Advanced Privacy Scheme to Improve Road Safety in Smart Transportation Systems

International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.16, No.2, March 2024
DOI: 10.5121/ijcnc.2024.16205 71
ADVANCED PRIVACY SCHEME TO IMPROVE ROAD
SAFETY IN SMART TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Ali Muayed Fadhil1,4
, Norashidah Md Din2
, Norazizah Binti Mohd Aripin3
And
Ali Ahmed Abed4
1
College of Graduate Studies, University Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM- UNITEN, 43000
Kajang, Malaysia
2
Instituteof Energy Infrastructure, University Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN 43000
Kajang, Malaysia
3
Institute of Power Engineering, University Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM- UNITEN 43000
Kajang, Malaysia
4
Department of Computer Engineering, University of Basrah, Iraq
ABSTRACT
In -Vehicle Ad-Hoc Network (VANET), vehicles continuously transmit and receive spatiotemporal data
with neighboring vehicles, thereby establishing a comprehensive 360-degree traffic awareness system.
Vehicular Network safety applications facilitate the transmission of messages between vehicles that are
near each other, at regular intervals, enhancing drivers' contextual understanding of the driving
environment and significantly improving traffic safety. Privacy schemes in VANETs are vital to safeguard
vehicles’ identities and their associated owners or drivers. Privacy schemes prevent unauthorized parties
from linking the vehicle's communications to a specific real-world identity by employing techniques such as
pseudonyms, randomization, or cryptographic protocols. Nevertheless, these communications frequently
contain important vehicle information that malevolent groups could use to Monitor the vehicle over a long
period. The acquisition of this shared data has the potential to facilitate the reconstruction of vehicle
trajectories, thereby posing a potential risk to the privacy of the driver. Addressing the critical challenge of
developing effective and scalable privacy-preserving protocols for communication in vehicle networks is of
the highest priority. These protocols aim to reduce the transmission of confidential data while ensuring the
required level of communication. This paper aims to propose an Advanced Privacy Vehicle Scheme (APV)
that periodically changes pseudonyms to protect vehicle identities and improve privacy. The APV scheme
utilizes a concept called the silent period, which involves changing the pseudonym of a vehicle periodically
based on the tracking of neighboring vehicles. The pseudonym is a temporary identifier that vehicles use to
communicate with each other in a VANET. By changing the pseudonym regularly, the APV scheme makes
it difficult for unauthorized entities to link a vehicle's communications to its real-world identity. The
proposed APV is compared to the SLOW, RSP, CAPS, and CPN techniques. The data indicates that the
efficiency of APV is a better improvement in privacy metrics. It is evident that the AVP offers enhanced
safety for vehicles during transportation in the smart city.
KEYWORDS
VANET, Privacy Protection, Smart Transportation System, Adversary, Pseudonym Change, Urban Area.
1. INTRODUCTION
Vehicle Ad-Hoc Networks (VANETs) represent an evolving technological advancement that
facilitates inter-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure communication, thereby augmenting road
safety, traffic efficacy, and driver support [1]. Vehicles must establish secure and confidential
communication channels to deliver the intended services effectively. This ensures the integrity of

72
the system and safeguards the privacy of the driver. Privacy schemes can provide anonymity to
vehicles in a VANET, making it difficult for unauthorized entities to track individual vehicles'
movements and identify their owners or drivers. By concealing the identity of the cars, privacy
schemes protect users' privacy [2]. VANETs are designed to gather and exchange confidential
data about their passengers, encompassing geographical coordinates, velocity, and driving
patterns. Ensuring the protection of this information is paramount to protect the privacy of
individuals and mitigate the risk of unauthorized tracking or profiling. Security breaches have
the potential to result in the dissemination of fabricated information or the manipulation of
communication channels between vehicles by malicious entities, thereby presenting a significant
peril to the public's safety [3].
In addition to protecting identity and location information, privacy schemes can ensure the
confidentiality of the data transmitted over the VANET. Using encryption and secure
communication protocols, sensitive information can be encrypted and decrypted only by
authorized recipients, reducing the risk of unauthorized eavesdropping [4]. VANETs depend on
wireless communication among vehicles, thereby establishing a dynamic and self-organizing
network. Nevertheless, protecting privacy was established as a crucial concern considering the
growing implementation of VANET. Different privacy schemes have different strengths and
limitations, and their effectiveness can depend on factors such as the network architecture, threat
model, and cryptographic mechanisms employed [5].
There are several potential privacy attacks in VANET, such as [6][7]:
(i) Eavesdropping: The process of gathering information from various sources to obtain
valuable insights for analysis and subsequent utilization, potentially serving as a precursor
to subsequent attacks.
(ii)Denial of Service (DoS): is widely recognized as a highly potent attack aiming to
compromise the availability requirement. The execution of this attack can manifest in
various forms, such as channel jamming and resource consumption attacks.
(iii) Virus or Malware Attack: is a type of cybersecurity threat that involves malicious
software (malware) infecting a computer system, network, or device to cause harm, steal
sensitive information, or disrupt normal operations.
(iv) Man in the Middle (MITM) Attack: in this method the interception of communication by
an attacker results in unauthorized entry to the information sent between two parties. This
can happen in unsecured public Wi-Fi networks or compromised network infrastructure.
Privacy schemes can protect against traffic analysis attacks, where an adversary attempts to infer
sensitive information by analyzing traffic patterns. By employing techniques such as dummy
traffic generation or mix-zone protocols, privacy schemes can obscure traffic patterns and make it
difficult for attackers to extract meaningful information [8]. Scientists have put forward different
strategies to enhance the level of confidentiality for drivers. The absence of message
broadcasting for a particular duration heightens the probability of accidents [9].
It's important to note that while privacy schemes bring significant improvements, they may also
introduce some trade-offs. These include increased communication overhead, the potential
impact on routing efficiency, and the need for key management and trust mechanisms [10].
However, carefully designing and implementing privacy schemes can minimize these drawbacks
while reaping enhanced privacy benefits in VANETs [11]. One potential avenue for improving
road safety is through direct communication capabilities within vehicles, which enables them to

