A Study on Evaluation of DoS Attacks in WiMAX Networks

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 11 | Nov -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1851
A Study on Evaluation of DoS Attacks in WiMAX Networks
K. Saranya, 1 M.A.Dorairangaswamy2
1 PhD Research Scholar, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore.
2 Professor, Department of Computer Science, ASIET, Kalady.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: Security has become a primary concern in order to
provide protected communication between nodes in a
potentially hostile environment whereas early research effort
assumed a friendly and cooperative environment and focused
mainly on problems such as wireless channelaccessandMulti-
hop routing. Recent wireless research indicates that the
WiMAX presents a larger security problem than conventional
wired and wireless networks. Denial of Service (DoS) attacks
has become a problem for users of computer systems
connected to the Internet. Different mechanisms have been
proposed to countermeasure the routing attacks against
WiMAX. However, these mechanisms are not suitable for
WiMAX resource constraints, i.e., limited bandwidth and
battery power, because they introduce heavy traffic load to
exchange and verifying keys. In this paper, the different
schemes for handling the DoS attacks are investigated and
studied.
Keywords: WIMAX, Security attacks, DoS, Attack modes.
1. INTRODUCTION
In a WIMAX, a collection of mobile hosts with wireless
network interfaces form a temporary network without the
aid of any fixed infrastructure or centralized administration.
A WIMAX is referred to as an infrastructure less network
because the mobile nodes in the network dynamicallysetup
paths among themselves to transmit packets temporarily. In
a WIMAX, nodes within each other’s wireless transmission
ranges can communicate directly; however, nodes outside
each other’s range have to rely on some other nodes to relay
messages. In a mobile ad hoc network,routersactashostsas
well as packet-forwarding routers. The nodes in WIMAX
themselves are responsible for dynamically discovering
other nodes to communicate. While such networks have
potential commercial viability, the main deployment of
WIMAXs is still mainly for disaster-relief emergencies and
military expeditions in hostile terrains. Such applications
involving information-retrieval and data sensitive
transactions require some level of cyber security to be
provided to users. One of the mostcommonformsofsecurity
breaches is the Denial-Of-Service (DoS) attack. A DoS attack
is any event that diminishes or eliminates a network’s
capacity to perform its expected function. These attacks are
launched against server resources or network bandwidth by
preventing authorized users from accessing resources.They
pose threats to larger websites such as Amazon and eBay.
The effect of these attacks varies from temporarily blocking
service availability to permanently distortinginformationin
the network. DoS attacks can target a client computer or a
server computer. For example, anattack maytargeta system
by exhausting limited wireless resourcessuchasbandwidth,
storage space, battery power, CPU, or system memory. In
this paper, we look into various vulnerabilities in WIMAXs,
the DoS attack scenarios and methods for detection and
prevention of DoS attacks.
2. SECURITY ISSUES AND VULNERABILITIES IN
WIMAX NETWORKS
A WIMAX is a collection of mobile nodes that can
communicate with each other without the use of predefined
infrastructure or centralized administration. Due to self-
organize and rapidly deploy capability, WIMAX can be
applied to different applications including battlefield
communications, emergency relief scenarios, law
enforcement, public meeting, virtual class room and other
security-sensitive applications.WIMAXsarea uniqueclassof
wireless multi-hop network comprising of autonomous
mobile nodes. This causes the network topology to be
dynamically changing, which gives rise to a wide range of
characteristics such as transient links, unpredictable
resource availability and complex route maintenance. In
addition, nodes in WIMAXs have limited batterylife,whichis
expended by packet transmission and reception. Although
security threats exist in both wired and wireless networks,
the inherent nature of wireless networks such as WiMAX’s
results in them being more vulnerable to attacks. In the
following, we describe how some of these WIMAX features
cause the network to be more susceptible to threats.
 Nodes in WIMAXs do not have any central base
station to coordinate the transmission and
authentication of packets. Thus, the delivery of data
packets from source to destination nodes in the
network is dependent on the cooperation of the
(intermediate) nodes in the network.
 The wireless channel in WIMAXs is a shared
broadcast medium, where as in wired scenarios
channel can be configured to provide dedicated
access to any particular user group. Therefore,nodes
in wireless networks are often subject to

interference (whether deliberate or not) from
neighboring nodes.
 The mobility of the nodes in the network also
increases the challenge of node authentication,
because nodes can easily venture intoandoutofthe
network.
