Maximizing Secrecy Rate of an OFDM-based
Multi-hop Underwater Acoustic Sensor Network
Waqas Aman∗ , M. Mahboob Ur Rahman∗ , Zeeshan Haider∗ , Junaid Qadir∗ , M. Wasim Nawaz⊥ ,
and Guftaar Ahmad Sardar Sidhu†
arXiv:1807.01556v2 [cs.IT] 19 Jul 2020
∗Department of Electrical engineering, Information Technology University, Lahore, Pakistan
⊥Department of Computer engineering, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
†Department of Electrical engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, 45500 Islamabad, Pakistan
∗
{waqas.aman,mahboob.rahman,junaid.qadir}@itu.edu.pk, ⊥ muhammad.wasim@dce.uol.edu.pk, † guftaarahmad@comsats.edu.pk
Abstract—In this paper, we consider an eavesdropping attack
on a multi-hop, UnderWater Acoustic Sensor Network (UWASN)
that consists of M + 1 underwater sensors which report their
sensed data via Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
(OFDM) scheme to a sink node on the water surface. Furthermore, due to the presence of a passive malicious node
in nearby vicinity, the multi-hop UnderWater Acoustic (UWA)
channel between a sensor node and the sink node is prone to
eavesdropping attack on each hop. Therefore, the problem at
hand is to do (helper/relay) node selection (for data forwarding
onto the next hop) as well as power allocation (across the OFDM
sub-carriers) in a way that the secrecy rate is maximized at
each hop. To this end, this problem of Node Selection and
Power Allocation (NSPA) is formulated as a mixed binaryinteger optimization program, which is then optimally solved
via decomposition approach, and by exploiting duality theory
along with the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. We also provide
a computationally-efficient, sub-optimal solution to the NSPA
problem, where we reformulate it as a mixed-integer linear
program and solve it via decomposition and geometric approach.
Moreover, when the UWA channel is multipath (and not just
line-of-sight), we investigate an additional, machine learningbased approach to solve the NSPA problem. Finally, we compute
the computational complexity of all the three proposed schemes
(optimal, sub-optimal, and learning-based), and do extensive
simulations to compare their performance against each other and
against the baseline schemes (which allocate equal power to all
the sub-carriers and do depth-based node selection). In a nutshell,
this work proposes various (optimal and sub-optimal) methods
for providing information-theoretic security at the physical layer
of the protocol stack through resource allocation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
UnderWater Acoustic Sensor Networks (UWASNs) find
their utilization by a multitude of civilian, commercial and
military applications, e.g., marine life exploration, intrusion
detection for border surveillance, performance monitoring of
oil rigs, searching for (oil, gas, minerals) resources underwater,
to name a few [1], [2]. Contrary to the terrestrial communication, UnderWater Acoustic (UWA) communication is quite
challenging because the UWA channel is characterized by
frequency-dependent pathloss, colored Gaussian noise, low
symbol-rate due to long propagation delays (due to low speed
of acoustic waves underwater), and fading effects due to
multipath propagation [1], [3].
In addition to the aforementioned challenges, UWA
channel—being a broadcast channel—is also susceptible to
various kinds of attacks by the active and passive adversaries
nearby [4], [5]. To this end, like their terrestrial counterparts,
UWASNs have traditionally been secured by employing cryptographic measures at the higher layers of the protocol stack.
But unfortunately, such measures are fallible: a concrete example is the work [6] where authors demonstrated that they could
break into the crypto-based security measures employed by
the IEEE 802.11/Wi-Fi systems. Thus, the vulnerability of the
cryptography-based security measures against the brute-force
attacks that could be launched by the adversaries has prompted
the researchers to find alternate as well as complementary
mechanisms of securing the UWASNs. To this end, a set of
techniques under the umbrella term Physical Layer Security
(PLS) has received considerable attention by the researchers
lately [7], [8]. PLS exploits the random nature of physical
propagation medium to provide information security, and thus
operates at the physical layer of the protocol stack.
The existing literature on the PLS techniques could be
broadly classified into two main categories: i) works which
provide information-theoretic bounds on the performance of
communication systems under attack [7], [8], [9], and ii) the
works which present algorithms that exploit the features at
the physical layer (medium-based [10], or, hardware-based
[11], [12], [13]) as device fingerprints to ensure security and
trust among the legitimate nodes. Having said that, this work
belongs to the first category of the works, i.e., the informationtheoretic PLS.
A large body of the works on Information-theoretic PLS
computes the so-called secrecy rate1 for various system models, configurations of interest and discusses ways to maximize
it. For example, [14] and [15] maximize secrecy rate through
joint optimization of carrier and power allocation with relay selection in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
(OFDM) based cooperative communication networks. [16]
maximizes the secrecy rate in a device-to-device communication link through optimal power allocation. Last but not the
1 Secrecy rate (secret bits/sec) is defined as the rate between two legitimate
nodes minus the leakage to eavesdropper [9].
least, [17] utilizes artificial noise along with optimal power
allocation to maximize the secrecy rate in a millimeter-wave
communication link.
Inline with previous works on Information-theoretic PLS,
this work maximizes the secrecy rate of a multi-hop UWASN.
Specifically, this work presents novel (optimal and suboptimal) methods to solve the problem of Node Selection and
Power Allocation (NSPA) across the OFDM sub-carriers such
that the secrecy rate at each hop is maximized. Additionally,
this work also compares the computational complexity of all
the proposed schemes. In simulations, we compare the performance of all the proposed (optimal and sub-optimal) schemes
against a baseline scheme (i.e., depth-based node selection
scheme). We notice that the secrecy rate provided by suboptimal schemes is low, but their computational complexity is
also lesser compared to the optimal schemes. Finally, we note
that an increase in the power budget leads to an increase in
the secrecy rate, and vice versa.
Outline. The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
Section II provides a compact summary of the selected related
works, outlines the research gap, and lists the contributions
of this work. Section III describes the system model as well
as the two UWA channel models, i.e., Line-of-Sight (LoS)
and multipath. Section IV (Section V) presents in detail the
proposed optimal solution (sub-optimal solution) to the NSPA
problem, for the LoS UWA channel. Section VI presents the
proposed optimal, sub-optimal and machine learning-based solutions to the NSPA problem, for the multipath UWA channel.
Section VII provides detailed simulation results. Section VIII
concludes the paper.