73
broadcast information to other entities known as Beacon Messages (BMs) by the vehicle, which
can be received by any entity within its communication distance. To enhance awareness among
vehicles, it is imperative to implement advanced safety features such as collaborative collision
warnings and lane change alerts [12].
The efficacy of VANET safety implementations heavily relies on the continuous availability of
location information. Therefore, the occurrence of silent periods can potentially harm their
effectiveness, potentially leading to unavoidable accidents. Thus, a scientific difficulty arises
regarding the delicate equilibrium between privacy and safety, as implementing a brief period of
silence would augment safety measures while concurrently enhancing the level of privacy;
conversely, arranging privacy would compromise safety [13]. Privacy schemes for VANETs are
commonly assessed using various assumptions and mobility models concerning diverse privacy
metrics. The vehicle interacts to track neighboring vehicles within a defined range in anticipation
of an impending accident. Subsequently, it initiates a period of silence and modifies the
pseudonym change by transmitting its location information to neighbouring vehicles [14].
The primary contributions of this article summarized as:
• Propose an Advanced Privacy Vehicle Scheme (APV) that improves the effectiveness of
VANET safety applications in addition to maintaining privacy. We assess and contrast
multiple privacy schemes by utilizing a standardized privacy metric.
• The implementation of the (APV) algorithms involves employing the principle of a silent
time frame, wherein the pseudonym of a vehicle is changed periodically by the tracking of
neighboring vehicles. To reduce sensitive data exchange while maintaining communication
in the smart transportation systems.
• The objective of this study is to assess and contrast the degree of privacy and network
efficiency of the APV with other privacy schemes, namely RSP, CPN, SLOW, and CAPS.
This paper is segmented into 5 sections. Section 2 presents related works to recent techniques on
privacy and security in VANET. Section 3 is the system model, and section 4 the proposed
scheme. Section 5 is the simulation performance, and Section 6 serves as the conclusion part and
discusses potential future projects.
2. RELATED WORK FORMAT
Problems with location privacy are regarded as a critical factor in the successful implementation
of a vehicle network. Several privacy structures have been proposed to optimize the driver's
privacy measures while minimizing the associated security costs. In [15], the periodical
pseudonym change alters their pseudonyms at predetermined intervals or arbitrarily. This
analysis aims to assess the impact of various parameters on the efficacy of (PPC) scheme,
specifically by quantifying the magnitude of the anonymity set. This evaluation will be conducted
under two distinct pseudonym lifetime distributions: uniform and reciprocal. In [16], the Random
Silent Period (RSP) keeps quiet for a period that is consistently determined at random within a
predetermined range and permits the temporary change of a vehicle's pseudonym. It has been
assessed that the quiet period should encompass both constant and variable periods. Considering
the outcomes of the simulation, it appears that implementing the silent period proposal leads to a
notable reduction in the duration of continuous tracking for a given node.
Andreas et al. [17] introduced a Coordinated Silent Period (CSP), which involves coordinating
all vehicles within the network to maintain a state of silence and synchronously alter their
pseudonyms. The CPS scheme offers the most optimal level of protection within the framework
of these concepts. The work in [18] suggests the SLOW scheme, which considers safety protocol;