Because WiMAX have far more vulnerabilities than the
traditional wired networks,securityismuchmoredifficultto
maintain in the mobile ad hoc network than in the wired
network. In this section, we discuss the various
vulnerabilities that exist in the WiMAX.
2.1 Lack of secure boundaries
The meaning of this vulnerability is self-evident: there isnot
such a clear secure boundary in the mobile ad hoc network,
which can be compared with the clear line of defense in the
traditional wired network.Thisvulnerabilityoriginatesfrom
the nature of the mobile ad hoc network: freedom to join,
leave and move inside the network. In the wired network,
adversaries mustgetphysical accesstothenetwork medium,
or even pass through several lines ofdefensesuchasfirewall
and gateway before they can perform malicious behavior to
the targets. However, in the mobile ad hoc network, there is
no need for an adversary to gain the physical access to visit
the network: once the adversary is in the radio range of any
other nodes in the mobile ad hoc network, it can
communicate with those nodes in its radio range and thus
join the network automatically. Lack of secure boundaries
makes the mobile ad hoc network susceptible to the attacks.
The mobile ad hoc network suffers from all-weather
attacks, which can come from any node that is in the radio
range of any node in the network, at any time, and target to
any other node(s) in the network. To make matters worse,
there are various link attacks that can jeopardize the mobile
ad hoc network, which make it even harder for the nodes in
the network to resist the attacks. The attacks mainly include
passive eavesdropping, active interfering, and leakage of
secret information,data tampering, message replay,message
contamination, and denial of service.
2.2 Threats from Compromised nodes inside the
network
In the previous subsection, we mainly discuss the
vulnerability that there is no clear secure boundaries in the
mobile ad hoc network, which may cause the occurrences of
various link attacks. These link attacks place their emphasis
on the links between the nodes, and try to perform some
malicious behaviors to make destruction to the links.
However, there are some other attacks that aim to gain the
control over the nodes themselves by some unrighteous
means and then use the compromised nodes to execute
further malicious actions. This Vulnerability can be viewed
as the threats that come from the compromisednodesinside
the network. Since mobile nodes are autonomous units that
can join or leave the network with freedom, it is hard for the
nodes themselves to work out some effective policies to
prevent the possible malicious behaviors from all the nodes
it communicate with because of the behavioral diversity of
different nodes. Furthermore, because of the mobility of the
ad hoc network, a compromised node can frequentlychange
its attack target and perform malicious behavior to different
node in the network, thus it is very difficult to track the
malicious behavior performed by a compromised node
especially in a large scale ad hoc network. Therefore,threats
from compromised nodes inside the network are far more
dangerous than the attacks from outside the network, and
these attacks are much harder to detect because they come
from the compromisednodes,whichbehave well beforethey
are compromised.
A good example of this kind of threats comes from the
potential Byzantine failures encountered in the routing
protocol for the mobile ad hoc network. We call it a
Byzantine failure when a set of nodes are compromised in
such a way that the incorrect and malicious behavior cannot
be directly detected because of the cooperationamongthese
compromised nodes when they perform malicious
behaviors. The compromised nodes may seemingly behave
well; however, they may actually make use of the flaws and
inconsistencies in the routing protocol to undetectably
destroy the routing fabric of the network, generate and
advertise new routing informationthatcontainsnonexistent
link, provide fake link state information, or even flood other
nodes with routing traffic. Because the compromised nodes
cannot be easily recognized, their malicious behaviors are
prone to be ignored by other nodes. Therefore Byzantine
failure is very harmful to the mobile ad hoc network.
2.3 Lack of centralized management facility
Ad hoc networks do not have a centralized piece of
management machinerysuchasa nameserver,whichleadto
some vulnerable problems. Now let us discuss this problem
in a more detailed manner. First of all, the absence of
centralized management machinery makes the detection of
attacks a very difficult problem because it is not easy to
monitor the traffic in a highly dynamic andlargescaleadhoc
network. It is rather common in the ad hoc network that
benign failures, such as path breakages, transmission
impairments and packet dropping, happen frequently.
Therefore, malicious failures will be more difficult to detect,
especially when adversaries change their attack patternand
their attack target in different periods of time. For each of
the victims, because it can only observe the failure that
occurs in itself, this short-timeobservationcannotproducea
convincing conclusion that the failure is caused by an

adversary. However, we can easily find from a system point
of view that the adversary has performed such a large
amount of misbehaviors that we can safely conclude that all
of the failures caused by this adversary should be malicious
failure instead of benign failure, though these failures occur
in different nodes at different time. From this example we
find that lack of centralized management machinery will
cause severe problems when we try to detect the attacks in
the ad hoc network.