II. R ELATED WORK & C ONTRIBUTIONS OF T HIS W ORK
Even though the security challenges faced by the terrestrial
networks are well-studied and corresponding crypto-based
solutions are well-investigated, the literature addressing the
security needs and solutions for UWASNs is relatively scarce
(see the survey articles [5], [18], [19], [20], and the references
therein). The works [5], [18]–[20] unanimously state that numerous kinds of attacks could be launched onto the UWASNs,
e.g., impersonation (or, intrusion) attacks, eavesdropping attacks, Sybil attacks, denial-of-service attacks, wormhole attacks, jamming attacks, man-in-the-middle attacks, and malicious relaying, to name a few. Accordingly, we cluster/group
together the works that address similar kind of attacks below.
A. Attacks on UWASNs & Countermeasures
Crypto-based authentication. The works [21], [22] and [23]
all propose various cryptographic measures to realize secure
communication among the members of a UWASN. Specifically, [21] suggests that a dedicated sink node distributes
and manages pre-defined group keys and session keys to the
UWASN members in order to counter eavesdropping attack
and impersonation attack by the malicious nodes. In [22],
authors consider spoofing attacks and denial-of-service attacks
on a UWASN during the network discovery phase, and propose
modifications (i.e., formation of clusters and distribution of
cluster keys to the members) to a well-known network discovery protocol (i.e., the so-called FLOOD protocol) to keep
the network discovery phase secure. Finally, [23] proposes to
utilize symmetric keys and asymmetric keys for authentication
and message encryption within a UWASN.
Shared secret key generation. Shared secret key generation
is a classical problem within the domain of PLS whereby a
legitimate node pair extracts secret keys from a mutual random
source (typically, some characteristic of the underlying communication channel). For UWASNs, works [24], [25] generate
shared secret keys by exploiting the unique characteristics of
the UWA channel. To be more concrete, [24] considers a reciprocal multipath time-varying acoustic channel and generates
shared secret keys by exploiting the received signal strength as
a mutual random source. On the other hand, [25] generates the
shared secret keys from the frequency response of the acoustic
channel. On a slightly different note, [26] presents SenseVault
whereby the authors suggest that a UWASN may be divided
into many clusters. Then, for each cluster, authors propose to
generate and manage cryptographic/hash-based secret keys for
authentication of messages that could either be received from
the cluster members, or, from the nodes in other clusters.
Secure routing. The recent surge of interest in multi-hop
UWASNs has prompted the researchers to design a plethora
of routing protocols, each with a different design objective, to
address the unique set of challenges that UWASNs pose. (see
the survey article [27], [28], [29] and the references therein
for more details). There are few publications on secure routing
in UWASNs [30] and [31], which design routing protocols to
detect a wormhole link in an UWASN. In [30], Zhang et. al.
detect a wormhole link through a set of neighbor discovery
protocols based on the direction of arrival of the acoustic wave.
A secure, anonymous routing protocol is presented in [31]
which performs two-way signature-based authentication under
the assumption that the attacker node has no information (such
as location, ID, etc.) about the legitimate nodes.
Active attacks. The works [32]–[34] study the jamming
attacks, while the works [35], [36] study impersonation attacks
on UWASNs. Jamming attacks first. [32] suggests the idea of
restricted flooding whereby the data of a sensor node is sent
to the sink node via multiple multihop paths with the hope
that it makes the UWASN jamming-resilient. [33] presents
the findings of the real-time jamming experiments conducted
by the authors in Mansfield Hollow Lake (in Mansfield, CT,
USA)—that is, jamming attacks on a UWASN culminate in
denial-of-service dilemma. Xiao et al. In [34], authors perform
a game-theoretic analysis of the jamming attack in order to
provide closed-form expressions for the Nash equilibrium for
the case when all the UWA channels are known. For the case of
unknown UWA channels, they utilize reinforcement learning
to implement transmit power control. Next, the impersonation
attacks. [35] considers impersonation attack on a UWASN by
multiple malicious nodes and thwarts it by utilizing a two-step
authentication procedure (whereby the sink node implements
a distance-bounding test that is followed by another angleof-arrival based hypothesis test). In [36], the authors com-
pute the so-called effective capacity in order to quantify the
reliability/quality-of-service performance of a UWA channel
that is under threat of impersonation attack by a malicious
node nearby.
Passive attacks. Eavesdropping attacks on UWASNs are
studied in [37] and [38]. Specifically, [37] considers a single
eavesdropper Eve that attempts to overhear the ongoing communication between the nodes of a UWASN, and computes
the success probability of Eve (i.e., the probability that Eve
can decode what she hears). In [38], the authors maximize the
secrecy rate of a UWA channel that is under threat by a single
eavesdropper Eve. Specifically, they suggest that the receiver
node transmits a well-crafted noise-like signal that combines
with transmitter’s signal at Eve (which equivocates Eve)—
thanks to the large propagation delays of the UWA channel.
Research Gap. In contrast to the related work summarized
above, this work considers the problem of data forwarding
from a sensor node to the sink node when a passive malicious
node (Eve) is present in the close vicinity. To the best of
authors’ knowledge, this problem of maximizing the secrecy
rate of an OFDM-based multi-hop UWASN has not been
considered in the literature before.
Fig. 1: The system model.
close vicinity of the UWASN. We further assume that the Eve
is not very closely located to the sink node2 .
We consider two kinds of UWA channel models in this
work.
B. LoS UWA Channel Model
The frequency-dependent path-loss between a transmit node
and a receive node with separation d is given (in dB scale) as
[39]:
P L(d, f )dB = ν10 log d + dα(f )dB ,
B. Contributions of This Work
The main contributions of this work are:
•
•
The NSPA problem is formulated as a mixed binaryinteger optimization program, which is then optimally
solved via decomposition approach, and by exploiting duality theory along with the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)
conditions. We provide a computationally-efficient, suboptimal solution to the NSPA problem, where we reformulate it as a mixed-integer linear program and solve it
via decomposition and geometric approach.
When UWA channel is multipath (and not just LoS),
we investigate an additional Machine-Learning (ML)
based approach to solve the NSPA problem. Finally, we
compute the computational complexity of all the three
proposed schemes (optimal, sub-optimal, and learningbased). Specifically, learning based architecture is proposed which comprises two Neural Networks (NNs).