74
in the SLOW scheme, vehicles should only operate silently when their velocity is below a
specified threshold, thereby reducing the likelihood of accidents.
In[19], a collaborative pseudonym alteration strategy is predicated on the number of adjacent
entities. The qualitative analysis of anonymity afforded by the CPN scheme is made between the
scheme under consideration and its counterpart scheme lacking cooperation. The CPN counts
neighbors using beacons and checks if they are inside the set area. Karim et al. [20] propose the
Context-aware Privacy Scheme (CAPS). Initiating a period of silence and strategically ending it
depending on contextual factors to make vehicles calculate the optimal timing for changing their
pseudonyms. To assess the efficacy of a collision alert safety application to ascertain its
suitability for implementation in safety applications.
The authors in [21] propose establishing mixed-use zones at strategically selected locations
within VANET. An adversary cannot see vehicle communications in a mix-zone. To make
vehicle movements unpredictable, it is usually installed at road crossings. [22] suggests a context-
based location privacy scheme (CLPS) to enable the vehicle to alter its aliases depending on the
context and the potential for linking. that challenges the suggested method. A cheating detection
technique detects misbehaving automobiles and evaluates the success of pseudonym changes.
Ferroudja et al. [23] propose building a location privacy solution that maintains road safety
application quality of service. The proposed privacy mechanism is called the Estimation of
Neighbours Position privacy technique (ENeP-AB), where pseudonym change depends on
neighbors’ placements. In [24], the Cooperative Pseudonym Exchange scheme protects users'
anonymity on VANETs. Providing a means for vehicles to swap their identities collaboratively
introduces a mechanism for vehicles to modify their pseudonym schemes, thereby introducing
confusion for potential adversaries and enhancing privacy. Ikjot et al. [25] One way to overcome
this challenge is to use pseudonyms instead of vehicle IDs. Numerous Pseudonym Management
Techniques PMTs can help, focusing on the impact of strategic deployment of intelligent
adversaries on the effectiveness of tracking operations. while employing various Pseudonym
Administration Techniques.
Work in[26] introduced Concerted Silence-Based Location Privacy (CSLPPS) that guarantees
message integrity and source location privacy while reducing communication overhead to meet
the security demands of the beaconing mechanism in (IoV) services that utilize location and
vehicle network safety applications. In [27] transmission Range Changes to introduce a Location
Privacy-Preserving Scheme to guarantee anonymous and untraceable engagement in location-
based services within the (IoV) and enhance the safety applications of vehicular networks. In [28]
offers an experimental location privacy-preserving approach that lets vehicles communicate
accurate real-time location data to the location-based services server without being tracked by
attackers.
In [29] The present study aims to propose a novel and comprehensive pseudonym-changing
system (PCS) that uses vehicle context and real-time traffic patterns to improve pseudonym-
changing efficiency. The simulation results show the suggested PCS exhibits superior
performance compared to existing approaches. in [30] introduces an effective pseudonym
consumption model that considers vehicles traveling similar estimated locations and directions.
BSM is exclusively distributed to the vehicles that are pertinent to its application. The proposed
scheme's efficacy, compared to the base schemes, is substantiated through comprehensive
simulations.
A significant challenge is the development of privacy-preserving protocols for communication in-
vehicle networks that are both efficient and scalable. While ensuring an adequate level of

75
communication, these protocols should restrict the transmission of sensitive information to a
minimum. From the related work, there are research gaps in parameters for system improvement
like pseudonym number when leading to high overhead in the network and the traceability must
be decreased to prevent the system from eavesdropping attacks.
3. THE PROPOSED ADVANCE VEHICLE PRIVACY SCHEME
Propose an Advanced Privacy Vehicle Scheme (APV) that effectively enhances the privacy and
safety aspects of Vehicle Ad-Hoc Networks safety applications. Using the silent period
characteristic, it is controlled with Pseudonym changes and neighbor numbers in the specified
area range with APV Scheme to enhance privacy and network connectivity. This method makes
our system perform best when compared with another privacy scheme when maintaining the
integrity of privacy protection metrics. The proposed algorithm and framework are described
below.
3.1. Description of APV Pseudo-Algorithm
Each automobile is defined as, , effectively safeguarding the driver's privacy during
communications with a collection of authorized pseudonym, which must be obtained through an
offline process in VANET. Every vehicle within the system is required to alter its pseudonym
every 30 seconds after the silent period according to the number of the neighbor’srange.
Table 1. APV Terms, and Explanations
Terms Explanation
Vehicle start drive
Pseudonym change interval when the condition is submitted.
Set silence duration randomly according to the criteria.
Speed of vehicle 40km/h
Number of Traces
Current Location of vehicle
Neighbour range 50 m.
The sent beacon message contains all info about the vehicle.
The range between the sending vehicle with
To receive a bacon message with info about the vehicle
The amount of time which vehicle waits to retransmit the new BM
Initialize the BM to be ready to send
Max silence duration when the silent period ends
Set initial pseudonym for the vehicle
Check if you are surrounded by neighbors.
The period of lifetime for the vehicle
Wait for silence duration in the scenario.
Broadcast pseudonyms change request
The tracking vehicle by eavesdropper
pseudonym change acknowledgment
Number of the neighbors
The max tracking period

