Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Wireless sensor networks are already employed in numerous applications including military, industry, and health. Among the several inherent limitations in wireless sensor network, security is a critical concern. The declared security functions of wireless devices should be well verified. In this study, a security testing method based on security levels is proposed for wireless sensor networks. In addition, an experimental security testing platform for WIA-PA-based wireless sensor networks is implemented. The test results show that the platform is a feasible platform for assessing device security levels in wireless sensor networks.

Keywords

Distributed networks sensor networks security testing verification

Introduction

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have been widely used in many fields such as military, industry, agriculture, business, and environmental science. It has become a new driving force for the development of the information industry.¹ However, WSNs have many defects such as the openness of WSN channels, limitations of terminal resources, and the dynamic nature of network topology. In addition, traditional network security technology cannot be used in WSNs because of its inherent limitations. Several high security requirements exist for WSN applications, which face tremendous risks.² Therefore, security concerns represent major obstacles in the further development of WSNs.

The security of WSN protocol implementation is critical and difficult to verify. Security protocol testing is usually based on the experience of the tester and specific protocol specifications. A formal and automatic verification method and a security test platform are always required.

Implementations of security protocol are usually separated into different network devices and are in charge of security functions to guarantee communication security. The security level of a device plays a major role. A non-security device that suddenly joins a WSN will compromise the availability and reliability of a whole network, which can then be exploited by an attacker. A crucial factor in these implementations is whether the declared security functions of devices are well verified. Therefore, finding an appropriate method for assessing security levels of the WSN devices is urgent.

Several previous studies have been conducted on this issue. International Standard ISO/IEC 9646³ stipulates common testing methodologies based on open system interconnection (OSI) and provides a framework for testing whether the consistency of a protocol conforms to its specifications. Allen et al.⁴ presented a security test method that combines an available formal model and the method of fault injection used to detect security vulnerabilities in server applications. Qi et al.⁵ proposed an object-oriented attack model to represent minutely a protocol attack in WSN. A security testing approach was presented for WSN protocols based on object-oriented attack models. Ji et al.⁶ proposed an automated black-box testing approach for WSN security protocols. The study integrated a randomness test with conformance testing. Botella et al.⁷ introduced an original security testing method guided by risk assessment, based on risk coverage, to perform and automate vulnerability testing for web applications. Harris et al.⁸ developed a tool to perform security testing of Voice over IP (VoIP) applications to identify security vulnerabilities. Slijepcevic et al.⁹ proposed a communication security scheme in which a corresponding security mechanism is defined for each type of data, by employing this multitier security architecture in which each mechanism has a different resource requirement. Jinwala et al.¹⁰ proposed a novel design of link layer security architecture for WSNs. Cionca et al.¹¹ present a method to configure security using only paremeters taken from the application space, and a tool that implements this method, hence automating the process of security configuration for non-expert users. The principal characteristic of the design we propose is the flexible and configurable architecture.

Some established security evaluation frameworks are not available for WSN, because they do not take the specific characteristics of a WSN into account, such as the constrained resources, and the specific types of WSN devices (leaf, router, and coordinator). These studies focused on security protocol testing and involved specific applications. However, there is a dearth of common approaches for operating security protocol tests and assessing device security levels. Verifying security over protocol implementations and assessing security levels of the WSN devices remain open problems.

In this study, we address this important security problem of WSNs. In addition, we propose a security testing method that verifies the security of protocol implementations automatically and assesses the security levels of WSN devices. Finally, a security testing platform based on WIA-PA¹² is implemented, which is an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) international standard for wireless industrial automation networks. The remainder of this article is structured as follows. In section “Preparatory information,” related notation and knowledge are described. Section “Testing framework and method” explains the test framework and method. Section “Platform implementation and result analysis” analyzes security performance of the proposed method and reveals the results of our security test for WSN devices. A conclusion is given in section “Conclusion and future work.”

Preparatory information

Symbolic notation

In order to describe the testing framework and method adequately, Table 1 lists the symbols and notations used in this study.

Table 1.

Symbols.