III. S YSTEM M ODEL & UWA C HANNEL M ODELS
A. System Model
We consider a UWASN comprising M +1 underwater sensor
nodes (so-called Alice nodes) that report their sensed data
(via OFDM scheme with N sub-carriers) to a sink node S
on the water surface (see Fig. 1). Let A = {A0 , A1 , ..., AM }
represent the set of Alice nodes. Without loss of generality,
we assume that the node A0 has to report its sensed data to
S. Let Di represent the depth of the node Ai from the water
surface, while di represents the distance of node Ai from A0 .
We assume that a passive eavesdropper (Eve) is present in the
(1)
where ν is the so-called spreading factor, while α(f ) is the
coefficient of absorption given as:
α(f )dB =
0.11f 2
44f 2
+
+ 2.75 × 10−4 f 2 + 0.003.
1 + f2
4100 + f 2
(2)
N (f ) is the frequency-dependent Power Spectral Density
(PSD) of the ambient noise (comprising of noise contributions
from turbulence, shipping, waves, and thermal noise) [39]:
N (f )dB ≈ N1 − τ 10 log f,
(3)
where N1 and τ are the experimental constants. Note that the
above approximation of the PSD N (f ) of ambient noise holds
for frequency range 1 − 100 kHz only [39].
C. Multipath UWA Channel Model
We consider a UWA channel described by its transfer
function Hf where f is the frequency. Let Hi be the value
of Hf at the center frequency of ith sub-carrier. We assume
that Hi is flat in the band ∆f . We consider a multipath UWA
channel with total L paths. Accordingly, the UWA channel
gain during k th block/time-slot is as follows:
Hi (k) =
L
X
l=1
1
p
P L(dl , f )
hl (k)e−j2πfi τl (k) ,
(4)
where dl is the distance covered and τl (k) = dvl is the time
taken by lth path, where v is the speed of acoustic wave under
2 This assumption is needed for the proposed algorithms (to be described
in the next section) to terminate. This assumption is reasonable because the
sink node is typically a very powerful node equipped with proximity sensors
(and thus, is capable of detecting a malicious node nearby).
the water. The path gains hl (k) are modeled as independent,
first-order auto regressive process [40].
The optimization program (8) is a mixed binary-integer
program; we adopt a decomposition approach to solve it. For
any selected node the problem decomposes to
max SR(i) ({pj }N
j=1 )
IV. O PTIMAL S OLUTION TO THE NSPA PROBLEM IN L O S
UWA CHANNEL
N
X
s.t.
We consider a situation where the direct link between A0
and S does not exist. Therefore, the problem at hand is
to design a scheme to route the data of A0 to S, while
protecting the data (at each hop) as much as possible from
the eavesdropping attack by Eve. To this end, we propose
that A0 should forward its data to that relay node Ai ∈ C
(C = A∪S\A0 ) whose Secrecy Rate (SR) is maximum among
all other candidate helper nodes. The SR of Ai (summed over
all the N OFDM sub-carriers) is defined as follows:
(9)
{pj }N
j=1
p j ≤ PT
j=1
pj ≥ 0 ∀ j
The problem (9) is now a convex optimization program and we
exploit duality theory for getting a solution with zero duality
gap. The associated dual program can be written as
max L({pj }N
j=1 )
min
(10)
{pj }N
j=1
λ
s.t. λ ≥ 0
+ where L(.) is the Lagrangian function and λ is the dual
, variable.
The program (10) allows us to first solve the inner maximizaj=1
(5) tion. We use dual decomposition to get the solution for inner
maximization. The decomposed problem can be written as
(i)
(E)
!
(i) (E)
(E)
where (x)+ = max(x, 0); SNRj (SNRj ) is the Signal-toΩj Ω j + pj Ωj
Noise Ratio (SNR) on j-th sub-carrier at Ai (Eve), and ∆f
max log2
+ λPT − λpi
(11)
(i) (E)
(i)
pj ≥0
Ω j Ω j + pj Ω j
is the bandwidth of a sub-carrier (or, the spacing between the
sub-carriers). The SNR on the j-th sub-carrier at Ai is:
R
R
(i)
where Ωj
=
P L(i) (d, f )df. Bj (f ) N (f )df , and
Bj (f )
R
R
(E)
(i)
(E)
pj
(E)
(i)
. (6) Ωj = Bj (f ) P L (d, f )df. Bj (f ) N (f )df ; Ωj (Ωj ) is
SNRj = R j∆f
R j∆f
( (j−1)∆f P L(i) (f )df )( (j−1)∆f N (f )df )
the net noise power observed by Ai (Eve). The expression in
the argument of log2 (.) above is obtained through logarithmic
property, i.e., log a − log b = log( ab ). The Lagrangian associSimilarly, the SNR on the j-th sub-carrier at Eve is:
ated with Eq. (11) is:
pj
(E)
!
,
(7)
SNRj = R j∆f
(i) (E)
(E)
R j∆f
Ω
Ω
+
p
Ω
(E)
j
j
j
j
( (j−1)∆f P L (f )df )( (j−1)∆f N (f )df )
+ λ(PT − pj ) + µj pj ,
∆ = log2
(i) (E)
(i)
Ω j Ω j + pj Ω j
where pj is the transmit power of A0 over the j-th sub-carrier.
where µj is the Lagrangian multiplier associated with pj . Now,
To select one such node for data forwarding whose secrecy exploiting KKT conditions, we obtain the following solution:
rate is maximum among all other candidate helper nodes, A0
q
+
formulates the following optimization problem:
−bj + b2j − 4aj cj
,
p∗j =
(12)
X
(i)
2a
N
j
ηi SR ({pj }j=1 )
(8)
max
SR(i) =
∆f (
N
X
(i)
({ηi }i∈C ,{pj }N
j=1 )
s.t.
X
i∈C
X
(E)
log2 (1 + SNRj ) − log2 (1 + SNRj ))
ηi
N
X
i∈C
(i)
(E)
2(i)
where aj = Ωj Ωj , bj = Ωj
pj ≤ PT
j=1
ηi = 1
i∈C
where ηi ∈ {0, 1} ∀i ∈ C; ηi = 1 (ηi = 0) implies that the
helper node Ai is selected (not selected). The first constraint
of the optimization problem (8) ensures that for any candidate
helper node Ai , the total power allocated over the N subcarriers should not exceed the total power budget PT of the
sensor node A0 . The second constraint ensures that only one
node is selected for data forwarding at each hop.
(i)
(E)
(i) 2(E)
Ωj Ωj
(E)
Ωj
(i)
2(E)
+ Ω j Ωj
2(i) (E)
Ωj Ωj
and cj = (Ωj Ωj )2 − λ ln(2) + λ ln(2) .