76
3.2. Algorithm Advanced Privacy Vehicle Scheme (APV)
1. Initialize
2. Pseudonym change interval.
, max silence duration
3. Set initial pseudonym for the vehicle
4. Wait for pseudonym change interval .
5. Check if you are surrounded by 2 neighbors within 50 meters.
6. If surrounded, Generate a new pseudonym .
7. Broadcast pseudonyms change request
(Including new pseudonym) to other vehicles.
8. Set silence duration randomly between 2 to 9 seconds.
9. Wait for silence duration .
10. Broadcast silent period end to other vehicles.
11. Wait for pseudonym change acknowledgment messages .
from at most 2 neighbors or max silence duration.
12. If received pseudonym change acknowledgment
from at least 2 neighbors,
13. Update initial pseudonym.
During the advanced privacy vehicle scheme algorithm there different 7 instruction conditions
during the process of the algorithm related to pseudonym range(30s,60s,90s,120s) and silent
period, neighbor number, and beacon message generated so the complexity of the proposed
protocol as described below: O (7 * n) = O(n).
4. SYSTEM FRAMEWORK
Based on the specified criteria and attributes of VANET safety applications, The System Model
encompasses a network model and an attacker model, which collectively represent the essential
aspects of employing certificates within the context of the VANET system [31]. The system
includes adversary elements that intercept messages sent by vehicles and monitor their
movements. The adversary is employed to quantify privacy achieved, as measured by various
widely recognized metrics, including entropy, traceability, and statistics related to pseudonym
usage. Hence, it is common practice to integrate a distinct vehicular traffic simulator with a
network simulator to simulate vehicular traffic [32].
4.1. -Network Model
Vehicles: is supplied by an on-board unit capable of receiving and transmitting in the vehicular
networks. According to the safety application specifications, the onboard unit (OBU) is
responsible for transmitting Basic Safety Messages (BMs) that include the position, speed, and
direction of the vehicle at the present moment. These transmissions occur within a
communication radius of 300 meters, utilizing the Dedicated Short-Range Communications
(DSRC) technology. Car communication uses Public Key Infrastructure proofs for secure
transmission. Consequently, the act of altering the pseudonym employed necessitates the
acquisition and implementation of a fresh certificate [33].

77
Figure1. The Farmwork Diagram of APV.
Roadside Unit: The traffic signs are at designated locations across a road or highway. A
Roadside Unit (RSU) assumes the responsibility of message routing, expanding the scope of
communication, providing vehicle internet access on roadways, and acting as an intermediary
between automobiles and reliable entities. One of the most intriguing aspects pertains to the
communications between vehicles and infrastructure[34], referred to as vehicle-to-infrastructure
(V2I) communications, as described in the figure below.
System Authorities: The role of each authority varies depending on its type, encompassing tasks
such as pseudonym distribution, issuance, resolution, and revocation processes. The fulfillment of
the accountability requirement by system authorities is of utmost importance as it enables the
tracking and identification of users who engage in inappropriate behavior.
Figure2: The Network Model.
4.2. Adversary Attack Model
The Eavesdropper: The primary purpose of the eavesdropper's effectiveness is passively
monitoring the wireless medium and subsequently relaying the received beacon signals to
the vehicle tracker system. In this scenario, the adversary employs distributed
eavesdropping stations, strategically determining their required quantity based on an
examination of the applicable vehicles' typical transmission range. The Global Passive
Adversary is commonly used in order to determine the effectiveness, of the type of
adversary of their schemes[35].