Second, lack of centralized management machinery will
impede the trust management for the nodes in the ad hoc
network. In mobile ad hoc network, all the nodes are
required to cooperate in the network operation, while no
security association (SA2) can be assumed for all the
network nodes. Thus, it is not practical toperformana priori
classification, and as a result, the usual practice of
establishing a line of defense, which distinguishes nodes as
trusted and non-trusted, cannot be achieved here in the
mobile ad hoc network. Third,somealgorithmsinthemobile
ad hoc network rely on the cooperative participation of all
nodes and the infrastructure.
2.4 DOS ATTACK
Denial of service (DoS) is anothertypeofattack,wherethe
attacker injects a large amount of junk packets into the
network. These packets overspend a significant portion of
network resources, and introduce wireless channel
contention and network contention in the WIMAX.Arouting
table overflow attack and sleep deprivation attack are two
other types of the DoS attacks. In the routing table overflow
attack, an attacker attempts to create routes to nonexistent
nodes. Meanwhile the sleep deprivation attack aims to
consume the batteries ofa victimnode.Thetraditional intent
and impact of DoS attacks is to prevent or impair the
legitimate use of computerornetwork resources.Regardless
of the diligence, effort, and resources spent securing against
intrusion, Internet connected systems face a consistent and
real threat from DoS attacks because of two fundamental
characteristics of the Internet:
 The Internet is comprised of limited and consumable
resources.
 Any system can be compromised and attacked if the
IP address is recognized.
2.5 Use of Denial of Service
Denial of Service attacks were first used to “have fun”, get
some kind of revenge from system operators or make
complex attacks possible, such as blind spoofingonservices.
IRC servers were also often targeted after one got insulted
on a channel. At this time networks and Internet uses were
“confidential”, and those attacks had very limited impact.
With time and as the Internet gets more and more used as a
communication channel, hacktivism becomes more and
more popular. Geopolitical situations, wars, religious
concerns, ecology, any motive is then good to launch attacks
on companies, political organization or even national IT
infrastructures. A more recent use of Denial of Service is
linked to online gaming. Many servers have been victims of
such attacks, generated by unhappy gamerswholostlivesor
their favorite weapon during game. But the very use of
Denial of Service today is definitely extortion. More and
more enterprises rely on their IT infrastructure.Mail,critical
data and even phone are handled by the network. Very few
companies can survive without their main communication
channel. Furthermore the Internet is also a production tool.
Search engines and gambling web sites, as an example rely
entirely on their connectivity to the network.
2.6 Permanent Denial of Service attacks
A permanent denial-of-service (PDoS), also known loosely
as phlashing is an attack that damages a systemsobadlythat
it requires replacement or reinstallationofhardware.Unlike
the distributed denial-of-service attack, a PDoS attack
exploits security flaws which allow remote administration
on the management interfacesofthevictim'shardware,such
as routers, printers, or other networking hardware. The
attacker uses these vulnerabilities to replace a device's
firmware with a modified, corrupt, or defective firmware
image—a process which when donelegitimatelyisknown as
flashing. This therefore "bricks" the device, rendering it
unusable for its original purpose until it can be repaired or
replaced. The PDoS is a purehardwaretargetedattack which
can be much faster and requires fewer resources than using
a botnet in a DDoS attack. Because of these features, and the
potential and high probability of security exploits on
Network Enabled Embedded Devices (NEEDs), this
technique has come to the attention of numerous hacker
communities.
2.7 ATTACK SCENARIOS
The DoS attacks that target resources can be grouped into
three broad scenarios. The first attack scenario targets
Storage and Processing Resources. This is an attack that
mainly targets the memory, storage space, or CPU of the
service provider. Consider the case where a node
continuously sends an executable flooding packet to its
neighborhoods’ and to overload the storage space and
deplete the memory of that node. This prevents the node
from sending or receiving packets from other legitimate
nodes. Neighborhood watch andmonitoringcanpreventthe
occurrence of such events by gradually excluding such
malicious nodes.

The second attack scenario targets energy resources,
specifically the battery power of the service provider. Since
mobile devices operate by battery power, energy is an
important resource in WIMAXs. A malicious node may
continuously send a bogus packet to a node with the
intention of consuming the victim’s battery energy and
preventing other nodes from communicating with the node.
The use of localized monitoring can help in detecting such
nodes and preventing their consequences.