After getting all pj ∗ and putting back to program (10), we are
left with external optimization problem given as:
min L({p∗j }N
j=1 )
λ
(13)
s.t. λ ≥ 0
To solve problem (13) we use the sub-gradient method, which
iteratively solves problem (13) according to the following
control law:
λ(m + 1) = λ(m) + δ(PT − Palloc (m)),
(14)
PN
where δ is the step size, and Palloc (m) = j=1 p∗j (m). The
algorithm converges when Palloc (m) = PT . This completes
solution to the problem (9).
Now, we are left to solve the remaining problem which can
be expressed as:
max
{ηi }i∈C
s.t.
X
X
ηi SR(i) ({p∗j }N
j=1 )
(15)
i∈C
convergence. Therefore, in this section, we provide a oneshot, sub-optimal solution to the NSPA problem. Specifically,
instead of maximizing the original objective function, we
maximize the SNR difference of the i-th legal node and Eve.
Thus, we formulate
(E)a new
objective function for any i-th
(i)
PN
Ωj −Ωj
node as:
pj . Now, the new optimization
(i) (E)
j=1
Ωj Ωj
program can be written as:
(E)
ηi = 1
max
({ηi }i∈C ,{pj }N
j=1 )
i∈C
The program (15) is a binary program. Let i∗ = arg max
(i)
i
({p∗j }N
j=1 )
SR
(15) is:
∀i ∈ C, then the optimal solution to problem
ηi∗ =
s.t.
X
ηi
1,
0
i=i
else
∗
& Di < D0
X
(16)
Algorithm 2: The proposed sub-optimal scheme for NSPA
problem (for LoS UWA channel)
Input
: di , Di ∀i, dE
Output
: p∗ , η ∗
Parameters: PT , M, N
1 Optimization:
∗
2 implement Eq. (21) to return p ;
∗
3 implement Eq. (23) to return η ;
4 end
V. S UB - OPTIMAL S OLUTION TO THE NSPA PROBLEM IN
L O S UWA CHANNEL
The solution presented in the previous section is an iterative
approach which takes a finite number of iterations before
Ωj
j
(i)
− Ωj
(i)
(E)
Ω j Ωj
!
pj
(17)
pj ≤ PT
ηi = 1
i∈C
or in more compact form:
where Di is the depth of Ai ∀i ∈ C and D0 is the depth of
transmitter node.
The proposed method (when run on the first hop) is fully
summarized in Algorithm 1. The Algorithm 1 is repeatedly
invoked at each helper node to select the node for the next
hop until the data reaches the sink node.
Algorithm 1: The proposed optimal scheme for NSPA
problem (for LoS UWA channel)
Input
: di , Di ∀i, dE
Output
: p∗j ∀j, ηi∗ ∀i
Parameters: λ(0), δ, PT , M, N
1 Optimization:
2 while (1) do
3
repeat
4
implement Eq. (12) ∀j ;
5
implement Eq. (14) ;
6
until Palloc = PT ∀i;
7 end
∗
8 return pj , ∀j ;
∗
9 implement Eq. (16) to return ηi ;
ηi
i∈C
X
j=1
i∈C
(
N
X
X
max η T Cp
(18)
(η,p)
s.t. η T Ip ≤ PT
(1)T η = 1
p≥0
where η = [η1 . . . . ηM ]T , C = [c(1)
c(i) = [
(E)
Ω1
(i)
(E)
(i)
−Ω1
(E)
Ω1 Ω1
....
(i)
ΩN −ΩN
(i)
(E)
ΩN ΩN
. pN ] T
T
T
. . . . c(M) ],
]T , I is the N × N identity
matrix and p = [p1 . . .
The program (18) is a mixed binary integer linear programming problem. We solve it through decomposition or separation approach. For a selected node, program (18) becomes
max (c)T p
p
(19)
s.t. (1)T p ≤ PT
p≥0
The problem (19) is a linear program. The feasible set/region
(due to constraints 1 and 2 of (19)) constitutes a part of l1 -unit
ball extended to PT . Thus, pj , ∀j takes a value which is either
zero, or, positive, as shown in Fig. 2.
Let ν = {vj }N
j=1 be the set of vertexes of the feasible set.
Then, a common approach for optimal solution to problem
(19) is:
p∗ = vj∗ = arg max (c)T vj
j
(20)
Now, by closely inspecting the solution in Eq. (20), we can
see that this solution makes the OFDM system (a multi-carrier
system) a single-carrier system by allocating zero power
to all but one sub-carriers. Simply speaking, this solution
is not desired due to two main reasons. First, it changes a
multi-carrier system into a single-carrier system. Second,
it makes the argument of the log function large, and we
know that log compress large values. Therefore, we provide
an alternate optimal solution to problem (19) by carefully
studying the nature of the problem.
p2
where γji (k) =
Feasible
Region
({ηi }i∈C ,{pj }N
j=1 )
PT
γjE (k) =
pj |HjE |
R j∆f
.
N (f )df
(j−1)∆f
The formulated optimization program for the multipath
UWA channel is given as:
X
ηi SRMP (i) ({pj }N
(25)
max
j=1 )
PT
0
pj |Hji |2
R j∆f
,
N (f )df
(j−1)∆f
p1
s.t.
X
i∈C
X
ηi
N
X
i∈C
pj ≤ PT
j=1
ηi = 1
i∈C
Fig. 2: The l1 -unit ball extended to PT for N = 2, shaded area shows the
feasible region.
The objective function in program (19) is an inner product
which we can re-write as hc, pi. We know that co-linear
vectors maximize the inner product but the problem is to
find such a vector p which is co-linear to c and it meets
the constraints 1 and 2 of program (19) as well. Note that
c can be either zero, or, all positive, or, all negative. When
c is negative or zero, then the optimal solution is to allocate
zero power to all the sub-carriers. When c is positive, then the
solution is to choose such a vector which is co-linear to c and
meets the constraint 1. For this, first we normalize the c to
c
. Then, the optimal solution
have a unit l1 -norm, i.e., ĉ = kck
1
to the problem (19) is:
p∗ = PT ⊗ ĉ,
(21)
where ⊗ denotes the Kronecker product. Now, putting p∗ back
to program (18), we are left with the following problem:
max η T Cp∗
η
(22)
¯
¯
Hji −HjE
where aj = H¯ji H¯jE , bj = H¯ji + H¯jE , cj = 1 − ln(2)λ
,
i 2
E 2
|H
|
|H
|
j
j
¯
¯
Hji = R
and HjE = R
. The steps for
N (f )df
N (f )df
Bj (f )
Bj (f )
node selection and solving dual problem are similar to section
IV.
