacity and computational complexity have remained very common as the adopted metrics 19 . Relatively diverse techniques implemented so far include signal processing techniques, 16 diversity techniques, 18 cooperative jamming, 20,21,23,29 AN and BF, 17,31,32 and boundary techniques 13 . These enhancement techniques, among others, are summarized in Figure 2.…”

“…We, therefore, deem it fit and timely important to subdue adversaries which find angular location a haven in relaying their effect. The author in Reference13 lightly pointed out that adversaries have found hiding at angular points “secure” while laying ambush on the legitimate parties. Unfortunately, with all the glorious efforts contributed so far in putting these attacks under control, the earlier researchers in this niche are yet to give the angular location of the legitimate receiver to the legitimate transmitter and the illegitimate party its needful attention toward ameliorating communication insecurity at the PHY layer.…”

“…This angular inconsideration, therefore, serves as the main motivation of this paper. The literature has revealed that the adversaries do “better” when the security measures silence the angular operation 13 …”

Spatial networks with wireless applications

“…The connection probability is often associated with wireless network reliability, e.g., to prevent disruption due to short radio range, wireless node sparsity, energy resources, cyber attacks, random failures, background noise, etc. The analytical results described above are needed if one is interested for example in analysing the reliability assurance of wireless networks [Lar14] or when developing wireless security and trust protocols that are tailored to specific network deployments [Coo14a,Kou19], or when considering routing protocols in wireless sensor networks [Fu17]. Also,global and local connectivity metrics can be used to enhance wireless localization when positioning devices like GPS are unavailable [Ngu15].…”