Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison.

From: Tree Based Protocol for Key Management in Wireless Sensor Networks

Schemes Metrics
  memory Complexity communication Complexity Key connectivity Resilience against node capture Scalability
Key Infection [6] Depends on the number of one hop neighbors () For each node: 2 * d 100% Weak Good
BROSK [9] 1 2 * d 100% Very weak Very good
Lightweight Key Management System [10] 4+2 g, where g is number of group in network 2 * d 100% Very weak Very good
Blom Scheme [7] 2(λ + 1) d + 1 100% λ- secure Medium
Polynomial scheme [8] λ +1 d + 1 100% λ- secure Very good
SPINS [11] 5 + the chain list of keys used by μ TESLA 3*(/2) 100% Weak Medium
Random key predistribution [14] Key pool size (m) + keys identifier s d + 1 Probability that two nodes share a key, say Depends on and Good
Q-composite [15] 2 * m d + 1 Probability that two nodes share a key, say Depends on and Medium
Key management using deployment knowledge [16] d 1 d+ 1 Probability that two nodes share a key, say Depends on and Good
Dynamic key management [17] k keys + keys' identifiers d + 1 Probability that two nodes share a key, say Depends on and Good
LEAP [12] (3 * d) + 2 + keys chain of μ TESLA (2 * d) + 1 100% Very good Good
Location-based keys [13] 2 *d + 1 2 * d Probability that two nodes share a key, say λ-secure Good
Our solution 3 + number of sons d + 1 100% Good Good
  1. : number of nodes in the network. : number of neighbors. is the probability that two nodes share a key in the corresponding protocol. is the size of the key pool.