B. Sub-optimal scheme
objective function for sub-optimal scheme is
PThe
N
¯ i − H¯E )p . The formulated optimization program
(
H
j
j
j
j=1
with the mentioned objective function is given as:
max η T CMP (p)
(η,p)
(27)
s.t. η T I(p) ≤ PT
s.t. (1)T η = 1
The optimal solution to (22) is:
(
ηi = 1, when i = index (kCp∗ k∞ )
∗
η =
ηi = 0
else
The program (25) is similar to (8) (i.e in constraints and nature
(mixed binary integer program)) but the difference lies in the
objective function. We adopt the similar mechanism as used
in Section IV, to solve (25). For the sake of brevity, we omit
the steps, while the optimal power that we get is given as:
q
+
−bj + b2j − 4aj cj
,
p∗j =
(26)
2aj
(1)T η = 1
p≥0
(23)
This completes the description of the proposed sub-optimal
scheme. The proposed method (when run on the first hop) is
summarized in Algorithm 2.
VI. O PTIMAL , SUB - OPTIMAL AND ML SOLUTIONS TO THE
NSPA PROBLEM IN MULTIPATH UWA CHANNEL
In this section, we discuss the case where we have a
multipath UWA channel on each hop (between the sensor node
A0 and the sink node). With this, we derive the optimal power
allocation for both (optimal and sub-optimal) schemes.
A. Optimal scheme
The secrecy rate of ith node is as follows:
+
N
X
i
i
E
SRM
=
∆f
(
log
(1
+
γ
(k))
−
log
(1
+
γ
(k)))
,
2
2
P
j
j
j=1
(24)
The program (27) is similar to (18) but the difference lies in
(1)T
(M)T
(i)
CMP . Here, CMP = [cMP . . . . cMP ], cMP = [(H¯1i −
¯
¯
¯
T
E
i
E
H1 ) . . . . (HN − HN )] . To solve (27), we repeat the steps
of section V to get the optimal solution for power allocation:
p∗ = PT ⊗ ĉMP ,
(28)
MP
where ĉMP = kccMP
k1 , while the procedure for node selection
is same as in Section V.
C. ML-based optimization
Though the proposed sub-optimal scheme is a one-shot
method, but simulation results reveal that its performance is far
below than the optimal scheme in multipath UWA channel scenario. Additionally, the proposed sub-optimal scheme is outperformed by the constant-power allocation scheme, for high
power budgets. Therefore, in this sub-section, we also solve
the NSPA problem at hand via machine learning techniques
(specifically, neural networks), which allows us to reduce the
time-complexity of the NSPA problem. By closely inspecting
our formulated optimization program, we notice that it is a
combination of classification problem and regression problem.
That is, the selection of the helper/relay node is a classification
problem (with M classes), while the power loading over subcarriers is a regression problem. So, we use two NNs to
solve the NSPA problem (25). The proposed learning-based
methodology with two NNs is shown in Fig. 3.
1) NN1: The NN1 structure is shown in Fig. 3. We use NN1
for the purpose of classification (node selection). Here, we set
up an NN with 5 layers (an input layer, three hidden layers, and
an output layer). At the input layer, we have total numbers of
neurons equal to the total sub-carriers times the total number
of nodes (i.e., (M + 1)N ). Then we successively reduce the
total number of neurons by factor of 2 at each layer till we
reach the output layer. Thus, we have a total of M neurons at
the output layer. We use Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) as an
activation function at all the hidden layers and softmax at the
output layer for obtaining output probability distribution from
un-normalized output. ReLU can be expressed as:
(
z, when z > 0
ReLu(z) =
(29)
0
else
where z is considered as input to neurons at hidden layers
while the softmax is given as
si = PM
e
yi
ym )
m=1 (e
,
(30)
where yi is the un-normalized output. The Cross Entropy (CE)
loss function at the output layer is given as
CE = −
M
X
tm log(sm ),
(31)
m=1
where tm is the true label of class m where m ∈ {M }.
2) NN2: The architecture of NN2 is shown in Fig. 3. Here,
we choose an NN with three layers (i.e., an input layer, a
hidden layer, and an output layer). Remember that we use
NN2 to solve the regression problem (i.e., power loading over
the OFDM sub-carriers). We have 2N neurons at the input
layer, 16N neurons at the hidden layer, and N neurons at the
output layer. We chose ReLU as an activation function at the
hidden layer to enforce the individual power constraint (i.e.
pj ≥ 0). Now, to ensure the sum power constraint, we play
with the Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss function of NN2
which can be expressed as:
P BT
(Yact (n) − Ypred (n))2
+
(32)
L = n=1
(BT )
P
P BT
j
j Ypred (n) ))
n=1 (max(0, PT −
,
(BT )
where Yact is the true label obtained through Eq. (26), while
Ypred is obtained through NN2. BT is the total number of
samples in a batch over which the loss is computed. This
loss function is designed by keeping two things in mind: 1) it
should decrease the error between actual and predicted value
(first term of loss function) 2) it should also keep predicted
power budget within limits of specified PT . This constraint is
imposed by the second term of the loss function.
D. Computational Complexity
Let T I be the number of total iterations that optimal
scheme takes to converge. To compute pj we need 7
multiplications ∀j then the total computational complexity
of joint optimal scheme is O(7(M )(T I)(N )), while the
computational complexity for the sub-optimal scheme is
O(2(M )(N )).
The computational complexity of an NN is the total number
of parameters that it needs to learn. The number of parameters
in turn depend on the number of neurons used at the input,
hidden and the output layers. Let N1I , N1H1 , N1H2 , N1H3
and N1O be the number of neurons at the input, hidden
and the output layers respectively for NN1, and N2I , N2H ,
N2O be the number of neurons at the input, hidden and the
output layers respectively for NN2. Then, the computational
complexity of the proposed learning-based scheme is:
O N1H1 (N1I + N1H2 ) + N1H3 (N1H2 + N1O ) + N2H (N2I + N2O ) .
Adopting to our case, the computational complexity becomes:
+4M
) + 36N
O((M N )( 21M N
32
M ).
VII. S IMULATION R ESULTS
A. Simulation Setup
The simulations were performed in MATLAB and Python.