Symbol	Description
G	Security functions’ set
G_j	jth security function
GSF_n	nth security sub-function
T	G_j intensity set under a specific level
T_j	Intensity of G_j under a specific level
MTC	Set of the test cases that must be tested
OTC	Set of the optional test cases
TC	Set of MTC and OTC
CMD_n	Test command of nth test case
ERP_n	Expected test response results of nth test case
RRP_n	Actual test response results of nth test case
B	Array set of TC, CMD, and ERP_n
N	Array set of TC and RRP_n
ET	Set of ET_i
ET_i	Sum of intensity value of test cases’ group for G_i
∂	Parameter to describe the conformity between the declared security level and the tested security level

Security levels and functions

Protocol testing represents a set of automata-based modeling and testing methods to verify the correctness of the protocol implementations, which have been proposed and widely accepted in industries since Gonenc¹³ identified the distinguishing sequences in 1970. Through critical preset inputs, the unobservable system status and some internal actions can be deduced by checking the corresponding outputs. The protocol implementations can then be verified by means of testing.¹⁴

Several specifications exist for describing WSN security levels. In this study, we consider “Chinese national standard: Information technology—sensor network—Part 601: information security general technical specifications (GB/T 30269.601),”¹⁵ as the test reference which defines security level and some security functions. The design and implementation of the security test, however, have not been provided. The security levels of a device depend on its implemented security functions. Here, five security levels are considered. The security level increases as additional security functions are implemented by a device.

Correlations of security functions and security levels are shown in Table 2. Following the actual application requirements and GB/T 30269.601, most security functions of WSN are inspected. For example, join authentication, data integrity, data privacy, data freshness, key management, data authentication, sensitive marker, discretionary access control, mandatory access control, user authentication, and node identification are all put into consideration.

Table 2.

List of security levels.

Symbol	Name	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
G ₀	Join authentication	+	+	+	+	+
G ₁	Data integrity	+	++	++	+++	+++
G ₂	Data privacy	+	++	++	+++	+++
G ₃	Data freshness	×	+	+	++	++
G ₄	Key management	×	+	++	+++	++++
G ₅	Data authentication	×	×	+	++	++
G ₆	Sensitive marker	×	×	+	+	+
G ₇	Discretionary access control	+	++	++	++	+++
G ₈	Mandatory access control	×	×	+	+	+
G ₉	User authentication	+	++	+++	++++	+++++
G ₁₀	Node identification	+	+	++	+++	++++

Here, “+” represents the intensity of G_j. An increase in + indicates an increase in the intensity of the function. For example, the intensity of data integrity is equal to 1 at Level 1, whereas it is equal to 3 at Level 5. “×” means that the security function G_j is not required. Level 5 is the highest security level, which means that all functions with high intensity are implemented. Level 1 is the lowest security level, which means that parts of security functions are implemented. T is defined to describe G_j intensity set under a specific level (see section “Testing framework and method”).

The intensity of G_j depends on the number of sub-functions implemented. Each G_j includes several sub-functions. As additional sub-functions are implemented, the intensity of G_j increases. The related sub-functions are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Sub-functions’ symbol.

Symbol	Sub-functions	Symbol	Sub-functions
GSF ₁	Network authentication	GSF ₁₆	All data transmission encryption
GSF ₂	Key distribution	GSF ₁₇	All data storage encryption
GSF ₃	Key establishment	GSF ₁₈	Identifying network devices
GSF ₄	Key updating	GSF ₁₉	Visitor identification
GSF ₅	Key revocation	GSF ₂₀	Access control list
GSF ₆	Serial number mechanism	GSF ₂₁	Data identification
GSF ₇	Timestamp mechanism	GSF ₂₂	Sensitive marker in user level
GSF ₈	XOR-based identification	GSF ₂₃	Sensitive marker in node resource level
GSF ₉	Hash-based identification	GSF ₂₄	Data source access control
GSF ₁₀	Block cipher–based identification	GSF ₂₅	Node source access control
GSF ₁₁	Asymmetric operation	GSF ₂₆	Users’ identification
GSF ₁₂	32-Bit MIC check	GSF ₂₇	Route identification
GSF ₁₃	64-Bit MIC check	GSF ₂₈	Network-layer routing exchange message security
GSF ₁₄	128-Bit MIC check	GSF ₂₉	Secure coordinator data fusion
GSF ₁₅	Key data transmission encryption	GSF ₃₀	Secure routing data fusion

A security test case is a specification for the behaviors of a tester, which exists in an experiment to be carried out with an implementation under test. Such test cases can be specified based on the related sub-functions listed in Table 3. The test case can then be described as a specific action set with a final test verdict (pass or fail). We will discuss the manner in which to choose test cases in the following sections.

