Team bikes research proposal a. P. A. 6th Bikeshare Intended Keyless Encrypted Smartlock Research Proposal
Download 203.7 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Lock survey.
- Design of lock survey.
- Sampling of lock survey.
- Data collection of lock survey.
- Data analysis of lock survey results.
- Expected results of lock survey.
- Bikeshare interest survey.
- Design of interest survey.
- Sampling of interest survey.
- Data collection of interest survey.
- Data analysis of interest survey results.
- Expected results of interest survey.
Security. As the commercial use of RFID has grown, there is increasing concern over the security of RFID systems. RFID systems have clear advantages over previous identification systems such as barcodes; for example, RFID systems are automated and do not require active scanning of object for identification (Juels, 2006). However, there is a distinct trade off between security and the efficiency of the system. RFID systems work between a transponder or tag and the scanner. The transponder holds information regarding the user, which is then used to identify the user. Nevertheless, current transponders have little to no security. Because the transponders have little to no security, the information could be read by any reader within the proximity of the reader (Heiko et al., 2004). The security of RFID systems has been under scrutiny since the advent of the technology. The wireless nature of RFID systems has enabled the security of such systems to be under constant threat of attack. An attacker could potentially gain access to the wireless channel from any location (Yu, 2009). Due to the clear security flaw of the system, RFID security has been improved consistently (Rieback et al., 2006). One aspect that has made the most progress is the improvements to the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)14. The IFF allows RFID systems to identify attacks, which is a huge step in averting such attacks (Rieback et al., 2006). Also following improvements to RFID security, experts have classified five unique types of attacks (Rieback et al., 2006). The first of these attacks is classified as sniffing which is an attacker eavesdropping on the wireless channel of a RFID system. This causes privacy concerns especially when the information transferred over the channel includes user information as well as location. Another type of attack is tracking. Similar to sniffing, the attacker can eavesdrop on the channel and find RFID tag location effectively locating the user. The attacker can use this information to track users. Spoofing is another type of attack in which the attacker creates a fake tag from a blank RFID tag. The tag can then be used to access information. The last wireless attack is the replay attack. The replay attacker would intercept RFID signals and retransmit the signal. This type of attack could be used to relay false information or to steal other tag information wirelessly. These four types of attacks show the importance of user information in RFID systems and non-physical flaws in RFID systems (Rieback et al., 2006). The last type of attack involves a physical attack on the RFID system. The attacker can physically remove the RFID tag from the object or place the object in a booster bag that can block the RFID scanner. Also, the attacker could place RFID tags onto other objects and overload the system with more data than it can take (Rieback et al., 2006). Once again, these attacks would be undertaken with the intent of stealing sensitive user information stored in the RFID system (Rieback et al., 2006). Thus, the core of the problem for RFID systems lies in the fact that the RFID tags that are used hold user information. With much of the information unprotected, user privacy becomes a vital issue when considering the use of RFID. The simple solution to the problem would be to build innate security onto the RFID tags; however, the trade off between security and the cost of individual tags would be too substantial (Knospe & Pohl, 2004). Another solution would be to diminish the proximity at which the reader can scan RFID tags. For example, Near Field Communications19 (NFC), a specific type of RFID system, significantly reduces the distance at which RFID tags can be read which physically enhances the security of the tags (Want, 2011). The fatal flaw of this method would be that the innate security of the tags would be left unsecure and thus the user information would remain unprotected. In conclusion, the only way to effectively secure user information would be to enhance the security of RFID tags. One method that has been proposed is to create a low cost encryption for user information. With this layer of security, the tags would still be scannable by any reader; nonetheless, the information would be encrypted and so protected. The encryption must be useable on low cost RFID tags with limited computing in order to be effective with commercial RFID tags (Israsena, 2006). One proposed encryption would be the use of cryptography such as Tiny Encryption Algorithm34 (TEA) to ensure low cost but efficient protection of user information (Israsena, 2006). The TEA would ensure low cost with the use of only four logical operators: XOR, AND, OR and SHIFT38, which require fewer hardware components than other algorithms that use more complex operations (Israsena, 2006). In the commercial market integrated with the use of user information, privacy and security are vital to the communication system. The effective tradeoff of security and cost for RFID systems are still being considered and researched. Analyzing the research, the team will assume that the blend of physical limitation such as limiting the scanning