Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted System for Security Enhancement in Mobile Ad Hoc Network

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TRENDS IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1 – MAY 2015 - ISSN: 2349 - 9303
92
Adaptive Circumstance
Knowledgeable Trusted System for Security
Enhancement in Mobile Ad Hoc Network
Miss.A.Vidhya1
1
PG Scholar,
Kalasalingam institute of technology,
Virudhunagar.
Vidhya.aathithan7@gmail.com
Mrs.S.Jeevitha2
2
Asst.Prof,
Kalasalingam Institute of Technology,
Virudhunagar.
Jeevitha.ramkumar@gmail.com
Abstract—Every MANET application has its own policy and they need some special policies to enhance the security. In
MANET, each node acts as the router. The main challenging of the MANET setting up routing paths through the legitimate
nodes only. To make the MANET as the trusted system some external policies or schemes are needed. However, whether
for malicious or selfish purposes, a node may not cooperate during the network events or even try to interrupt them, both
are consider as misbehaviors. Substantial analysis efforts have been made to finding misbehaviors. Both the faulty
behaviors and malicious behavior are generally equally treated as misbehaviors without any further analysis by most of the
malicious behavior detection mechanisms. In this paper, propose the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable trusted
framework, in which various contextual information, such as battery status weather condition and communication channel
status, are used to identify whether the misbehavior is a result of malicious activity or not.
Keywords— Context Information, Misbehavior detection, Mobile Ad-hoc Network, Policy, Security, Trust.
——————————  —————————
1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION
A Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET), since can be intended
through its label, is commonly composed of the energetic group
of cooperative nodes that will are willing to pass on packets
pertaining to other nodes a result of the deficiency of any kind of
pre-deployed community commercial infrastructure. The nature
from the cell phone nodes in MANET can make these people
particularly at risk of many different security hazards simply
because they commonly personal reduced computational learning
resource together with brief radio range a result of the constrained
battery power these people bring, and they might be transferring
continually. For that reason, security is amongst the most critical
troubles pertaining to MANET[1, 2]. Node misbehavior can be a
really class of security menace pertaining to Mobile Ad Hoc
networks (MANETs). Moreover, node misbehaviors may well
cover anything from deficiency of assistance to help active
episodes looking from Denial-of- Assistance (DoS) and
subversion associated with site visitors. One example is, with the
constrained means (such since battery power and bandwidth, etc)
that each node can possibly have, the egoistic node may well
choose not to ever cooperate having other nodes to be able to
sustain a unique means [3]. Put simply, every time a egoistic node
can be inquired to help forward a few files packets pertaining to
other nodes, it might decline a part or all of the incoming packets.
By it suggests, it might protect this battery power and monitor a
few additional packets for the health of alone. Conversely, a few
malicious nodes try to affect this network services, and they may
intentionally misroute, drop or modify packets while it is not a
priority for them to save battery lives [4,5].
Nonetheless, several of these misbehaviors also can arise as a
result of environment in addition to freedom related reasons, not
simply malicious motive. It really is simple of which malicious
actions are usually considerably more hazardous as opposed to
flawed actions, due to the fact the aim of your malicious enemies
would be to disturb your circle operations by means of
performing your misbehaviors, although flawed nodes tend not to
seek to blatantly break up your circle in addition to his or her
results usually are self limiting [6, 7]. Therefore, it is vital for you
to effectively identify malicious enemies through flawed nodes.
Allow us to get your site visitors keeping track of system as one
example, which is represented within Determine 1. Existing
generation keeping track of systems use soil receptors in addition
to surveillance cameras. Nonetheless, using increasing computing
in addition to transmission functions set within motor vehicles,
his or her on-ship receptors themselves can be used to keep track
of traffic [8].

