Enhanced Active Eavesdroppers Detection System for Multihop WSNs in Tactical IoT Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In tactical Internet of Things (IoT) applications, the broadcast nature of wireless sensor networks (WSNs) makes it easy to eavesdrop on their traffic. Furthermore, adversaries can access the sensor nodes to intercept and eavesdrop on critical wireless transmission. Research in this area focuses on reducing the eavesdropping probability through specific methods, such as encryption and transmission power control. However, eavesdropper detection techniques in WSNs do not exist in the literature. This article proposes a novel enhanced active eavesdroppers detection (EAED) system for homogeneous multihop WSNs. The EAED system consists of a monitoring module and a detection engine module. The Monitoring module plays a vital role in the EAED system to provide accurate measurements for the detection engine module. We propose three monitoring architectures for this measurement: 1) static monitoring nodes; 2) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)-based monitoring; and 3) neighborhood monitoring. To find the optimal locations for static monitoring nodes, we use a genetic algorithm (GA). We also use the Hamiltonian path planning to calculate the flight path for UAVs. The detection engine module utilizes a lightweight anomaly detection method that employs the <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$Z$ </tex-math></inline-formula>-test method and runs on edge devices. We analyze and discuss the network overhead, advantages, and disadvantages of different monitoring architectures. According to the simulation results, the EAED system can detect active eavesdroppers with a high acrlong DR <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$({\ge }90\%)$ </tex-math></inline-formula> and a low false-positive rate <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$({\leq }5\%$ </tex-math></inline-formula>) and outstanding performance (<inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\mathrm{ AUC}}\approx 0.97$ </tex-math></inline-formula>).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".