The third attack scenario targets bandwidth. Consider the
case where an attacker located between multiple
communicating nodes wants to waste the network
bandwidth and disrupt connectivity. Themaliciousnodecan
continuously send packetswithbogussourceIPaddressesof
other nodes, thereby overloading the network. This
consumes the resources of all neighbors that communicate,
overloads the network, and results in performance
degradations.
3. RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS
S. Zhong, J. Chen and Y.R. Yang[4] specifies that Mobile ad
hoc networking has been an active research area for several
years. How to stimulate cooperation among selfish mobile
nodes, however, is not well addressed yet. In this paper, we
propose Sprite, a simple,cheat-proof,credit basedsystem for
stimulating cooperation among selfish nodesin WiMAX.The
system provides incentiveformobilenodestocooperate and
report actions honestly. Compared with previous
approaches, our system does not require any tamperproof
hardware at any node. At a high level, the basic scheme of
our system can be described as follows. When a node
receives a message, the node keeps a receipt of the message.
Later, when the node has a fast connection to a Credit
Clearance Service (CCS), it reports to the CCS the messages
that it has received/forwarded byuploadingitsreceipts. The
CCS then determines the charge and credit to each node
involved in the transmission of a message, depending on the
reported receipts of a message.
Two main issues:
 Since there is no tamper-proof hardware at any
node and the charge and credit are based on the
reports of the selfish nodes, a selfish node (oreven
a group of colluding node) may attempt to cheat
the system to maximize its expected welfare.
 A node should receive enough credit forforwarding
a message for another node, so that it can send its
own messages with the received credit, unless the
resource of the node itself is extremely low. This
is the incentive perspective of the system
S. Marti, T.J. Giuli, K. Lai and M. Baker[5] describes
techniques that improves throughput in an Ad Hoc network
in the presence of nodes that agree to forward packets but
fail to do so. To mitigate this problem, we propose
categorizing nodes based upon their dynamically measured
behavior. The paper uses a Watchdog that identifies
misbehaving nodes and a pathrater that helps routing
protocols avoid these nodes. Two extensionstotheDynamic
Source Routing Algorithm (DSR) to mitigate the effects of
routing misbehavior: the watchdog and the pathrater. The
watchdog identifies misbehaving nodes, while the pathrater
avoids routing packets through theses nodes. The DSR is
divided into two main functions:
 Route Discovery
 Route Maintenance
We implement the watchdog by maintaining a buffer of
recently sent packets and comparing each overheard packet
with the packet in the buffer to see if there is a match. If so,
the packet in the buffer is removed and forgotten by the
watchdog, since it has been forwarded on. If a packet has
remained in the buffer for longer than a certain timeout, the
watchdog increments a failure tally for the node responsible
for forwarding on the packet. If the tally exceeds a certain
threshold bandwidth, it determines that the node is
misbehaving and sends a message to the source notifying it
of the misbehaving node.For thewatchdogto work properly,
it must know where a packet should be in two hops. The
path rater, run by each node in the network, combines
knowledge of misbehaving nodes with link reliabilitydata to
pick the route most likely to be reliable.Eachnodemaintains
a rating for every other node it knows about in the network.
It calculates a path metric by averaging the node ratings in
the path. One of the main advantages of thistechniqueisthat
DSR with the watchdog has the benefit that it can detect
misbehavior at the forwarding level and not just the link
level.
A possible disadvantage is that there are chances of
ambiguous collisions between the nodesandalsothelimited
transmission power of the nodes can be quite limiting
factors for this approach
S. Buchegger and J.Y.L Boudec[6] identifiesthatMobilead-
hoc networking works properly only if the participating
nodes cooperate in routing and forwarding.However,it may
be advantageous for individual nodes not to cooperate. The
paper proposes a protocol, called CONFIDANT, for making
misbehavior unattractive; it is based on selective altruism
and utilitarianism. It aims at detecting and isolating
misbehaving nodes, thus making it unattractive to deny
cooperation. The detailed implementation ofCONFIDANT in
this paper assumes that the network layer is based on the
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol.

The CONFIDANT protocol works as an extension to a
reactive source-routing protocol for mobile ad-hoc
networks.CONFIDANTconsistsofthefollowingcomponents,
as shown in Figure 1: The Monitor, the Reputation System,
the Path Manager, and the Trust Manager. The components
are present in every node. Each node monitors the behavior
of its next-hop neighbors. If a suspicious event is detected,
the information is given to the reputation system. If the
event is significant for the node, it is checked whether it has
occurred more often than a predefined threshold, which is
high enough to distinguish deliberate malicious behavior
from simple coincidences such as collisions.