93
Coming from Fig 1(a), all of us find that a motor vehicle observes
a car accident forward, and it also account this type of instance on
the system. Thus, the visitors security demonstrated with Fig 1(a)
is valid. In contrast, Fig 1(b) exhibits two contradictory visitors
frightens. Provided there's not any crash in this particular
scenario, the auto of which reports this type of instance on the
system is usually misbehaving. Nonetheless, we should instead
even more take a look at the wording to decide in the event this
specific car or truck is usually defective or detrimental. For
instance, when the car or truck is usually travelling as well
quickly or there exists a blizzard, then a sensor for the
misbehaving car or truck might failure and mail a bad crash notify
with no detrimental intent [9, 10].
Via Fig. 2, most of us make sure within the initial step (a), the
observer gathers as well as information the misbehaviors which
can be carried out by means of node 1, a couple of, as well as 3.
Your remark benefits illustrate that will node 1, a couple of, as
well as 3 get altered packets, distributed completely wrong ideas
regarding others (for illustration, purposefully accuse different
nodes associated with giving up packets even if they've definitely
not completed so) as well as delivered constant Request-To-Send
(RTS) frames at the exact same level of 10, respectively. Guess
that these three kinds of misbehaviors are reprimanded with the
exact same price when the trustworthiness of every single node is
usually examined. And then, within the next move (b), the
observer may perhaps bring some sort of finish that all these three
nodes are just as trust-worthy. Therefore, the observer may take
care of node a couple of as well as node 3 just as while it requires
to find out which node to be able to forwards packets and also
which node it will think while trading opinions[11]. Even so, it is
apparent the trustworthiness of node a couple of as well as node 3
isn't equal on the subject of both equally bundle forwarding as
well as judgment trading.
2 RELATED WORKS
In recent years, there has been a rich literature on the topics of
misbehavior detection as well as trust management for ad hoc
networks. Hence, the similar work for these two research topics
will be discussed separately in this section.
i) Misbehavior Detection for Ad hoc Networks
The phrase misbehavior typically identifies a group of abnormal
conduct in which deviates from the pair of conduct that many
node is supposed to be able to carry out inside MANETs [12, 13].
Normally, misbehaviors can happen from each and every coating
inside MANETs, like (1) malicious flooding of the RTS frames in
the MAC layer, (2) drop, modification, and misroute to the
packets in the network layer, and (3) deliberate propagation of
fake opinions regarding the behaviors of other nodes in the
application layer.
ii) Trust Management for MANETs
The principle aim associated with trust operations is usually to
evaluate conduct associated with additional nodes and
consequently build a name for every node good actions
evaluation. Generally, a trust operations program relies on two
kinds of findings to guage your node behaviors [14]. The 1st form
of remark is known as because direct remark, or maybe in other
words, first-hand remark. First-hand remark will be the remark
that is certainly right of a node by itself. One other form of
remark is termed roundabout remark or maybe second-hand
remark. Second-hand remark is often obtained simply by trading
first-hand findings with additional nodes in the network [15]. The
principle drawbacks associated with roundabout findings are
usually relevant to overhead, false.
iii) Policies for Security in Distributed Systems
According to Sloman, insurance policies outline some sort of
marriage among things and tar-gets. Policy-based safety measures
is normally used in systems in which versatility is essential
because users, solutions and entry privileges modify frequently,
for instance cellular ad-hoc communities along with large-scale
sent out systems. Inside these types of sent out systems, it is
essential in order that all the heterogeneous agencies conduct
themselves appropriately [16,17]. Consequently, coverage
dependent safety measures medicine most beneficial procedure
with regard to sent out systems; it truly is possible to be able to
establish exactly how various agencies work without having
adjusting their central mechanisms. Several coverage 'languages'
happen to be studied before few years, for instance Extensible
Admittance Manage Markup Dialect (XACML) and also the Rei
coverage dialect. XACML is a dialect in XML with regard to
expressing entry insurance policies. This allows handle in excess
of behavior and facilitates image resolution involving conflicts
[18].
3 CIRCUMSTANCE KNOWLEDGEABLE
TRUSTED FRAMEWORK
In the policy and trust driven framework, there are four major
functional units, namely Data Collection, Policy Management,
Misbehavior Detection, and Trust Management. Figure 3
illustrates the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable trusted
framework. The Data Collection unit is mainly responsible for
accumulating contextual information and also node behavior
information, and then sending often Policy Management unit, the
Malicious Node Detection unit, or the Trust Management unit.