78
Figure 3: The Adversary Model.
Vehicle Tracker: This module serves as the primary component responsible for gathering
beacons from various eavesdroppers and exporting their information while ensuring the
elimination of duplicate entries. Additionally, the system can execute the NNPDA tracking
algorithm, which enables the reconstruction of vehicle trajectories based on intercepted
beacons[36]. This functionality also facilitates the computation of diverse privacy metrics. The
adversary is strategically deploying eavesdropping stations in adherence to a standardized
protocol, with each station having a transmission range of 300 meters for vehicles [37]. as
described in figure 3.
5. SIMULATION PARAMETER & PERFORMANCE MATRICES
5.1. Performance Metrics
The initial classification of metrics is predicated upon the fundamental notion of privacy, which
shall be delineated as follows:
Traceability: The location privacy parameter measures vehicle trace reconstruction accuracy for
a duration exceeding 90% of the original atoms using the beacons generated and obtained by an
adversary. This metric falls under the category of location privacy metrics. The traceability metric
TRC is explained below[38].
TRC % =
Where (1)
Maximum Anonymity Per Trace: is influenced by an ambiguity between a vehicle and others
present in its surrounding area. The target vehicle's location cannot be identified among the other
vehicles[38].
Maximum Entropy Per Trace: The assumption that all vehicles are equally like the tracked
vehicle is incorrect, as certain vehicles are far more likely to exhibit similarities. Entropy can be
characterized by random variable uncertainty. The calculation of entropy is dependent on the
adversary-assigned probability distribution when a pseudonym change occurs [38]

79
Total Pseudonym Changes: It denotes the cumulative number of pseudonym alterations carried
out by all accessible vehicles throughout the simulation. The degree of elevation positively
correlates considering the degree of regional secrecy. When this is high, it will be best for the
privacy scheme but may increase overhead for the system.
Total Sent Beacon Number: The metric denotes an overall count of a series of accessible
vehicles' beacon messages sent out during the simulation. As the elevation increases, there is an
improvement in safety measures; however, this is accompanied by a decline in network
communications, increased overhead, and heightened packet congestion.
Confusions Per Pseudonym Change: Frequent alteration of pseudonyms will escalate security
costs to heighten the level of confusion experienced while altering pseudonyms; it is imperative
to implement specific strategies.
5.2. Simulation Setup
The number of simulation iterations was carried out for two distinct case studies: a Basrah
scenario. It is necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation to assess the APV aspect and
examine how it affects privacy in location and the efficiency of the network. The Open Street
Map (OSM) contributors' database was utilized to extract a specific section of the map of Basra,
Iraq, with dimension (2.8km * 2.7km) as shown in the figure below and establishing the
simulation parameters, an examination of the behavior exhibited by each scheme can be
conducted, facilitating a comparative analysis between them. The map obtained from (OSM) was
converted into a network of roads. compatible with the SUMO mobility simulator[39]. This file
was then utilized in the OMNET++ network [40] environment to facilitate simulation. employed
an additional extension known as PREXT[41], a privacy extension developed using the Veins
framework[42]. The PREXT system incorporates a collection of techniques aimed at preserving
privacy. We conduct a comparative analysis of the APV scheme about several other schemes that
employ distinct techniques.
To evaluate the degree of privacy achieved it is essential to establish a comprehensive framework
comprising a range of metrics that can evaluate privacy. These metrics include the Anonymity Set
Size and Entropy, Traceability, and confusion per pseudonym change. Demonstrate the attained
level of location privacy metrics of the APV with related Privacy schemes.
Table2. Simulation Parameters and Values.
MODEL PARAMETERS VALUE
Mobility Vehicle No.
Mobility model
Simulation time
Urban map
Vehicle speed
50,100,150,200,300
Random trip
300 sec
2700* 2800 m.
40 km/h
Improvement Privacy metrics Traceability
Max Anonymity per Trace
Max Entropy per Trace
Pseudonym Changes.
Sent Beacons.
Confusions Per Pseudonym Change
Tracker Eavesdropper range
Eavesdropper overlap
300 m
50 m

80
Figure 5, The Map Area Used in The Simulation.
Table 3, Privacy Scheme Metrics.
APV Pseudonym lifetime (30s,120s)
Silent period (2s-9s)
Neighbors Range =50m.
CPN Neighbors Range=100m.
Neighbors’ threshold=2.
RSP Pseudonym lifetime (60s)
Silent period(3s-13s)
SLOW Speed metrics 8/s
Silent period 5s
CAPS Pseudonym lifetime (60s,180s)
Silent period (3s-13s)
Missed beacons silent threshold 2 beacons.
5.3. Results & Discussion
The APV scheme's performance in traceability in the Figure (6) metric exhibited a significant
advantage over SLOW, RSP, CAPS, and CPN, with a notable margin of approximately 12% to
25%. As the traceability is low, it is improving the system's privacy performance. The level of
traceability is slightly increased as the vehicle count rises. The decline in privacy levels can be
attributed to the increased vehicular density, which facilitates the attacker's ability to intercept
messages from legitimate vehicles.