We deploy M number of legitimate nodes, and an Eve node
according to a uniform distribution in a (vertical) square
region of area 500 ∗ 500 m2 , under the water. We place
the sink node on the top of water surface. We assume an
OFDM system whose parameters are mentioned in TABLE
I (the choice of values for these parameters was guided by
[39]). We generate channel gains by considering three paths
Parameter name
Total Number of sub-carriers
Total Bandwidth
Sub-carrier Bandwidth
Frequency range
Total multi paths
Spreading factor
Speed of sound
Experimental constants
Notation
N
B
∆f
fN -f1
L
ν
v
N1 and τ
Value
32
6 kHz
B
kHz
N
15 − 9 kHz
3
1.5
1500 m/s
50 dB and 18 dB
TABLE I: Simulation Parameters
(i.e. direct path, surface reflection and bottom reflection)
in Eq. (4). We assume that each sensor node knows the
distance (channel gains) of Eve in LoS (multipath) scenario
from itself.3 The secrecy rate SR plotted in each of the
following figures is the minimum secrecy rate among all
the hops (after reaching data to sink node). In other words,
SR = min{SR1 , ..., SRk , ..., SRK } where SRk is the secrecy
rate obtained by solving the optimization program (8) ((25))
3 This assumption is inline with the previous works which perform secrecy
rate analysis of the underwater/terrestrial communication systems [41], [38].
Output Layer
Input Layer
Hidden Layer
Output Layer
Hidden
Layer 3
Hidden
Layer 2
Hidden
Layer 1
Input Layer
Mux
v
NN1
NN 2
Fig. 3: The proposed Learning-based architecture to solve the NSPA problem.
800
Sub-optimal
Generation of data set for training of NN1: We generate 1e
realizations of uniform distribution for M + 1(including Eve)
nodes in the above-mentioned region. Every time we select the
first node as Tx and then we execute the solution of problem
(25) to compute the optimal forwarding node or labels for
NN1. Finally, we have (M + 1)N × 1e5 dimensional matrix
as input and M × 1e5 as output for training NN1. Entire data
is not sent at once to the neural network, we use mini batch
training approach.
Generation of data set for training of NN2: We save the
channel gains of every node from A0 and the corresponding
labels (i.e. p∗j obtained through Eq. (26)) as well. But we
considered first N × 1e5 channel gains with the channel gains
of Eve sufficient to find relation between channel gains and
p∗j ∀j. So, we have 2N × 1e5 dimensional matrix as input
and N × 1e5 dimensional matrix as output to train NN2.
For both networks NN1 and NN2, learning rate of 0.01 is used
Optimal
DBS
7.0
700
600
6.5
6.0
500
650
5.5
5.0
400
600
300
550
4.5
4.0
20
30
200
500
50
100
5
Constant power
750
700
SR [bps]
for LoS (multipath) at k-th hop (assuming that there are
K hops in total. Similar goes for other schemes as well.
Furthermore, to investigate the importance of node selection
in the results below, the benchmark used to assess the
performance of proposed schemes is the classical DepthBased Selection (DBS) scheme for data forwarding [42].
Briefly speaking, for a sender node with data, the DBS
scheme selects at each hop a relay node for data forwarding
that has maximum depth among all the candidate helper
nodes with depth greater than the depth of the sender node.
60
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PT [dB Pa]
Fig. 4: The impact of transmit power budget of the sender nodes on the secrecy
rate for the scenario of LoS UWA channel.
as an initial value and it is decreased by the factor of 10 when
training loss plateaus. Adam optimizer is used to train both
networks. Total data is divided into training and validation sets
by the fraction of 0.8 and 0.2 respectively. For both networks
we keep batch size BT = 50 and Epochs= 500.
B. Simulation Results
Fig. 4 studies the impact of transmit power budget on
secrecy rate achieved for the proposed optimal, sub-optimal,
constant power and the DBS schemes, under the scenario of
2500
1
Sub-optimal
150
Constant power
Optimal
DBS
Learning
2000
Accuracy
0.25
SR [bps]
Train
Test
0.9
0.2
0.8
0.7
100 0.15
0.6
0.1
0.5
1500
0
50
100
150
200
50
1000
250
300
350
400
450
500
Epochs
0.05
15
0
0
10
20
Test
Train
Loss
10
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
5
60
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
60
50
100
150
200
LoS UWA channel. For Fig. 4, we set M = 10 and plot the
average of 1000 random realization of node deployment. We
make the following observations: i) The secrecy rate is an
increasing function of the total power budget PT . ii) The proposed optimal scheme out-performs all the other schemes with
a slight margin, while the sub-optimal scheme outperforms
the constant power scheme with slight margin below PT = 50
dBPa, and vice versa. iii) Constant/equal power allocation over
the sub-carriers is near-to-optimal solution for the case of
LoS UWA channel. iv) The DBS scheme lies on the x-axis
throughout, which shows the importance of node selection for
enhancing the secrecy rate. We obtained a secrecy rate that is
identically zero for optimal, sub-optimal and constant power
schemes in case of DBS scheme, that is why, one can see
only one curve for the DBS scheme. Furthermore, by closely
inspecting the performance of DBS, we came to know that
there is at least one hop which results in negative or zero
secrecy rate.
Fig. 5 studies the impact of transmit power budget on
secrecy rate achieved for the proposed optimal, sub-optimal,
constant Power, learning-based and the DBS schemes, under
the scenario of multipath UWA channel. Here, one can notice
the similar trends as in Fig. 4. Nevertheless, there are some
important differences that are as follows. The importance of
the power allocation among the OFDM sub-carriers is quite
prominent here as one can see the significant gap between the
curve for the optimal scheme and the rest of the schemes;
moreover, the gap increases as PT increases. This gap motivated us to find another sub-optimal scheme that should
perform very close to optimal scheme, which is precisely the
proposed learning-based scheme.
Fig. 6 shows the strength of the proposed learning-based
scheme. One can clearly observe that the trained models are
not under-fit or over-fit. Specifically, the top sub-plot shows
the accuracy of learning based classifier (i.e. NN1) which
approaches 95% for both test and training data. On the other
hand, the bottom sub-plot shows the MSE loss for test and
300
350
400
450
500
Fig. 6: Performance of NN1 (top sub-plot) and NN2 (bottom sub-plot). One
may observe that 150 Epochs are good enough for training.