94
The trustworthiness of each node is assessed by the Trust
Management unit, in which both direct observations (made by a
node itself) and indirect observations (obtained from another
node) are both taken into account to evaluate how trustworthy a
node is.
i) Data Collection
In the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted
framework, two types of data are sensed and collected: node
behaviors and contextual information. The node behaviors are
used by both the Malicious Node Detection and the Trust
Management units to identify misbehaving nodes and evaluate
nodes’ trustworthiness.
The contextual information is used by the Policy Management
unit to specify and enforce policies that can then be used to
capture the truly malicious nodes among those misbehaving
nodes. With the gradually wider deployment of various sensors in
our daily lives, it is easier to better understand the context that
surrounds us. For instance, the deployment of vehicle onboard
sensors makes it even more convenient to collect the contextual
information from additional sources.
ii) Policy Management
In the Policy Management unit, all the contextual information
will be used in policies. For example, as is shown in Figure 1(b),
if a vehicle is found to report inconsistent traffic information, and
then the contextual information is used in this case to determine
whether these inconsistent traffic alerts are possibly caused by
environmental factors or not.
The system can have multiple policies to consider the effects of
various environmental factors. For instance, policies can be
declared as (i) If surrounding temperature is beyond range 0F-
120F then there is a possibility of faulty behavior, (ii) If the
motion speed is more than 20 M/S then there is a possibility of
faulty behavior, (iii) If the current weather conditions are either of
heavy raining, snowing or foggy then there is a possibility of
faulty behavior and (iv) If the altitude is higher than 2000 feet,
weather conditions are snowing and temperature is below then
there is a possibility of faulty behavior.
iii) Misbehaving Node Detection
The goal of the Malicious Node Detection unit is to properly
identify the malicious nodes in MANETs by using the distributed
misbehavior detection mechanism as well as the policies that have
integrated the contextual information. In this unit, we use the
gossip-based outlier detection algorithm to identify the
misbehaving nodes.
Outliers are generally defined as data points that are very
different from the rest of the data with respect to some measure.
The basic observation is that misbehaving nodes generally behave
abnormally from those normal nodes. Thus, we can detect those
misbehaving nodes by means of outlier detection.
The gossip-based outlier detection algorithm contains the
following four methods,
1) local view formation :
Mobile nodes monitor and record the possible abnormal
behaviors of other nodes within their radio range. Each node
generates its local view of outliers based on their own
observations.
2) local view exchange :
Once all the nodes form their local views, they will broadcast the
local views to all of their immediate neighbors, i.e., all the nodes
that are one hop away from them.
3) local view update :
Upon reception of a local view from another node, the recipient
will update its local view based on the received view. Dempster-
Shafer Theory used to combine the local view and the received
external view.
4) global view formation :
When all the nodes hold the same view of outliers, the algorithm
halts, and the view that all the nodes hold is regarded as the
global view of outliers.
Note that in contrast to the regular gossiping algorithm, the more
your nodes that agree to the same view associated with outliers,
your fewer how many fresh communications which are sent.
Ultimately, whenever every one of the nodes hold the identical
view associated with outliers, your algorithm halts, as well as the