proximity as well as the encryption of data stored in RFID tags seems most effective. In addition to the security of RFID, power consumption of such systems must be considered to enable efficient, low-cost methods of communication. Power Consumption. When considering the power necessary for an RFID system to operate, one must consider both the power required to activate the RFID tag and the basic power drawn by the RFID reader chip. When evaluating RFID circuit requirements “power consumption of a digital system is simply calculated as P= CV2f. Where P is the system power consumption; C is the load capacitance of [the] system; V is the voltage of the system; f is the system frequency” (Shu-qin et al., 2008, p. ?). Therefore, in the design of an RFID reader, the lowest possible voltage, frequency and capacitance should be chosen (Shu-qin et. al, 2008). Additionally, in order to reduce power consumption, some RFID modules have been designed using “ShockBurst” technology, which allows the primary RFID chip to pass some of the more expensive computations to another microcontroller17 with a lower current consumption (nRF240x, 2003). From a software perspective, if the RFID tags with which the reader is programmed to communicate are separated into different frequency ranges, both power and time are conserved. By increasing the number of frequency groups as the number of registered tags increases, the system’s search time and power draw are reduced significantly (Shu-qin et al., 2008). The voltage requirements for the RFID microchips vary, with the average minimum power requirement occurring near 2V (Shu-qin et al., 2008). As a point of comparison, the TRF7960/61, an RFID chip produced by Texas Instruments, has minimum voltage requirement of 2.7V and it draws 10mA of current, which results in a minimum power requirement of approximately 30 mW (TRF7960, 2010). Not only do RFID readers require a certain amount of power to function, but there are also limits on the amount of power the readers are able to emit. Governments set different limits on the power that RF devices may radiate based on the quantity of signals in the ultra high frequency37 (UHF) bandwidth which limits the distance at which RFID readers can recognize RFID tags, but the limits are significantly beyond the level of power required for communication with a range of less than 10cm (Adair, 2005). When it comes to the distance at which an RFID reader can communicate with an RFID tag, the effective isotropic radiated power8 (EIRP), the power produced by the reader used to activate the RFID tag is generally the limiting factor, rather than the strength of the signal that the tag returns (Adair, 2005). For RFID applications that require tag-reader communication at distances greater than three meters, it is necessary to provide additional power to the tag using a battery. The addition of a battery not only increases the cost of RFID tags, but also decreases the lifespan of the tags because the tags can only function for as long as the battery and battery contacts are in working condition (Adair, 2005). Introducing batteries into RFID tags also decreases the breadth of environments in which the tags can operate. Though the ruggedness of passive tags varies, they can be built to withstand water, shock, and extremely high temperatures, as in the case of RFID tags that are designed to be welded in place in an industrial setting (Swedberg, 2010). Because the maximum battery life is approximately two years, placing the tags in harsh environments becomes prohibitively difficult since the batteries must be replaced relatively frequently under potentially hazardous conditions (Yang, 2010). To overcome the problems associated with battery powered tags, researchers from the National Center for Scientific Research in Greece have made use of several different techniques to implement an effective RF power harvester to improve tag range without using a battery (Broutas et al., 2012). These include an impedance matching network, voltage multipliers, storage capacitors, and a voltage controlled switch. The impedance matching network is used to achieve a 50 Ohm impedance in the power harvesting circuit, which maximizes the energy harvesting system’s efficiency (Broutas et al., 2012). The tag then goes on to amplify the voltage harvested by the RF antennae and stores this in capacitors for later use. Finally, a voltage-controlled switch administers the transition from the operational mode to the charging mode. In this way, RFID tags can achieve a communication range of up to four meters without relying on battery power (Broutas et. al, 2012). Geolocation To keep track of the location of all the bicycles in the bikeshare, a data transmission medium must be implemented using necessary hardware for the wireless communications between the software and each bicycle. To accomplish this, the team plans to use commercial hardware that would allow for data transmission through pre-existing cellular systems. The hardware the team plans to investigate include: the Arduino2 microcontroller (Arduino uno, n.d.), a Global Positioning System13 (GPS) module, and a Global System12 for Mobile Communications/General Packet Radio Service11 (GSM/GPRS) shield. This approach is based off evaluations of various Universities’ experiments that also needed a wireless data transmission medium. In An-Najah National University located in Nablus, Palestine, a group of students in the Telecommunication Engineering Department conducted an experiment where the team needed to keep track of automobiles wirelessly (Tarapiah et. al, 2013). To do so, they used the same hardware listed above and provided a pictorial model for the interactions between the devices (Figure 1). 
