Paper detail

On the Physical Layer Security of a Dual-Hop UAV-based Network in the Presence of per-hop Eavesdropping and Imperfect CSI

In this paper, the physical layer security of a dual-hop unmanned aerial vehicle-based wireless network, subject to imperfect channel state information (CSI) and mobility effects, is analyzed. Specifically, a source node $(S)$ communicates with a destination node $(D)$ through a decode-and-forward relay $(R)$, in the presence of two wiretappers $\left(E_{1},E_{2}\right)$ independently trying to compromise the two hops. Furthermore, the transmit nodes $\left(S,R\right) $ have a single transmit antenna, while the receivers $\left(R,D,E_{1},E_{2}\right) $ are equipped with multiple receive antennas. Based on the per-hop signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and correlated secrecy capacities' statistics, a closed-form expression for the secrecy intercept probability (IP) metric is derived, in terms of key system parameters. Additionally, asymptotic expressions are revealed for two scenarios, namely (i) mobile nodes with imperfect CSI and (ii) static nodes with perfect CSI. The results show that a zero secrecy diversity order is manifested for the first scenario, due to the presence of a ceiling value of the average SNR, while the IP drops linearly at high average SNR in the second one, where the achievable diversity order depends on the fading parameters and number of antennas of the legitimate links/nodes. Furthermore, for static nodes, the system can be castigated by a $15$ dB secrecy loss at IP$=3\times10^{-3},$ when the CSI imperfection power raises from $0$ to $10^{-3}$. Lastly, the higher the legitimate nodes' speed, carrier frequency, delay, and/or relay's decoding threshold SNR, the worse is the system's secrecy. Monte Carlo simulations endorse the derived analytical results.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.