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
avg
Fig. 5: The impact of transmit power budget of the sender nodes on the secrecy
rate for the scenario of a multipath UWA channel.
250
Epochs
PT [dB Pa]
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1
2
3
4
5
m(
6
7
8
9
10
105 )
Fig. 7: λavg vs. number of iterations
training data of NN2, which nearly touches zero.
Finally, Fig. 7. which aims to find out the value of T I. Fig.
7 is generated after 100 uniform random realizations of the
dual variable λ between 0 and 1, and then taking its average.
One can see that λavg gets constant at roughly around 0.9
million iterations. TABLE II & III show the computational
complexity of the three proposed schemes: optimal scheme,
sub-optimal scheme, and the learning-based scheme. We keep
M = 100 for TABLE II results and N = 1024 for TABLE
N
32
64
128
256
512
1024
Optimal
1010
2.01 ∗
4.03 ∗ 1010
8.06 ∗ 1010
1.61 ∗ 1011
3.22 ∗ 1011
6.45 ∗ 1011
Sub-optimal
Learning-based
6400
12800
25600
51200
102400
204800
6.8 ∗ 106
2.7 ∗ 107
1.1 ∗ 108
4.3 ∗ 108
1.7 ∗ 109
6.9 ∗ 109
TABLE II: Tabular comparison of computational complexity of Optimal, SubOptimal and Learning-based schemes with increase in number of OFDM subcarriers
M
Optimal
Sub-optimal
Learning-based
20
40
60
80
100
1.29 ∗ 1011
2.58 ∗ 1011
3.87 ∗ 1011
5.16 ∗ 1011
6.45 ∗ 1011
40960
81920
122880,
163840
204800
313051136
1.13 ∗ 109
2.51 ∗ 109
4.4 ∗ 109
6.92 ∗ 109
TABLE III: Tabular comparison of computational complexity of Optimal, SubOptimal and Learning-based schemes with increase in number of nodes
III results. One can see that even for the extreme cases, the
computational complexity of the learning-based scheme is
negligible compared to the optimal scheme. The computational
complexity of the sub-optimal scheme is indeed very low
compared to the other two schemes but it also results in low
secrecy rate as seen in Fig. 5.
VIII. C ONCLUSION
This work presented the first study focused on an
eavesdropping attack on an OFDM-based, multi-hop UWASN
from the perspective of resource allocation (helper/relay
node selection and power allocation among the OFDM
sub-carriers). Specifically, we performed the joint optimal and
sub-optimal node selection for data forwarding and power
allocation for maximizing the secrecy rate at each hop, for
the scenario of an LoS UWA channel. The analysis was
also extended to the scenario of a multipath UWA channel
where we also solved the joint optimization program at
hand via a novel learning-based method. Simulation results
revealed that given a total power budget of 60 dBPa, the
optimal scheme yielded a secrecy capacity of roughly 750
(2400) bps in LoS (multipath) UWA channel. This prompts
us to deduce that the multipath UWA channel–being more
random in natureâĂŤfavors the cause of secrecy capacity
more compared to the LoS UWA channel. The proposed
learning-based scheme, on the other hand, performed near
optimal coupled with the additional benefit of having reduced
computational complexity.
Some comments about the proposed (optimal and suboptimal) schemes are in order. The proposed schemes
are scalable with increase in network dimension as they
simply need to be re-run on each additional hop; therefore,
increasing M does not change the analysis. Furthermore, in
case of multiple malicious nodes, one heuristic/sub-optimal
approach will be to find out the eavesdropping link with
maximum leakage, and then proceed with the proposed
schemes. Another viable approach in such situation will be
to use alternating optimization or max-min optimization for
enhancing the overall secrecy rate. We leave this problem of
tackling eavesdropping attack by multiple malicious nodes
for future work.
Some other potential ideas for future work are as follows. One could study the impact of jamming attack on
a UWASN from one or more malicious nodes and suggest
viable countermeasures. One could implement the concept of
artificial noise generation in a UWASN at the transmitter,
receiver or a friendly relay in order to equivocate a passive
eavesdropper node to enhance the secrecy rate of the UWASN
under consideration.
R EFERENCES
[1] I. F. Akyildiz, D. Pompili, and T. Melodia, “Underwater acoustic sensor
networks: research challenges,” Ad hoc networks, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257–
279, 2005.
[2] E. Felemban, F. K. Shaikh, U. M. Qureshi, A. A. Sheikh, and S. B.
Qaisar, “Underwater sensor network applications: A comprehensive
survey,” Int. J. Distrib. Sen. Netw., vol. 2015, pp. 5:5–5:5, Jan. 2016.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/896832
[3] W. Chen, H. Yu, Q. Guan, F. Ji, and F. Chen, “Reliable and opportunistic
transmissions for underwater acoustic networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 32,
no. 4, pp. 94–99, 2018.
[4] S. Jiang, “On securing underwater acoustic networks: A survey,” IEEE
Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 729–752, 2018.
[5] G. Han, J. Jiang, N. Sun, and L. Shu, “Secure communication for
underwater acoustic sensor networks,” IEEE communications magazine,
vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 54–60, 2015.
[6] W. A. Arbaugh, N. Shankar, Y. C. J. Wan, and K. Zhang, “Your 802.11
wireless network has no clothes,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 9,
no. 6, pp. 44–51, Dec 2002.
[7] M. Bloch and J. Barros, Physical-layer security: from information theory
to security engineering. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[8] X. Zhou, L. Song, and Y. Zhang, Physical layer security in wireless
communications. Crc Press, 2013.
[9] A. D. Wyner, “The wire-tap channel,” The Bell System Technical
Journal, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1355–1387, Oct 1975.
[10] A. Mahmood, W. Aman, M. O. Iqbal, M. M. U. Rahman, and Q. H.
Abbasi, “Channel impulse response-based distributed physical layer
authentication,” in 2017 IEEE 85th Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTC Spring). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5.
[11] W. Aman, A. Ijaz, M. M. U. Rahman, D. N. K. Jayakody, and H. Pervaiz,
“Shared secret key generation via carrier frequency offsets,” in 2019
IEEE 89th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Spring). IEEE,
2019, pp. 1–5.
[12] M. M. U. Rahman, A. Yasmeen, and Q. H. Abbasi, “Exploiting lack of
hardware reciprocity for sender-node authentication at the phy layer,” in
2017 IEEE 85th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring). IEEE,
2017, pp. 1–5.
