Security-Reliability Analysis of Multi-hop LEACH Protocol with Fountain Codes and Cooperative Jamming

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate trade-off between security and reliability of Fountain codes (FCs) based low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH) networks, where the encoded packets are sent to the destination by using a cluster-based multi-hop transmission scheme with the assistance of cluster heads (CHs). With presence of an eavesdropper, a cooperative harvest-to-jam technique is employed to reduce the quality of the eavesdropping channels. Particularly, each cluster randomly selects a cluster node that generates artificial noises on the eavesdropper. For performance evaluation, we derive exact closed-form expressions of outage probability (OP) and intercept probability (IP) over Rayleigh fading channels. We then perform Monte Carlo simulations to verify the theoretical results, and compare the performance of the proposed scheme with that of the conventional LEACH scheme without using the jamming technique.

Performance Comparison between Fountain Codes-Based Secure MIMO Protocols with and without Using Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access

“…Then, the D and E nodes attempt to decode the encoded packets. To recover the original data, the destination and eavesdropper have to correctly receive at least encoded packets, where , and is the decoding overhead which depends on concrete code design [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ]. After receiving a sufficient number of the encoded packets for reconstructing the original data, the destination sends an ACK message to inform the source, and then the source stops its transmission.…”

“…Moreover, a new FC construction method, which opportunistically adapts the coding strategy following outage prediction, is proposed in [ 54 ]. In [ 55 ], the authors analyzed the security-reliability trade-off for multi-hop low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH) networks employing FCs and CJ. The authors of [ 56 ] proposed a rateless codes-based communication protocol to provide security for wireless systems.…”

“…Although the source nodes in [ 51 , 56 ] have multi-antenna and employ TAS to transmit the encoded packets, the destinations in [ 51 , 56 ] are only single-antenna nodes. Moreover, References [ 52 , 53 , 55 ] considered single-input-single-output (SISO) relaying protocols where all the terminals are deployed with a single antenna. In contrast to [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], the source in the proposed protocol can employ NOMA to transmit two packets to the destination in each time slot to reduce the number of time slots used.…”

“…Although the source nodes in [ 51 , 56 ] have multi-antenna and employ TAS to transmit the encoded packets, the destinations in [ 51 , 56 ] are only single-antenna nodes. Moreover, References [ 52 , 53 , 55 ] considered single-input-single-output (SISO) relaying protocols where all the terminals are deployed with a single antenna.…”

Intercept Probability Analysis of Cooperative Cognitive Networks Using Fountain Codes and Cooperative Jamming

“…Then, the original data of the source can be recovered if the destination can obtain a sufficient number of Fountain packets. In [33][34][35][36][37], the PLS systems using FCs were proposed and analyzed. As mentioned in [33], the data transmission between the source and the destination is secure when the destination can receive enough number of Fountain packets before the eavesdropper.…”