Security and Privacy Analysis of National Science Foundation Future Internet Architectures

被引:25
作者
Ambrosin, Moreno [1 ]
Compagno, Alberto [2 ]
Conti, Mauro [1 ]
Ghali, Cesar [3 ]
Tsudik, Gene [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Padua, Dept Math, I-35121 Padua, Italy
[2] Univ Roma La Sapienza, Dept Comp Sci, I-00198 Rome, Italy
[3] Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Comp Sci, Irvine, CA 92697 USA
来源
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS AND TUTORIALS | 2018年 / 20卷 / 02期
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”; 美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Network security; privacy; trust; future Internet architectures; POLLUTION ATTACKS; SERVICE; NETWORK; RESILIENCE;
D O I
10.1109/COMST.2018.2798280
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
The Internet protocol (IP) is the lifeblood of the modern Internet. Its simplicity and universality have fueled the unprecedented and lasting global success of the current Internet. Nonetheless, some limitations of IP have been emerging in recent years. Furthermore, starting in mid-1990s, the advent of mobility, wirelessness, and the Web substantially shifted Internet usage and communication paradigms. This accentuated long-term concerns about the current Internet architecture and prompted interest in alternative designs. The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) has been one of the key supporters of efforts to design a set of candidate next-generation Internet architectures. As a prominent design requirement, NSF emphasized "security and privacy by design" in order to avoid the long and unhappy history of incremental patching and retrofitting that characterizes the current Internet architecture. To this end, as a result of a competitive process, four prominent research projects were funded by the NSF in 2010: nebula, named-data networking, MobilityFirst, and expressive Internet architecture. This paper provides a comprehensive and neutral analysis of salient security and privacy features (and issues) in these NSF-funded future Internet architectures. Prior surveys on future Internet architectures provide a limited, or even no, comparison on security and privacy features. In addition, this paper also compares the four candidate designs with the current IP-based architecture and discusses similarities, differences, and possible improvements.
引用
收藏
页码:1418 / 1442
页数:25
相关论文
共 131 条
  • [21] Increasing network resilience through edge diversity in NEBULA
    Arye, Matvey
    Kiefer, Robert
    Super, Kyle
    Nordstrom, Erik
    Freedman, Michael J.
    Keller, Eric
    Rondeau, Tom
    Smith, Jonathan M.
    [J]. MOBILE COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS REVIEW, 2012, 16 (03) : 14 - 20
  • [22] A Survey of Naming and Routing in Information-Centric Networks
    Bari, Md. Faizul
    Chowdhury, Shihabur Rahman
    Ahmed, Reaz
    Boutaba, Raouf
    Mathieu, Bertrand
    [J]. IEEE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE, 2012, 50 (12) : 44 - 53
  • [23] Bellovin S., 2003, ICMP TRACEBACK MESSA
  • [24] Bellovin Steven M., 1996, Proceedings of the 6th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium, Focusing on Applications of Cryptography - Volume 6, SSYM'96, V6, P21
  • [25] Trawling for Tor Hidden Services: Detection, Measurement, Deanonymization
    Biryukov, Alex
    Pustogarov, Ivan
    Weinmann, Ralf-Philipp
    [J]. 2013 IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON SECURITY AND PRIVACY (SP), 2013, : 80 - 94
  • [26] SPACE/TIME TRADE/OFFS IN HASH CODING WITH ALLOWABLE ERRORS
    BLOOM, BH
    [J]. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 1970, 13 (07) : 422 - &
  • [27] Bortzmeyer S., 2015, 7626 RFC IETF
  • [28] Bound J., 1997, 2136 RFC IETF
  • [29] Braden Robert T, 1989, Information RFC 1122
  • [30] Cankaya H. C., 2011, ENCY CRYPTOGRAPHY SE, P9