Figure 1: Pictorial Representation of a wireless geolocation system used by An-Najah National University (2013)
Lastly, the team will require a computerized platform in order to efficiently and conveniently manage a bikeshare system with a multitude of distinct components. Specifically, the team hopes to develop a software application that is capable of continuously communicating with the electronic hardware equipped on the bicycles so that the bikeshare system can be closely monitored. The implemented software will perform similar functionalities as outlined in the Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) model, which is the currently mainstream approach to anti-theft and fleet tracking of vehicles (Bajaj & Gupta, 2012). The software utilized in AVL is suitable for the bikeshare system, and the team will strive to apply this existing model during the process of developing specialized software for the bikeshare. Conclusion After reviewing various topics involving bikeshare technologies and systems, the team believes that these systems have many areas for improvements. Other projects with similar ideas have proven to be noteworthy, when considering possible improvements to a bikeshare system. The team concludes that enhancements in security and effectiveness of a college campus-based bikeshare are feasible and deserving of further research. Accordingly, Team BIKES plans to follow techniques similar to those of prior research groups to develop and propose an optimized bikeshare system. Methodology Team BIKES’ research is split between hardware and software. First, for hardware, the team will be seeking to understand: (1) what qualities of a bikeshare students value the most, (2) which qualities are already being addressed in the current bikeshare market, and (3) what is the most effective way of locking a bicycle for a dockless bikeshare system. The goals of the software research are: (1) how can the team build an efficient user identification system that can be used to unlock smartlocks, (2) what is the most effective and expandable way to implement the hardware necessary for wireless communications on a bicycle, and (3) how does the team develop, test, and implement a computer software that is capable of communicating with electronic devices on bicycles to collect locational and usage data as well as presenting this information in an easily understandable way. The team will address these methods with different tactics for respective goals. Through surveys and focus groups, the team will stay abreast of consumer needs and interests, while using this information to develop, test, and refine the the technical, software and hardware components of the project. The team’s research will be focused on the creation of building a smartlock, rather than implementing an entire bikeshare system. This focus will aid the team in building a more comprehensive smartlock that will allow for stationless bikeshare systems to become successful. Surveys The team will conduct two surveys throughout the course of the research project. Both surveys will be pivotal to the direction of the research and development of the smartlock. The two surveys will be the lock survey and the bikeshare interest survey, explained in further detail below. The team will select surveys as a way to gather information about current lock use and current bikeshare interest on campus. Lock survey. The team will conduct the lock survey early in the research project. The purpose of this survey is to find out which types of locks are currently used by students on campus, how the users locks their bicycles, and if users have had any problems with their locks regarding theft or breakage. Design of lock survey. The survey will ask participants what type of bicycle locks they currently use and where they use the lock to secure their bicycles. It will also ask participants whether they have ever had an instance where their bicycle was stolen and if so, what lock was used at the time. Sampling of lock survey. The team will target the survey to current bikers on the University’s campus. Team members will approach potential survey participants at bicycle racks near residence halls, dining halls, and academic buildings around campus to ask nearby bikers to participate in the survey. This method will allow the team to gather data from students who bicycle. Data collection of lock survey. Members of the team will ask bikers around bicycle racks located near academic buildings and dining halls to fill out the questionnaire regarding how they lock their bicycle. Furthermore, team members will ask students that bring their bicycles into the Campus Bike Shop to take the questionnaire. Questions of the survey will ask specifically what type and brand of lock the biker uses. Possible locks that they can choose from will be U-lock, cable locks, chain locks, or other with specification. The biker will also be asked to check where on the bicycle they place the lock. Such locations would be through the frame, front wheel, back wheel, or a combination. The team will also ask how consistently they lock their bicycle in a certain way, and if they find themselves locking their bicycle to a specific type of bicycle rack. Possible bicycle racks are inverted U-racks, wave bicycle racks, wall mounts, double deck racks, trees, railings, or other objects non-intended as a bicycle rack. The final question will ask if the biker has had any malfunctions and breaking of their lock, and if they have