Testing framework and method

Testing framework

A security testing framework for WSNs is proposed, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Security testing framework.

This security testing framework mainly includes a test terminal, security test server, standard test devices (STDs), and device under test (DUT):

Test terminal is the human–machine interface, which provides a test entrance. In addition, a tester can use a browser to access the web-based database server to input the device type, declare the device security level, and check test results. The test terminal and security test server can communicate through a wired (Internet) or WiFi network.

Security test server is the core of the security testing framework, which provides web-based database services. It is used to store test cases. The server can automatically generate a test case set based on the declared security protocol, declared device security level, and declared device type. In addition, it also provides functions of querying and adding test cases for the tester, thus increasing the scalability of the platform.

STDs are placed in the test area and may play the role of coordinator, router, or sensor node (shown in Figure 1) in a WSN. STDs are configured for a specific role based on DUT type. If the DUT is a sensor node, the STDs are configured as both a router and coordinator. If the DUT is a router, the STDs are configured as both a sensor node and coordinator. STDs forward test commands and upload test responses to the security test server. The designed test platform performs an interception and engages in normal protocol operation with the DUT, to check whether the implemented protocol follows the specification.

DUT is placed in the test area (the blue device shown in Figure 1). The security functions of DUT are tested and assessed. STDs and the DUT communicate wirelessly.

Description of security testing method

A security testing method is proposed and described in this section. The security testing method is shown in Figure 2

Figure 2.

Security testing method.

The method consists of three parts: input, output, and a processing mechanism. The specific WSN protocols for DUT are claimed and are input to the test system before the test execution. The test framework and platform are flexible and are designed for various protocols, such as 6LoWPAN,¹⁶ WIA-PA, ZigBee,¹⁷ and WirelessHART.¹⁸ The processing mechanism is described in the following steps:

Step 1. After the tester inputs the declared security level and type of DUT, the security level processing module treats “device level” as the input. Then the module outputs G and T according to Table 2. The G and T sets are described by the following formulas

G = {G_{0}, G_{1}, \dots, G_{j}, \dots, G_{10}}

(1)

T = {T_{0}, T_{1}, \dots, T_{j}, \dots, T_{10}}

(2)

The value of T_j depends on the number of + in Table 2. For example, one + means that the value of T_j is 1, two + denotes a value 2, and × means the value is 0. If the device is at Level 5, then T = {1, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 5, 4}.

Step 2. The case sets are selected in this step. The case set selection strategy library determines MTC for the whole test platform. Based on the relationships between the security functions and their sub-functions, the security function test cases are obtained as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Security function test suite.

The module uses device level and “device type” as the inputs and outputs MTC that can reflect the security performance of the device from the perspective of the level

MTC = {GS F_{i}, GS F_{j}, \dots, GS F_{n}}

(3)

The test group selection is also related to device type. If the DUT is the coordinator, test groups including G₇, G₈, and G₉ are considered. Other security functions are considered as wired components, which can be tested using traditional network test methods. If the DUT is a router, test groups including G₀–G₅ are considered because other security functions usually are not implemented in the router. The selection strategy of MTC is shown in Figure 4. The rules are generated using Table 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Case set selection strategy library.

Step 3. The optional test case OTC is also provided to the tester. The optional test case set module in the platform provides extended interfaces in which the tester can add a new test case by means of the test terminal.

