02.11.2012 Views

Handover mechanisms in next generation heterogeneous wireless ...

Handover mechanisms in next generation heterogeneous wireless ...

Handover mechanisms in next generation heterogeneous wireless ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

SECURITY FOR HANDOVER ACROSS HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS NETWORKS<br />

effectively reduce the number of roam<strong>in</strong>g agreements required for <strong>in</strong>teroperation from<br />

2<br />

O ( N ) to O (N ) as stated <strong>in</strong> [53].<br />

In Figure 3.5, three different types of AAA entities are presented: Foreign AAA server<br />

(FAAA), Home AAA server (HAAA) and AAA proxy. An AAA server may play these<br />

different roles <strong>in</strong> different contexts. For example, the AAA server <strong>in</strong> a network may<br />

negotiate the identity verification with an external authority (e.g. HAAA) when deal<strong>in</strong>g<br />

with a roam<strong>in</strong>g mobile user, and <strong>in</strong> this case, acts as a FAAA. When process<strong>in</strong>g<br />

authentication requests from its own subscriber resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> either its own network or a<br />

foreign network, the same AAA server makes authorisation decision and acts as a<br />

HAAA. When it has been <strong>in</strong>terconnected with a series of AAA servers with relevant<br />

trust associations <strong>in</strong> place, this AAA server may serve as an AAA proxy for relay<strong>in</strong>g<br />

AAA messages from/to other networks. RFC 2903 [54] proposed such a generic AAA<br />

architecture that facilitates <strong>in</strong>teroperability between peered AAA servers via a standard<br />

AAA protocol.<br />

Figure 3.5 <strong>in</strong>dicates a security model that is applied to the presented AAA architecture.<br />

It is important to identify all the trust relationships needed for such an AAA architecture.<br />

With the concept borrowed from the social science literature, there is no clear consensus<br />

on the def<strong>in</strong>ition of trust <strong>in</strong> distributed computer networks [55]. A trust relationship is<br />

enforced on top of a number of security features that are enabled via a security<br />

association between two entities. Therefore, it is <strong>in</strong>terpreted as security association <strong>in</strong><br />

some literatures [53, 56, 57]. A security association between entities X and Y is def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

as the comb<strong>in</strong>ation of the entities’ identity <strong>in</strong>formation (e.g. Network Access Identifier,<br />

NAI), some forms of cryptographic keys (e.g., public keys, preshared symmetric keys),<br />

and <strong>in</strong>formation on cryptographic algorithms to use <strong>in</strong> order to authenticate and/or<br />

protect data <strong>in</strong> transit between X and Y [53].<br />

Figure 3.6 shows all forms of trust relationship that need to be present on a generic<br />

AAA architecture. First, the MH has a trust relationship TR MH , HAAA with its HAAA,<br />

which means that the MH belongs to its home network. Second, the FAAA and HAAA<br />

have to trust each other for service roam<strong>in</strong>g; otherwise, they can not exchange AAA<br />

messages to pass authentication requests. The trust relationship TR FAAA,<br />

HAAA between the<br />

- 46 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!