L. Buttyan and J. Hubaux[1] specifies that in military and
rescue applications of WiMAX, all the nodes belong to the
same authority; therefore, they are motivated to cooperate
in order to support the basic functionsofthe network.Inthis
paper, they consider the case when each node is its own
authority and tries to maximize the benefits it gets from the
network. More precisely, we assume that the nodes are not
willing to forward packets for the benefit of other nodes.
This problem may arise in civilian applications of WiMAX.In
order to stimulate the nodes for packet forwarding, we
propose a simple mechanism based on a counter in each
node.
Fig.1. Trust Architecture
However, with the progress of technology, it will soon be
possible to deploy WiMAX for civilian applications as well.
Examples include networks of cars and provision of
communication facilities in remote areas. Inthesenetworks,
the nodes typically do not belong to a single authority and
they do not pursue a common goal. In addition, these
networks could be larger and could have a longer lifetime,
and they could be completely self-organizing, meaning that
the network would run solely by the operation of the end-
users. In such networks, there is no good reason to assume
that the nodes cooperate. Indeed, the contrary is true: in
order to save battery power, the nodes tend to be selfish. An
approach to alleviate this problem is based on a trusted and
tamper resistant hardware module, called security module,
in each node and cryptographic protection of packets. As
opposed to the node itself, the security module cannot be
tampered with by the user. One can think of the security
module as a smart card (similar to the SIM card in GSM
phones) or as a tamper resistant security co-processor. Our
design ensures that while the user can still modify the
behavior of the node (but not the security module), she
cannot gain any advantages by doing so. Thus, tampering
with nodes is uninteresting, and should happen only rarely.
Even though a tamper resistant module is present in the
node, still the node may bypass the security module. The
implementation of the security module requires additional
computational and communication overhead.
V. Gupta, S. Krishnamurthy,andM.Faloutsos[15] analyzes
attacks that deny channel access by causing pockets of
congestion in WiMAX. This paper focuses on the properties
of the medium access control (MAC) protocol which enable
such attacks. Several different traffic patterns that an
intelligent attacker might generate in order to cause denial
of service are investigated. The fundamental cause that DoS
at MAC layer can take place is the capture effect and
unfairness in media access. End-to-End authentication
scheme fails in preventing an attack by two colluding nodes.
Traffic patterns generated by an attacking node, its location
in the network, availability of other compromised nodes,
availability of routing information are key factors in
determining the efficacy of the DoS.
This paper assumed that a malicious node would not
tamper with the MAC protocol. However, MAC protocol
should be made robust so that the effect of tampering is
identified and not propagated. Such a scheme may need
support in the form of corroboration from the neighbors.
Many of the attacks that have been simulated are possible
even when end-to-end authentication is enforced for each
flow in the network. One of the possible ways of preventing
unchecked flows is by the assignment of capabilities to
nodes. The assignment of capabilities to node is not
addressed in this proposed technique and may be
considered as a limitation in this paper.
4. DISCUSSIONS AND SUMMARY
The classification among the proposedtechniquesinWIMAX
for detecting and preventing the DoS attacks can be
composed using the parameters given in Table1. Most of the
techniques used by the different schemes use a distributed

and a cooperated environment.Butthemostimportantthing
is the reasons the architecture to be configured in
distributed manner. As the nature of WIMAX is so open,
attacks source can be generated from any nodes within the
WIMAX itself or nodes of neighboring networks.
Unfortunately, this network lacks in central administration.
S. Zhong, J. Chen and Y.R. Yang[4] addresses this issue by
providing a Credit Clearance Service(CCS). L. Buttyan and J.
Hubaux[1] specifies the use of a security module which
provides efficient protection from tampering of nodes by
unauthorized sources.
S. Marti, T.J. Giuli, K. Lai and M. Baker[5] addresses
the use of a Watchdog and a Pathrater for malicious activity
detection but it is not flexible and scalable in all possible
cases of malicious activity. S. Buchegger and J.Y.L Boudec[6]
proposes a CONFIDANT protocol which includes trust
relationships among a number of entities. It follows a
distributed and a cooperativearchitecture.All attackstypeof
wired networks is possible in WIMAX. WIMAX has also
several typical of attacks, which are not available in the
traditional wired network, such as selfish attack, black hole
attack, sleep deprivation attack and others type of attacks.
V.Gupta, S. Krishnamurthy, and M. Faloutsos[15] provides
the solution for the above mentioned issues and provides
protection from congestion of network as a result of DoS
attacks but it also lacks centralization. Table 1 shows the
summary of the classification of these WIMAX techniques
and methodologies.