As shown in Figure 3, G₁₁ and G₁₂ are part of the optional test group that includes GSF₂₇, GSF₂₈, GSF₂₉, and GSF₃₀ as OTC. The OTC set is described by the following formula

OTC = {GS F_{27}, GS F_{28}, GS F_{29}, GS F_{30}}

(4)

Step 4. MTC and OTC as test cases are sent to the security function test suite module in the platform. The module generates a new set TC according to the inputs (MTC and OTC). The TC set is described by the following formula

TC = {MTC + OTC}

(5)

Each test case maps to the unique test command (CMD) and the expected test response (ERP). The module can generate an array set B, which will be sent to test execution system. The B set is described by the following formula

B = {{GS F_{i}, CM D_{i}, ER P_{i}}, {GS F_{j}, CM D_{j}, ER P_{j}}, \dots, {GS F_{n}, CM D_{n}, ER P_{n}}}

(6)

Step 5. The test execution module is the core of security test. First, after the test execution module receives B, the module will begin to analyze the arrays of B to obtain the GSF and CMD. Then, the DUT is tested according to the existing CMD. Afterward, the actual test response results will be obtained, and a test response message will be structured and sent to the security function test results’ analysis module. Some test commands and responses of sub-functions for WIA-PA devices are described in Table 4.

Step 6. The security function test results are analyzed in this step. The security function test results’ analysis module generates the actual test set N. This module compares RRP_n with the ERP_n under each test case:

If RRP_n is equal to ERP_n, the test case indicates success.

If RRP_n is not expected, the test case indicates failure.

The module then stores the consistency analysis report in the database for the tester to view

N = {{G S F_{i}, R R P_{i}}, {G S F_{j}, R R P_{j}}, \dots, {G S F_{n}, R R P_{n}}}

(7)

Step 7. The security level of the device is assessed in this step. The assessment module determines whether the DUT has coherent security functions and the security level that the tester declares.

ET_j as the sum of intensity value of the test case group G_j is calculated. If the test result of the test case is successful, the intensity value of the related test case is 1; otherwise, the intensity value is 0. ET_j is calculated by summing the intensity value of every test case in each test group for security function G_j. The ET set is described by the following formula

ET = {E T_{i}, E T_{j}, \dots, E T_{n}}

(8)

Here, a parameter ∂ is defined to describe the conformity between the declared and tested security levels.

Table 4.

The test command and response of sub-functions.

Sub-functions	Test command	Test response
Network authentication	23 88 A6 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 90	23 88 A7 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 B0+ result
Key distribution	23 88 25 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 72	23 88 02 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 B2+ initial key material
Key establishment	23 88 C9 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 93	23 88 36 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 B3+ key pair
Key updating	23 88 C1 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 94	23 88 45 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 B4+ original key pair
Key updating	23 88 B4 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 95	23 88 E5 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 B4+ updated key pair
32-Bit MIC check	23 88 B9 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 9D	23 88 3A 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 BD+ 4 bytes checkcode
64-Bit MIC check	23 88 A2 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 9E	23 88 63 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 BD+ 4 bytes checkcode
Timestamp mechanism	23 88 A9 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 7D	23 88 56 10 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 8D+ current time
All data storage encryption	23 88 56 10 20 00 01 10 20 01 00 98+ clear text	23 88 2910 20 01 00 10 20 00 01 B8+ ciphertext

The parameter ∂ is calculated by the following formula

\partial = \frac{\sum D_{j} \times (T_{j} - E T_{j})}{n}

(9)

where D_j is the weighting factor of G_j. The value of D_j is related to the influence degree of security functions G_j in the whole network. Here, n is the number of G_j, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

List of weighting factors.

G_j	0	1	2	3	4	5
D_j	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.1
G_j	6	7	8	9	10
D_j	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.1

The ∂ is used to describe the consistency between the specified security level and the actual test result. The variable ∂ depends on the pass rate of the test case of sub-functions. It implies that as more security sub-functions pass through testing under the same security level, a lower ∂ will be obtained. Thus, ∂ reflects the degree of deviation between the specified security level and the actual test result. The device level can be assessed by ∂. A higher value of ∂ means the device is not in accordance with the declared security level. In contrast, the lower the value of ∂, the more that DUT is in accordance with the security level. In summary, after the aforementioned steps, the tester knows whether DUT conforms to the declared security level.

