ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Pseudo-Random Encryption for Security Data Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lightweight Security Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks through Information Hiding and Data Flipping.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Algorithm and Distributed Computing for the Internet of Things.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The security of wireless sensor networks (WSN) has become a great challenge due to the transmission of sensor data through an open and wireless network with limited resources. In the paper, we discussed a lightweight security scheme to protect the confidentiality of data transmission between sensors and an ally fusion center (AFC) over insecure links. For the typical security problem of WSN's binary hypothesis testing of a target's state, sensors were divided into flipping and non-flipping groups according to the outputs of a pseudo-random function which was held by sensors and the AFC. Then in order to prevent an enemy fusion center (EFC) from eavesdropping, the binary outputs from the flipping group were intentionally flipped to hinder the EFC's data fusion. Accordingly, the AFC performed inverse flipping to recover the flipped data before data fusion. We extended the scheme to a more common scenario with multiple scales of sensor quantification and candidate states. The underlying idea was that the sensor measurements were randomly mapped to other quantification scales using a mapping matrix, which ensured that as long as the EFC was not aware of the matrix, it could not distract any useful information from the captured data, while the AFC could appropriately perform data fusion based on the inverse mapping of the sensor outputs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.