[13] M. M. U. Rahman, A. Yasmeen, and J. Gross, “Phy layer authentication
via drifting oscillators,” in 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference. IEEE, 2014, pp. 716–721.
[14] W. Aman, G. A. S. Sidhu, T. Jabeen, F. Gao, and S. Jin, “Enhancing
physical layer security in dual-hop multiuser transmission,” in 2016
IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, April
2016, pp. 1–6.
[15] W. Aman, G. A. S. Sidhu, H. M. Furqan, and Z. Ali, “Enhancing physical
layer security in af relay-assisted multicarrier wireless transmission,”
Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 29,
no. 6, p. e3289, 2018, e3289 ett.3289. [Online]. Available: https:
//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ett.3289
[16] M. Izanlou, A. Mohammadi, and M. Dosaranian-Moghadam, “Optimal
power allocation for physical layer security in device-to-device
communications using untrusted relays,” Transactions on Emerging
Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 30, no. 10, p. e3623, 2019,
e3623 ETT-18-0415.R2. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1002/ett.3623
[17] S. Mashdour, M. Moradikia, and P. L. Yeoh, “Secure mm-wave
communications with imperfect hardware and uncertain eavesdropper
location,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies,
vol. n/a, no. n/a, p. e4016. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ett.4016
[18] M. C. Domingo, “Securing underwater wireless communication networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 22–28, 2011.
[19] Y. Cong, G. Yang, Z. Wei, and W. Zhou, “Security in underwater sensor
network,” in 2010 International Conference on Communications and
Mobile Computing, vol. 1. IEEE, 2010, pp. 162–168.
[20] C. Lal, R. Petroccia, K. Pelekanakis, M. Conti, and J. Alves, “Toward
the development of secure underwater acoustic networks,” IEEE Journal
of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1075–1087, 2017.
[21] G. Dini and A. L. Duca, “A cryptographic suite for underwater cooperative applications,” in 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computers and
Communications (ISCC), June 2011, pp. 870–875.
[22] ——, “Seflood: A secure network discovery protocol for underwater
acoustic networks,” in 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), June 2011, pp. 636–638.
[23] G. Ateniese, A. Capossele, P. Gjanci, C. Petrioli, and D. Spaccini, “SecFUN: Security framework for underwater acoustic sensor networks,” in
OCEANS 2015 - Genova, May 2015, pp. 1–9.
[24] Y. Liu, J. Jing, and J. Yang, “Secure underwater acoustic communication
based on a robust key generation scheme,” in 2008 9th International
Conference on Signal Processing, Oct 2008, pp. 1838–1841.
[25] Y. Huang, S. Zhou, Z. Shi, and L. Lai, “Channel frequency responsebased secret key generation in underwater acoustic systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 5875–
5888, Sept 2016.
[26] M. Xu and L. Liu, “Sensevault: A three-tier framework for securing
mobile underwater sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile
Computing, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 2632–2645, 2018.
[27] N. Li, J.-F. Martinez, J. M. Meneses Chaus, and M. Eckert, “A survey on
underwater acoustic sensor network routing protocols,” Sensors, vol. 16,
no. 3, 2016.
[28] T. Khan, I. Ahmad, W. Aman, I. Azam, Z. A. Khan, U. Qasim,
S. Avais, and N. Javaid, “Clustering depth based routing for underwater
wireless sensor networks,” in 2016 IEEE 30th International Conference
on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), March
2016, pp. 506–515.
[29] R. Bu, S. Wang, and H. Wang, “Fuzzy logic vectorâĂŞbased
forwarding routing protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks,”
Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 29,
no. 3, p. e3252, 2018, e3252 ett.3252. [Online]. Available: https:
//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ett.3252
[30] R. Zhang and Y. Zhang, “Wormhole-resilient secure neighbor discovery
in underwater acoustic networks,” in 2010 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, March 2010, pp. 1–9.
[31] X. Du, C. Peng, and K. Li, “A secure routing scheme for underwater
acoustic networks,” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 1550147717713643, 2017.
[32] M. Goetz, S. Azad, P. Casari, I. Nissen, and M. Zorzi, “Jammingresistant multi-path routing for reliable intruder detection in underwater
networks,” in Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Workshop on
Underwater Networks. ACM, 2011, p. 10.
[33] M. Zuba, Z. Shi, Z. Peng, J.-H. Cui, and S. Zhou, “Vulnerabilities
of underwater acoustic networks to denial-of-service jamming attacks,”
Security and Communication Networks, vol. 8, no. 16, pp. 2635–2645,
2015.
[34] L. Xiao, Q. Li, T. Chen, E. Cheng, and H. Dai, “Jamming games in
underwater sensor networks with reinforcement learning,” in 2015 IEEE
Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec 2015, pp. 1–6.
[35] W. Aman, M. M. U. Rahman, J. Qadir, H. Pervaiz, and Q. Ni,
“Impersonation detection in line-of-sight underwater acoustic sensor
networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 44 459–44 472, 2018.
[36] W. Aman, Z. Haider, S. W. H. Shah, M. Rahman, and O. A. Dobre,
“On the effective capacity of an underwater acoustic channel under
impersonation attack,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05093, 2020.
[37] Q. Wang, H.-N. Dai, X. Li, H. Wang, and H. Xiao, “On modeling
eavesdropping attacks in underwater acoustic sensor networks,” Sensors,
vol. 16, no. 5, 2016.
[38] Y. Huang, P. Xiao, S. Zhou, and Z. Shi, “A half-duplex self-protection
jamming approach for improving secrecy of block transmissions in
underwater acoustic channels,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 16, no. 11,
pp. 4100–4109, June 2016.
[39] M. Stojanovic, “On the relationship between capacity and distance in an
underwater acoustic communication channel,” in Proceedings of the 1st
ACM International Workshop on Underwater Networks, ser. WUWNet
’06. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2006, pp. 41–47.
[40] Y. Aval, S. K. Wilson, and M. Stojanovic, “On capacity of a class of
acoustic channels,” in 2014 Underwater Communications and Networking (UComms), 2014, pp. 1–5.
[41] Y. Liu, H. H. Chen, and L. Wang, “Physical layer security for next
generation wireless networks: Theories, technologies, and challenges,”
IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 347–376,
Firstquarter 2017.
[42] H. Yan, Z. J. Shi, and J.-H. Cui, “DBR: depth-based routing for
underwater sensor networks,” in International conference on research
in networking. Springer, 2008, pp. 72–86.