ever had their bicycle stolen because of the type of lock and/or use of the lock. If a bicycle has been stolen, the team will request to describe to the best of their ability what caused the bicycle to be stolen. Data analysis of lock survey results. The team will collect the results from the survey into a spreadsheet that records the answers to questions. The team will draw conclusions such as which lock is most popular and which locking techniques are most popular to figure out which type of lock and locking techniques resulted in the most breakages, malfunctions, and stolen bicycles. Expected results of lock survey. The team expects that most survey participants use U-locks, since the university strongly advises all campus bikers to use this type of lock. Avoid single sentence paragraphs. Add more information here. What about lock placement? Information about to what bikes are locked? Bikeshare interest survey. Since Capital Bikeshare will arrive on campus at the beginning of February 2014 (Lazo, 2013), a second survey will be conducted one semester after Capital Bikeshare’s arrival to give students time to familiarize with the bikeshare on campus. The purpose of this survey will be to determine student interest in the bikeshare currently on campus, Capital Bikeshare, as well as determine what improvements students would like to see in the bikeshare. Design of interest survey. The survey will ask participants if they bicycle on campus and if they know about or use Capital Bikeshare on campus. Survey participants will be asked to rank the key factors that they believe to be the most important to increase bikeshare use among students. Sampling of interest survey. This survey will attempt to collect data from all types of demographics on campus. The team will market the survey to specific populations of students to control the number of students from each category that we would like to reach. The team will ask the University of Maryland registrar for a random sample of student email addresses to email our survey to. This random sample of University of Maryland students will reach a large and diverse pool of survey participants as well as control for extraneous variables. The team will communicate with the University’s Department of Transportation Services (DOTS) to offer students the option of taking when they register their bicycles on campus to target student bikers. Additionally, the team will stand at bus stops or on buses to ask students in that vicinity to fill out the survey, targeting students that take public transportation and possibly students that live off-campus. This method will be more direct than putting the survey on a listserv and will minimize the bias for self-selection. These various survey marketing techniques will help the team achieve a balanced demographic in the sample size. Data collection of interest survey. The survey will ask if the participant uses bicycles on campus and assess their understanding and usage of Capital Bikeshare’s services. Those that use Capital Bikeshare will be asked what they use their services for, whether for recreation, for work or class transport, or for daily use. They will also be asked if they are interested in an on-campus bikeshare. Each participant will be asked to rank a list of determining factors that would affect student participation in a bikeshare on campus by importance. This list would include factors such as “docking station location”, “cost”, “aesthetically pleasing bicycle design”, “safety”, “weather/seasonal changes”, and “other”. This ranking system will allow the team to see the most crucial factors determining student use in a bikeshare system. If survey participants believe that Capital Bikeshare lacks these important factors, it can be understood that these factors are the reason why some of these survey participants do not use Capital Bikeshare. Data analysis of interest survey results. The team will gather the responses to the survey questions and analyze them as a team. The team will examine similarities in the responses from students regarding Capital Bikeshare’s operations on campus. The team will determine which factors contribute greatly to a lack of use in the use of the Capital Bikeshare bicycles. Furthermore, by applying point values to the students’ ranking of current problems, the team will be able to determine which problems are the most important to address. By understanding these factors, the team will be able to better determine the team’s approach to combating these problems in our stationless bikeshare system. Expected results of interest survey. The team expects that most students will find Capital Bikeshare inconvenient for use around campus since the bicycle docks that one must return the bicycles to after each use are sparsely scattered throughout the campus. Students may not feel that using Capital Bikeshare bicycles are worth the money because it is not useful when biking to class unless there is a docking station near the class to which they are going. The team expects that students may only feel that paying to use a bikeshare on campus would only be useful if students could use these bikeshare bicycles easily between classes. For this reason, the team anticipates that when survey participants are asked whether they would prefer a dockless bikeshare over a docked bikeshare such as Capital Bikeshare, the response will be mostly positive. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 203.7 Kb. Share with your friends:
|