81
Figure6: The Resulting Traceability Between My Scheme APV with SLOW, RSP, CPN, CAPS.
Figure 7 shows that our scheme gets the best result compared to other scenarios in different
vehicle densities. As the vehicle density increases, there is an observed enhancement in the level
of privacy achieved. A higher vehicle density corresponds to a better privacy level. The APV
scheme gets the same result in the small destined, about 50 and 100 vehicles. After that, it gets
the best result when increasing the vehicle densities according to the criteria of our scheme Based
on the rate of pseudonym alterations and the range of the vehicle during the silent period.
Figure7. Maximum Anonymity Per Trace Between All Schemes.
Figure 8. Maximum Entropy Per Trace Between All Schemes.

82
In Figure 8, the APV scheme in the Maximum entropy per trace gets enhancing results when
compared with other privacy schemes in all scenarios except the small scenario according to a
limited number of vehicles made in a small urban city. The APV scheme demonstrated a more
pronounced level of superior performance of about 0.3 at 300 vehicles.
Figure9. Confusions Per Trace Between All Schemes.
Every scheme has its unique approach to managing pseudonym changes and expiration policies.
As in Figure 9, APV is positioned at the forefront of pseudonym consumption for increased
usage. In the remainder of this scheme, which utilized a significant quantity of pseudonyms,
when the number of confusions increased, increasing overhead in the system will decrease the
attacker for the system.
Figure10. The total of pseudonyms changes according to vehicles levels.
In Figure 10, The frequency of pseudonym changes in schemes, wherein a vehicle could
autonomously determine, based on its state or the states of neighboring vehicles, whether it can
go silent and change pseudonyms, Increases the total number of vehicles in the network
Pseudonym changes hurt network efficiency and lead to an increase in packet loss. Systems
should strive for a harmonious equilibrium between safeguarding privacy and network
performance. The AVP has good Network performance compared to other projects.

83
Figure11. The number of sent packets according to different numbers of vehicles between all schemes.
The data presented in Figure 11 illustrates the quantity of transmitted packets about the
fluctuation of vehicle densities. The Number of Sent Packets With the rise in vehicular densities
across all schemes, The APV scheme takes the diminished number of sent packets. In contrast,
the CPN scheme exhibits the highest number of transmitted beacons, primarily attributed to its
non-utilization of silent periods. For safety operations, the number of produced beacons is
critical. and is affected by the privacy scheme.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Implementing safety applications in VANETs facilitates the exchange of messages between
vehicles in proximity at regular intervals. This information exchange enhances drivers' contextual
comprehension of the driving environment, thereby significantly enhancing overall traffic safety.
Privacy mechanisms in VANETs serve the purpose of protecting the identities of vehicles as well
as their respective owners or drivers. This study aims to present an Advanced Privacy Vehicle
Scheme (APV) that effectively improves the privacy and safety features of Vehicle Networks
safety applications. When the APV scheme undergoes comparison to other projects in the urban
scheme. Our scheme provides the best performance privacy metrics against the scheme in a
simulation program with different numbers of vehicles according to varying factors in the
framework the range of silent period and pseudonym change and several neighbors. The
comprehensive findings suggest that the mentioned approach can be beneficially employed. It is
evident that the AVP offers enhanced safety for vehicles during transportation in the smart city
because decreases traceability for the vehicle from eavesdropping attacks and improves all the
related parameters that improve the privacy of vehicles on the road.
FUTURE SCOPE & LIMITATIONS
The future scope may be using authentication in privacy scheme scenarios with different criteria
and integration of privacy schemes with Modern technologies including artificial intelligence, fog
computing, and data dissemination systems. The limitation of the privacy scheme is used in urban
areas not in highway scenarios.