Platform implementation and result analysis

Platform implementation

In this section, we describe the integrated hardware and software experimental platform that we developed in this study. An actual image of our test platform is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Experimental scenario of the test platform.

Security testing server

The security testing server was implemented using a high-performance personal computer, on which a web-based test database with all test cases was built. It provided test cases’ commands to the DUTs. The security testing server is developed based on the asp.net, which is an open-source server-side web application framework designed for the web development of dynamic web pages. It was developed by Microsoft to allow programmers to build dynamic web sites, web applications, and web services. At the same time, the SQL server is also used as a comprehensive database platform to store test commands and results.

Remote test terminal

The remote test terminal was implemented using a browser tool. The tester may use a browser tool to access the server at any PC on which Internet is available.

SDT

The SDT devices in this experimental platform include a coordinator, router, and sensor node (see Figure 5). The communication protocol in this WSN is based on WIA-PA,¹² which is an industrial WSN protocol.

DUT

The DUT device is a router in this experimental scenario. It is used for security tests in which the security is declared as Level 4.

Based on the device type and security level, we use Table 2, equations (1) and (2) to obtain the following

G = {G_{1}, G_{2}, G_{3}, G_{4}, G_{5}, G_{6}, G_{7}, G_{8}, G_{9}, G_{10}}

(10)

T = {T_{0}, T_{1}, T_{2}, T_{3}, T_{4}, T_{5}, T_{6}, T_{7}, T_{8}, T_{9}, T_{10}} = {1, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 3}

(11)

Based on Figure 3 and equation (3), MTC is obtained by means of the following formula

MTC = {GS F_{1}, GS F_{2}, GS F_{3}, GS F_{4}, GS F_{7}, GS F_{12}, GS F_{13}, GS F_{14}, GS F_{15}, GS F_{16}, GS F_{17}}

(12)

$GS F_{28}$ and $GS F_{30}$ are selected as optional test cases. Here, OTC is obtained by the following

OTC = {GS F_{28}, GS F_{30}}

(13)

Based on equations (5) and (6), B is obtained as the following formula

\begin{matrix} B = {{GS F_{1}, CM D_{1}, ER P_{1}}, {GS F_{2}, CM D_{2}, ER P_{2}} \\ {GS F_{3}, CM D_{3}, ER P_{3}}, {GS F_{4}, CM D_{4}, ER P_{4}}, \\ {GS F_{7}, CM D_{7}, ER P_{7}}, \dots, {GS F_{30}, CM D_{30}, ER P_{30}}} \end{matrix}

(14)

After Step 6 is completed, N is obtained as follows

\begin{matrix} N = {{GS F_{1}, RR P_{1}}, {GS F_{2}, RR P_{2}}, \\ {GS F_{3}, RR P_{3}}, {GS F_{4}, RR P_{4}}, \\ {GS F_{7}, RR P_{7}}, \dots, {GS F_{30}, RR P_{30}}} \end{matrix}

(15)

The test groups including G₀–G₅ are considered. Then, ET_j can be calculated. ET and T as the following two formulas, respectively

ET = {1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1}

(16)

T = {T_{0}, T_{1}, T_{2}, T_{3}, T_{4}, T_{5}} = {1, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2}

(17)

Finally, ∂ = 0.1 can be obtained using equation (9). In this scenario, the DUT-declared security Level 4 did not pass all test cases, which means DUT is not a Level 4 device. This is reported to the tester using the security test report.

Result analysis

After the security test is finished, the tester knows whether DUT conforms to the security level and standard. The developer can then improve the DUT based on the security level report, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6.

Conformance report.

Figure 7.

Security level report.

To verify the correctness of the testing results, the message information derived from the testing is analyzed in this study. Here, we chose a key management test case (G4) to analysis the data communication process, which is the basis of the WSN security mechanism.

The security testing server sends the test command to the STD (coordinator), and the STD then forward the test command to the DUT (router). The DUT then sends a response message back to the STD. Afterward, the security testing server will receive the key distribution response message that is compared with the test command message; if so, the test case is successful. Figure 8 shows the message information in the process of key distribution.