95
view that each your nodes maintain is undoubtedly your
worldwide view associated with outliers. The pseudo-code from
the gossip-based outlier algorithm is actually presented
throughout Protocol a couple of and utilizes the same notation
because defined previously. Additionally, GV means the ultimate
worldwide view.
i) Trust Management
In the Trust Management unit, the trustworthiness of a node Nk is
assessed in three scales. The three dimensions are
1) Collaboration Trust (CT) – for identify the node
which are refuse to cooperate in route discovering and packet
forwarding
2) Behavioral Trust (BT) – for calculating node trust
based on the packet modification
3) Reference Trust (RT) – for identify the propagation of
fake opinion regarding the behavior of other
CT depends on the way collaborative any node Nk would be
when it is requested in order to participate in several community
routines for example course breakthrough in addition to package
forwarding. BT comes simply by how much unnatural conduct
that will Nk features performed, such as package customization,
package misroute as well as RTS surging episode. RT is usually
computed in line with the correctness with the declaration final
results that will Nk propagates. For instance, in the event that Nk
has become observed regularly delivering fake observations in
order to the friends, next RT must be given a very reduced
importance. Like this, some other nodes can certainly correctly
think of or maybe disregard the observations which is available
from Nk because RT is used because the bodyweight regarding
Nk any time those observations usually are included on the
regional vistas of these nodes by themselves.
4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND
ANALYSIS
In this section, we examine the performance of the Adaptive
Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted Framework, and its
performance is compared to that of the baseline mechanism. The
baseline mechanism that chooses here is the mTrust scheme
discussed in our prior work [19], and our prior work has shown
that SAT framework outperforms other well known mechanisms
[19].
4.1 Performance Evaluation
We use NS2[20] as the simulation platform, and table II lists the
parameters used in the simulation scenarios. We use two
parameters to evaluate the efficiency of the Adaptive
Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted Framework: Precision,
Recall
P =
Num of Truly Malicious Device Caught
TotalNum of Untrustworthy Devices Caught
𝑅 =
Num of TrulyMalicious Device Caught
TotalNum of TrulyMalicious Device

96
The simulation results are revealed within Fig 4 and Fig 5. Most
of us locate from Fig 4 and Fig 5 the Adaptive Circumstance
Knowledgeable Trusted framework commonly out performs the
SAT scheme in terms of both precision and recall. Far more
particularly, in according to Fig 4(a) and Fig 5(a) both equally
generate a higher precision and recall value when the node
density is higher. This is true because it is more likely to receive
correct messages from others when there are a higher number of
well-behaved mobile nodes.
Figure 4(c) and Figure 5(c) tell us that both the precision and
recall values decrease when there are a higher percentage of
misbehaving nodes, that is quite obvious, and the Adaptive
Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted framework can still yield
high precision and recall values even when there are a lot of
misbehaving nodes in MANET. We all determine from Fig 4(b)
and Fig 5(b) that the precision and recall beliefs with regard to
each are going to be degraded once the radio selection is actually
lowered. This can be correct because using a smaller sized radio
range, it is more difficult for each and every node to get info from
different nodes. Fig 4(d) and Fig 5(d) display that when these
mobile nodes are generally moving at the higher speed, it will be
more difficult pertaining to each to discover the actual
adversaries.
5 CONCLUSION
In this paper, a Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted
framework is researched with regard to Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
in order to identify the absolutely malicious nodes from the faulty
nodes, the two that may perhaps present misbehaviors. Through
the use of different contextual info, for example channel
reputation, node motion speed, the weather, as well as
transmission signal durability, a new node may figure out your
circumstances beneath that the misbehaviors come about.
Subsequently, node is able to say to no matter if a new node is
compelled to do something to be a misbehaving node or even not
necessarily, as well as expose your absolutely malicious attackers.