84
REFERENCES
[1] W. Afifi, H. A. Hefny, and N. R. Darwish, “A Cooperative Localization Method based on V2I
Communication and Distance Information in Vehicular Networks,” International Journal of Computer
Networks and Communications, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 53–70, 2021, doi: 10.5121/ijcnc.2021.13604.
[2] A. Waheed et al., “A Comprehensive Review of Computing Paradigms, Enabling Computation
Offloading and Task Execution in Vehicular Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 3580–3600, 2022,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3138219.
[3] M. J. N. Mahi et al., “A Review on VANET Research: Perspective of Recent Emerging
Technologies,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 65760–65783, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3183605.
[4] M. Kabbur, R. Anand, and V. Arul Kumar, “Mar security: Improved security mechanism for
emergency messages of vanet using group key management &cryptography schemes (GKMC),”
International Journal of Computer Networks and Communications, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 101–121, 2021,
doi: 10.5121/ijcnc.2021.13407.
[5] A. K. Malhi, S. Batra, and H. S. Pannu, “Security of vehicular ad-hoc networks: A comprehensive
survey,” Computers and Security, vol. 89, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2019.101664.
[6] M. L. Bouchouia et al., “A survey on misbehavior detection for connected and autonomous vehicles,”
Vehicular Communications, vol. 41, p. 100586, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.vehcom.2023.100586.
[7] R. Abassi, “VANET security and forensics: Challenges and opportunities,” WIREs Forensic Science,
vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–13, 2019, doi: 10.1002/wfs2.1324.
[8] N. Tabassum and C. R. K. Reddyy, “Review on QoS and security challenges associated with the
internet of vehicles in cloud computing,” Measurement: Sensors, vol. 27, no. August 2022, p.
100562, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.measen.2022.100562.
[9] H. J. Nath and H. Choudhury, “A privacy-preserving mutual authentication scheme for group
communication in VANET,” Computer Communications, vol. 192, no. February, pp. 357–372, 2022,
doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2022.06.024.
[10] S. A. Jan, N. U. Amin, M. Othman, M. Ali, A. I. Umar, and A. Basir, “A Survey on Privacy-
Preserving Authentication Schemes in VANETs: Attacks, Challenges and Open Issues,” IEEE
Access, vol. 9, pp. 153701–153726, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3125521.
[11] I. Ali and F. Li, “An efficient conditional privacy-preserving authentication scheme for Vehicle-To-
Infrastructure communication in VANETs,” Vehicular Communications, vol. 22, p. 100228, 2020,
doi: 10.1016/j.vehcom.2019.100228.
[12] H. Tan, W. Zheng, Y. Guan, and R. Lu, “A Privacy-Preserving Attribute-Based Authenticated Key
Management Scheme for Accountable Vehicular Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3622–3635, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2022.3220410.
[13] M. Safkhani, S. Kumari, M. Shojafar, and S. Kumar, “An authentication and key agreement scheme
for smart grid,” Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1595–1616, 2022, doi:
10.1007/s12083-022-01305-8.
[14] M. Babaghayou, N. Labraoui, A. A. Abba Ari, N. Lagraa, and M. A. Ferrag, “Pseudonym change-
based privacy-preserving schemes in vehicular ad-hoc networks: A survey,” Journal of Information
Security and Applications, vol. 55, no. October, p. 102618, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102618.
[15] Y. Pan, J. Li, L. Feng, and B. Xu, “An analytical model for random pseudonym change scheme in
VANETs,” Cluster Computing, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 413–421, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10586-012-0242-7.
[16] L. Huang, K. Matsuura, H. Yamanet, and K. Sezaki, “Enhancing wireless location privacy using
silent period,” IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, WCNC, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 1187–1192, 2005, doi: 10.1109/WCNC.2005.1424677.
[17] A. Tomandl, F. Scheuer, and H. Federrath, “Simulation-based evaluation of techniques for privacy
protection in VANETs,” International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking
and Communications, pp. 165–172, 2012, doi: 10.1109/WiMOB.2012.6379070.
[18] L. Buttyán, T. Holczer, A. Weimerskirch, and W. Whyte, “SLOW: A practical pseudonym changing
scheme for location privacy in VANETs,” 2009 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference, VNC 2009,
pp. 1–8, 2009, doi: 10.1109/VNC.2009.5416380.
[19] Y. Pan and J. Li, “Cooperative pseudonym change scheme based on the number of neighbors in
VANETs,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1599–1609, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.jnca.2013.02.003.