Figure 8.

The key distribution message information.

However, the key update is different from the key distribution. First, the test system will need to obtain the current key pair messages by sending a key request command, as shown in Figure 9. Second, the test system will send a key update command to DUT, and then a key update response message is fed back to the test system, as shown in Figure 10. Finally, the current key pair message is compared with the key update response message, and if the results are identical, the test case is deemed to be successful.

Figure 9.

The message information of current key.

Figure 10.

The key update response message information.

Conclusion and future work

This article analyzes security problems of the WSN field, studies some existing security protocol test methods, and proposes a security method and test platform. The proposed method is shown to help users generate probable test case commands and expected responses. The platform automatically generated the test cases to verify implementations of security functions. In the future, other international standards will be considered and additional test case sets will be added in order to improve the test platform. In addition, more complex experiments will be defined.

Footnotes

Academic Editor: Michele Amoretti

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP; B0101-15-1866, Development of autonomous management core technology and autonomous control network).

References

Feng

GP.

Analysis and study on security technologies for wireless sensor networks. Netw Secur Technol Appl 2014; 10: 105–107.

QY.

Security research on wireless sensor networks in IOT. Netw Secur Technol Appl 2013; 10: 66–67.

ISO/IEC 9646-1:1994. Information technology—open systems interconnection: conformance testing methodology and framework.

Allen

Dou

Marin

. A model-based approach to the security testing of network protocol implementations. In: Proceedings of the 2006 31st IEEE conference on local computer networks, Tampa, FL, 14–16 November 2006, pp.1008–1015. New York: IEEE.

Pei

Zeng

. A security testing approach for WSN protocols based on object-oriented attack model. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on computational intelligence and security, Sanya, China, 3–4 December 2011, pp.517–520. New York: IEEE.

Pei

Zeng

. An automated black-box testing approach for WSN security protocols. In: Proceedings of the 2011 seventh international conference on computational intelligence and security (CIS), Sanya, China, 3–4 December 2011, pp.693–697. New York: IEEE.

Botella

Legeard

Peureux

Risk-based vulnerability testing using security test patterns. In: Margaria

Steffen

(eds) Leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation. Specialized techniques and applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014, pp.337–352.

Harris

Alrahem

Chen

. Security testing of session initiation protocol implementations. Int J Inf Secur 2009; 1(2): 91–103.

Slijepcevic

Potkonjak

Tsiatsis

. On communication security in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks. In: Proceeding of the eleventh IEEE international workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (2002 WET ICE), Pittsburgh, PA, 12 June 2002, pp.139–144. New York: IEEE.

10.

Jinwala

Patel

Dasgupta

. Configurable link layer security architecture for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering, London, 2–4 June 2008, vol. 1, pp.776–780. Newswood Limited.

11.

Cionca

Newe

Dădârlat

A tool for the security configuration of sensor networks. J Phys Conf Ser 2009; 178: 012043.

12.

Liang

Zhang

Xiao

. Survey and experiments of WIA-PA specification of industrial wireless network. Wirel Commun Mob Com 2011; 11(8): 1197–1212.

13.

Gonenc

A method for the design of fault detection experiments. IEEE T Comput 1970; 19(6): 551–558.

14.

Lee

Yannakakis

Principles and methods of testing finite state machines—a survey. P IEEE 1996; 84(8): 1090–1123.

15.

Chinese National Sensor Network Standard Working Group. Information technology—sensor network—part 601: information security general technical specifications, 2016. Standards Press of China.

16.

Dawson-Haggerty

Gnawali

. Evaluating the performance of RPL and 6LoWPAN in TinyOS. In: Proceeding of the workshop on extending the internet to low power and lossy networks, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 12–14 April 2011, vol. 80, pp.85–90. ACM.

17.

Alliance

Zigbee specification overview. Zigbee Alliance Press, 2006.

18.

IEC 62591:2010. Industrial communication networks—wireless communication network and communication profiles—wirelessHART™.