5. CONCLUSION
In this study, we try to inspect the security issues in the
WiMAX, which may be a main disturbance to the operation
of it. Due to the open media nature, the WiMAX are much
more prone to all kind of security risks and the most
important of those is denial of service. As a result, the
security needs in the WiMAX are much higher than those in
the traditional wired networks. We discuss sometypical and
dangerous vulnerability in the WiMAX, most of which are
caused by the characteristics of the WiMAX such as
constantly changing topology, open media and limited
power. These vulnerabilities may lead to serious security
attack known as Denial of Service attack. We then discuss
some Denial of service characteristics and thevariousattack
scenarios. Finally we introduce the current security
solutions for the WiMAX. We start with the discussiononthe
security criteria which acts as a guidance to the security-
related research works in this area. Then we talk about the
DoS attack scenario that threatensthecurrent WiMAX.In the
end, we discuss several security techniques that can help
protect the WiMAX from disruption of servicesduetoDenial
of service attacks. During the survey, we also find some
points that can be further explored in the future, so that
WIMAX can be further improved to handle, detect and
prevent the DoS attacks.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Buttyan and J. Hubaux, “Stimulating cooperation in
self-organizing WiMAX,” ACM/Kluwer MobileNetworksand
Applications (MONET), August 2003.
[2] M. Baker, E. Fratkin, D. Guitierrez, T. Li, Y. Liu and V.
Vijayaraghavan, “Participation incentives for ad hoc
networks,” http://www.stanford.edu/~yl31/adhoc(2001).
[3] D. Barreto, Y. Liu, J. Pan and F. Wang, “Reputation-based
participation enforcement for adhoc networks,”
http://www.stanford.edu/~yl314/adhoc (2002).
[4] S. Zhong, J. Chen and Y.R. Yang, “Sprite: A simple, cheat
proof, credit-based system for mobile ad-hoc networks,”
Technical Report 1235, Department of Computer Science,
Yale University (2006).
[5].S. Marti, T.J. Giuli, K. Lai and M. Baker, “Mitigating routing
misbehavior in WiMAX,” In Mobile Computing and
Networking, September 2000, page 255–265.
[6] Tran S. Buchegger and J.Y.L Boudec, “Performance
Analysis of the CONFIDANT Protocol: Cooperation Of Noes
— Fairness In Distributed Ad-hoc NeTworks,” In Proc. Of
IEEE/ACM Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and
Computing (MobiHOC), Lausanne, CH, IEEE2004, page226–
236.
[7] J. Broch, D. Maltz, and D. Johnson, “Supporting Hierarchy
and Heterogeneous Interfaces in Multi-Hop WirelessAdHoc
Networks”, In Proc. of IEEE WorkshoponMobileComputing,
June 1999.
[8] P. Michiardi and R. Molva, “Making greed work in
WiMAX,” Technical report, Institut Eur´ecom (2002). [9] A.
Kuzmanovic and E.W. Knight, “Low-Rate TCP-Targeted
Denial of Service Attacks,”SIGCOMM’03,August25-29,2003.
[10] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H.
Balakrishnan, “Energy efficient communication protocol for
wireless micro-sensor networks”, InProc.ofIEEEHawaiiInt.
Conf. on System Sciences, pages 4-7, January 2000.
[11] M.K. Denko, “An Incentive-BasedServiceDifferentiation
in WiMAX”, In Proc. IEEE International conference on
Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
Communications (WiMob 2005), pp. 197-204, August 2005,
Montreal, Canada.
[12] M.K. Denko, “A Localized Architecture for Detecting
Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks in Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks”, InProc.IFIPINTELLCOMM'05,Montreal,Canada.

[13] A. Habib, M. H. Hafeeda, and B. Bhargava, “Detecting
Service Violation and DoS Attacks”, In Proc. of Network and
Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2003.
[14] M. Just, E. Kranakis, and T. Wan, “Resisting Malicious
Packet Dropping in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, In Proc. Of
ADHOCNOW'03, Montreal, Canada.
[15] V. Gupta, S. Krishnamurthy, and M. Faloutsos, Denial of
Service Attacks at the MAC Layer in Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks. In Proc. Of MILCOM, 2002.

A Study on Evaluation of DoS Attacks in WiMAX Networks

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to A Study on Evaluation of DoS Attacks in WiMAX Networks (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Study on Evaluation of DoS Attacks in WiMAX Networks