97
Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted framework is
highly strong in order to malicious attackers, and it also may
accurately discover your malicious nodes from the faulty types
with a limited communication overhead.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Carvalho, ―Security in mobile ad hoc networks,‖ IEEE
Security Privacy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 72–75, Mar. 2008.
[2] A Nosratinia, TE Hunter, A Hedayat, Cooperative
communication in wireless networks. IEEE Commun.
Mag 42(10), 74–80 (2004). .
[3] K. Ren, W. Lou, K. Kim, and Y. Fang, ―A novel privacy
preservingauthentication and access control scheme for
pervasive computing environment,‖IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1373-1384, July2006.
[4] M Sepulcre, J Gozalvez, J Harri, H Hartenstein, Contextual
communications congestion control for cooperative vehicular
networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun 10, 385–389 (2011)
[5] Y. Hu, A. Perrig, and D. Johnson, ―Packet Leashes: A Defense
against Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Networks,‖IEEE
INFOCOM, 2002.
[6] W. Li, J. Parker, and A. Joshi, ―Security through
collaboration and trust in manets,‖ ACM/Springer Mobile
Networks and Applications (MONET), vol. 3 num. 3, pp. 342–
352, July 2012.
[7] C Zouridaki, BL Mark, M Hejmo, A quantitative trust
establishment framework for reliable data packet delivery in
MANETs. Proceedings of the Third ACM Workshop on
Security of Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks (SASN), Alexandria,
7–10 November 2005 (ACM, New York, 2005), pp. 1–10
[8] T Heer, S Gotz, OG Morchon, K Wehrle, ALPHA: an adaptive
and lightweight protocol for hop-by-hop
authentication. Proceedings of the ACM CoNEXT’08 (Madrid:
ACM, 2008)
[9] T. Sim, S. Zhang, R. Janakriaman, and S. Kumar, ―Continuous
verification using multimodal biometrics,‖ IEEE Trans. Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intell., vol. 29, pp. 687–700, Apr. 2007.
[10] C. Zouridaki, B. L. Mark, M. Hejmo, and R. K. Thomas,
―Robust cooperative trust establishment for manets,‖ in SASN
’06: Proceedings of the fourth ACM workshop on Security of ad
hoc and sensor networks. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2006,
pp. 23–34.
[11] R. Lippmann, D. Fried, I. Graf, J. Haines, K. Kendall, D.
McClung, D. Weber, S. Webster, D. Wyschogrod, R.
Cunninghan, and M. Zissman. Evaluating intrusion detection
systems: The 1998 darpa o®-line intrusion detection evaluation.
In Proceedings of the 2000 DARPA Information Survivability
Conference andExposition, January 2000.
[12] C. Krugel and T. Toth, ―Flexible, Mobile Agent BasedIntrusion
Detection for Dynamic Networks,‖ Euro. Wireless,Italy, Feb.
2002.
[13] R. Ellison, R. Linger, H. Lipson, N. Mead, and A. Moore,
―Foundations forsurvivable systems engineering,‖ The Journal
of Defense Software Engineering,pp. 10–15, July 2002.
[14] X. Jiang, and D Xu. "Collapsar: A VM-based architecture for
network attack detention center." Proceedings of the 13th
USENIX Security Symposium. 2004. 15--28.
[15] T. Alpcan, T. Basar, and S. Dey, ―A power controlgame based
on outage probabilities for multicell wire-less data networks,‖ in
Proceedings of the AmericanControl Conference, vol. 2, pp.
1661–1666, Piscat-away, NJ, USA, July 2004.
[16] Yu, Ji, and Liu, ―Securing cooperative ad hoc networks under
noise and imperfect monitoring: Strategies and game theoretic
analysis,‖ IEEE Trans. IFS, vol. 2, Jun. 2007.
[17] Q. Ling and Z. Tian. Minimum node degree and k-connectivity
of a wireless multihop network in bounded area. In
GLOBECOM ’07: Global Telecommunications Conference,
pages 1296–1301.
[18] N. Mistry, D. C. Jinwala, and M Z averi, ―Improving AODV
protocol against black hole attacks, " Proceeding of International
Muiti Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists vol. II,
IMECS 2010, pp. 1034-1039, Hong Kong, March 17-19, 2010.
[19] W. Li, A. Joshi, and T. Finin, ―Coping with node misbehaviors
in ad hoc networks: A multi-dimensional trust management
approach,‖ in Proceedings of the Eleventeenth International
Conference on Mobile Data Management, 2010. MDM ’10.
IEEE Computer Society, May 2010.
[20] Nicola Baldo, Federico Maguolo, Marco Miozzo, Michele Rossi
and Michele Zorzi,―ns2-MIRACLE: a Modular Framework for
Multi-Technology and Cross-Layer Support in Network
Simulator 2,‖ in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference
on Performance evaluation methodologies and tools.
Author Profile:
 Miss.A.Vidhya is currently pursuing masters degree program in
computer science and engineering in Kalasalingam Institute of
Technology, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail:
Vidhya.aathithan7@gmail.com
 Mrs.S.Jeevitha is currently working as assistant professor in computer
science and engineering department in Kalasalingam Institute of
Technology, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail:
jeevitha.ramkumar@gmail.com

Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted System for Security Enhancement in Mobile Ad Hoc Network

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted System for Security Enhancement in Mobile Ad Hoc Network (20)

More from IJTET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted System for Security Enhancement in Mobile Ad Hoc Network