85
[20] K. Emara, W. Woerndl, and J. Schlichter, “CAPS: Context-aware privacy scheme for VANET safety
applications,” Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and
Mobile Networks, WiSec 2015, 2015, doi: 10.1145/2766498.2766500.
[21] J. Freudiger, M. Raya, M. Félegyházi, P. Papadimitratos, and J.-P. Hubaux, “Mix-zones for location
privacy in vehicular networks,” Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Wireless
Networking for Intelligent Transportation Systems (WiN-ITS 07), 2007, [Online]. Available:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.83.1272&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[22] U. Computing, “CLPS: context-based location privacy scheme for VANETs Ines Khacheba *,
Mohamed B . Yagoubi and Nasreddine Lagraa Abderrahmane Lakas,” vol. 29, 2018.
[23] F. Zidani, F. Semchedine, and M. Ayaida, “Estimation of Neighbors Position privacy scheme with an
Adaptive Beaconing approach for location privacy in VANETs,” Computers and Electrical
Engineering, vol. 71, no. December 2017, pp. 359–371, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.compeleceng.2018.07.040.
[24] P. K. Singh, S. N. Gowtham, T. S, and S. Nandi, “CPESP: Cooperative Pseudonym Exchange and
Scheme Permutation to preserve location privacy in VANETs,” Vehicular Communications, vol. 20,
p. 100183, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.vehcom.2019.100183.
[25] I. Saini, B. St. Amour, and A. Jaekel, “Intelligent adversary placements for privacy evaluation in
VANET,” Information (Switzerland), vol. 11, no. 9, 2020, doi: 10.3390/INFO11090443.
[26] L. Benarous, S. Bitam, and A. Mellouk, “CSLPPS: Concerted Silence-Based Location Privacy
Preserving Scheme for Internet of Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70,
no. 7, pp. 7153–7160, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2021.3088762.
[27] M. Babaghayou, N. Labraoui, A. A. A. Ari, M. A. Ferrag, L. Maglaras, and H. Janicke, “Whisper: A
location privacy-preserving scheme using transmission range changing for internet of vehicles,”
Sensors, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1–21, 2021, doi: 10.3390/s21072443.
[28] J. Huang, Y. Qian, and R. Q. Hu, “A Privacy-Preserving Scheme for Location-Based Services in the
Internet of Vehicles,” Journal of Communications and Information Networks, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 385–
395, 2021, doi: 10.23919/JCIN.2021.9663103.
[29] I. Saini, S. Saad, and A. Jaekel, “A comprehensive pseudonym changing scheme for improving
location privacy in vehicular networks,” Internet of Things (Netherlands), vol. 19, no. July 2021, p.
100559, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2022.100559.
[30] M. Mushtaq et al., “Anonymity Assurance Using Efficient Pseudonym Consumption in Internet of
Vehicles,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23115217.
[31] C. A. Kerrache, C. T. Calafate, J. C. Cano, N. Lagraa, and P. Manzoni, “Trust Management for
Vehicular Networks: An Adversary-Oriented Overview,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, no. c, pp. 9293–9307,
2016, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2645452.
[32] J. Petit, F. Schaub, M. Feiri, and F. Kargl, “Pseudonym Schemes in Vehicular Networks: A Survey,”
IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 228–255, 2015, doi:
10.1109/COMST.2014.2345420.
[33] J. B. Kenney, “Dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) standards in the United States,”
Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 7, pp. 1162–1182, 2011, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2011.2132790.
[34] R. Adrian, S. Sulistyo, I. W. Mustika, and S. Alam, “A controllable rsu and vampire moth to support
the cluster stability in vanet,” International Journal of Computer Networks and Communications, vol.
13, no. 3, pp. 79–95, 2021, doi: 10.5121/ijcnc.2021.13305.
[35] L. Zhu, C. Zhang, C. Xu, X. Du, N. Guizani, and K. Sharif, “Traffic Monitoring in Self-Organizing
VANETs: A Privacy-Preserving Mechanism for Speed Collection and Analysis,” IEEE Wireless
Communications, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 18–23, 2019, doi: 10.1109/MWC.001.1900123.
[36] K. Emara, W. Woerndl, and J. Schlichter, “Vehicle tracking using vehicular network beacons,” 2013
IEEE 14th International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks,
WoWMoM 2013, 2013, doi: 10.1109/WoWMoM.2013.6583473.
[37] K. Emara, W. Woerndl, and J. Schlichter, “Beacon-based Vehicle Tracking in Vehicular Ad-hoc
Networks,” Technische Universität München, Institut Für Informatik, pp. 1–22, 2013, [Online].
Available: http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/attfile/1144541/hd2/incoming/2013-Apr/691293.pdf
[38] C. Díaz, S. Seys, J. Claessens, and B. Preneel, “Towards measuring anonymity,” Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), vol. 2482, pp. 54–68, 2003, doi: 10.1007/3-540-36467-6_5.

86
[39] D. Krajzewicz, J. Erdmann, M. Behrisch, and L. Bieker, “Recent Development and Applications of
{SUMO - Simulation of Urban MObility},” International Journal on Advances in Systems and
Measurements, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 128–138, 2012, [Online]. Available: http://elib.dlr.de/80483/
[40] A. Varga and R. Hornig, “Omnetpp40-Paper.Pdf,” 2008.
[41] K. Emara, “PREXT: Privacy Extension for Veins VANET Simulator”.
[42] C. Sommer et al., Veins: The open-source vehicular network simulation framework. 2019. doi:
10.1007/978-3-030-12842-5_6.

Advanced Privacy Scheme to Improve Road Safety in Smart Transportation Systems

More Related Content

Similar to Advanced Privacy Scheme to Improve Road Safety in Smart Transportation Systems (20)

More from IJCNCJournal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advanced Privacy Scheme to Improve Road Safety in Smart Transportation Systems