On the Vulnerability of Underwater Magnetic Induction Communication

Abstract

Typical magnetic induction (MI) communication is commonly considered a secure underwater wireless communication (UWC) technology due to its non-audible and non-visible nature compared to acoustic and optical UWC technologies. However, vulnerabilities in communication systems inevitably exist and may lead to different types of attacks. In this paper, we investigate the eavesdropping attack in underwater MI communication to quantitatively measure the system's vulnerability under this attack. We consider different potential eavesdropping configuration setups based on the positions and orientations of the eavesdropper node to investigate how they impact the received voltage and secrecy at the legitimate receiver node. To this end, we develop finite-element-method-based simulation models for each configuration in an underwater environment and evaluate the received voltage and the secrecy capacity against different system parameters such as magnetic flux, magnetic flux density, distance, and orientation sensitivity. Furthermore, we construct an experimental setup within a laboratory environment to replicate the simulation experiments. Both simulation and lab experimental confirm the susceptibility of underwater MI communication to eavesdropping attacks. However, this vulnerability is highly dependent on the position and orientation of the coil between the eavesdropper and the legitimate transmitter. On the positive side, we also observe a unique behavior in the received coil reception that might be used to detect malicious node activities in the vicinity, which might lead to a potential security mechanism against eavesdropping attacks.

Figures (14)

• Figure 1: General illustration of an eavesdropping attack.
• Figure 2: Eavesdropper node position-based setup for both FEM simulation and lab experiments: (a) Configuration 1: When the eavesdropper node is placed far from the legitimate nodes and (b) Configuration 2: When the eavesdropper node is placed near to the legitimate nodes.
• Figure 3: Simulation results based on eavesdropper node position with respect to legitimate Tx and Rx positions: (a) Received voltage vs. eavesdropper node position under Configuration 1 and (b) Received voltage vs. eavesdropper node position under configuration 2.
• Figure 4: Eavesdropper node orientation changes (a) Configuration 3: eavesdropper changes its position w.r.t. legitimate Tx node, (b) Configuration 4: eavesdropper changes its position w.r.t. legitimate Rx node, and (c) Configuration 5: eavesdropper changes its position w.r.t. its own origin.
• Figure 5: Magnetic flux density norm in $T$ with respect to different eavesdropper node angle in the case of configuration 3 when: (a) $\theta^{Tx-E}=0^{\circ}$, (b) $\theta^{Tx-E}=90^{\circ}$, and (c) $\theta^{Tx-E}=150^{\circ}$.