Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysis
Abstract Secure data transmission and efficient network performance are both key aspects of the modern Internet. Traditionally, Transport Layer Security (TLS)/Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) has been used for reliable and secure networking communications. In the past decade, Quick User Datagram...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | IET Smart Cities |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1049/smc2.12083 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846110649309986816 |
|---|---|
| author | Andrew Simpson Maitha Alshaali Wanqing Tu Muhammad Rizwan Asghar |
| author_facet | Andrew Simpson Maitha Alshaali Wanqing Tu Muhammad Rizwan Asghar |
| author_sort | Andrew Simpson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Secure data transmission and efficient network performance are both key aspects of the modern Internet. Traditionally, Transport Layer Security (TLS)/Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) has been used for reliable and secure networking communications. In the past decade, Quick User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Internet Connections QUIC has been designed and implemented on UDP, attempting to improve security and efficiency of Internet traffic. Real‐world platform investigations are carried out in this paper to evaluate TLS/TCP and QUIC/UDP in maintaining communication, security and efficiency under three different types of popular cyber‐attacks. A set of interesting findings, including delay, loss, server CPU utilisation and server memory usage are presented to provide a comprehensive understanding of the two protocol stacks in performing malicious traffic. More specifically, in terms of the efficiency in achieving short delays and low packet loss rates with limited CPU and memory resources, QUIC/UDP performs better under Denial of Service attacks but TLS/TCP overtakes QUIC/UDP when handling MitM attacks. In terms of security, the implementation of TCP tends to be more secure than QUIC, but QUIC traffic patterns are harder to learn using machine learning methods. We hope that these insights will be informative in protocol selection for future networks and applications, as well as shedding light on the further development of the two protocol stacks. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-f2789081ad5e438e8c85813f07ff08e4 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2631-7680 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | IET Smart Cities |
| spelling | doaj-art-f2789081ad5e438e8c85813f07ff08e42024-12-23T18:50:14ZengWileyIET Smart Cities2631-76802024-12-016435136010.1049/smc2.12083Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysisAndrew Simpson0Maitha Alshaali1Wanqing Tu2Muhammad Rizwan Asghar3Department of Computer Science Durham University Durham UKDepartment of Computer Science Durham University Durham UKDepartment of Computer Science Durham University Durham UKSurrey Centre for Cyber Security University of Surrey Surrey UKAbstract Secure data transmission and efficient network performance are both key aspects of the modern Internet. Traditionally, Transport Layer Security (TLS)/Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) has been used for reliable and secure networking communications. In the past decade, Quick User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Internet Connections QUIC has been designed and implemented on UDP, attempting to improve security and efficiency of Internet traffic. Real‐world platform investigations are carried out in this paper to evaluate TLS/TCP and QUIC/UDP in maintaining communication, security and efficiency under three different types of popular cyber‐attacks. A set of interesting findings, including delay, loss, server CPU utilisation and server memory usage are presented to provide a comprehensive understanding of the two protocol stacks in performing malicious traffic. More specifically, in terms of the efficiency in achieving short delays and low packet loss rates with limited CPU and memory resources, QUIC/UDP performs better under Denial of Service attacks but TLS/TCP overtakes QUIC/UDP when handling MitM attacks. In terms of security, the implementation of TCP tends to be more secure than QUIC, but QUIC traffic patterns are harder to learn using machine learning methods. We hope that these insights will be informative in protocol selection for future networks and applications, as well as shedding light on the further development of the two protocol stacks.https://doi.org/10.1049/smc2.12083computer network securitydata analytics and machine learningdata structuresinformation security and privacynetwork protocolsnetworks and telematics |
| spellingShingle | Andrew Simpson Maitha Alshaali Wanqing Tu Muhammad Rizwan Asghar Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysis IET Smart Cities computer network security data analytics and machine learning data structures information security and privacy network protocols networks and telematics |
| title | Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysis |
| title_full | Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysis |
| title_fullStr | Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysis |
| title_short | Quick UDP Internet Connections and Transmission Control Protocol in unsafe networks: A comparative analysis |
| title_sort | quick udp internet connections and transmission control protocol in unsafe networks a comparative analysis |
| topic | computer network security data analytics and machine learning data structures information security and privacy network protocols networks and telematics |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1049/smc2.12083 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andrewsimpson quickudpinternetconnectionsandtransmissioncontrolprotocolinunsafenetworksacomparativeanalysis AT maithaalshaali quickudpinternetconnectionsandtransmissioncontrolprotocolinunsafenetworksacomparativeanalysis AT wanqingtu quickudpinternetconnectionsandtransmissioncontrolprotocolinunsafenetworksacomparativeanalysis AT muhammadrizwanasghar quickudpinternetconnectionsandtransmissioncontrolprotocolinunsafenetworksacomparativeanalysis |