How to Counter-act Security Threats in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks?

How to Counter-act Security Threats in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks?
Srinivasan Venkataramani
Easwari Engineering College, TamilNadu, India
Email: DrSrinivasanVenkataramani@gmail.com
Abstract
The security threats are critical in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs), when deploying secure
applications especially considering the confidentiality of the data that can be compromised. In
usual communication networks, there is a need to establish ad hoc temporary connections in many
scenarios. Data transfer in this ad hoc wireless network is important and it is not easy to establish
the large infrastructure. When data is highly confidential, then it is a challenging task to provide
security particularly in the malicious environment. Many papers proposed various solutions as to
counter-act internal and external security attacks. However, most solutions have certain trade-offs.
There are some methods designed only to counter-act specific attacks. Others provide solutions
to counter-act general attacks but consider the factors such as delay, high resource utilization.
This paper surveys many security solutions that have been developed from in the past years. We
present the current approaches in the development of secured systems. These methods can be
used by simple approaches to enhance the security with small complexity. To the best of our
knowledge,there is no other surveys that discusses the new secured methods in the literature.
Keywords: Security Threats, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
1 Introduction
There are many other immense challenges and security requirements which we need to contemplate
before deploying MANETs. Many researchers proposed their solutions [1], [2] which provide excellent
security but they require very complex computations and consume a lot of resources like memory,
bandwidth etc. They have reduced the effect of various attacks but still they are insufficient and
become compromised in some attacks [3], [4]. Other solutions [8], [24], [34], [35] are better in
terms of providing some extent of quality of services (low memory utilization, low bandwidth, low
power etc.) but they are also promising with certain type of attacks [24], [25]. This has become
a big tradeoff between choosing those secured methods that consume a huge amount of resources
(large memory, high bandwidth utilization and heavy processors for high computations), and those
methods that consume fewer resources but are susceptible to various attacks. In this paper, we have
explored different approaches of those secured methods which use a large number of resources and
computations (encryption/ decryption/ digital signatures etc.) and those which uses simple methods
(trust/ observation/ reputation etc.). Then we surveyed most common types of attacks and different
solutions proposed for their alleviation. Following we have summarized the secure methods, their
assertions, assumptions, metrics, positive and negative aspects. We have tried to extract out the
expedient information from the reviewed papers and then finally we have presented our outlooks on
the various research areas that can be defined and explored based on the problems we will discuss.
From this survey paper, researchers who are interested in the area of security aspects of MANETs
will have the distinct notion about security issues and different approaches which can be used for
providing better security. Further study can be initiated from a clear perspective of choosing which
methods are appropriate according to the area of interest.
1

2 Survey of Proposed Solutions
Frequently changing wireless links in MANETs makes it susceptible to attack. Thus, the first step
before sharing information is to discover the most secured routes which can be only accessed by the
authorized users. Many protocols proposed claim their approaches to be most secured. Security
routing protocols can be cryptographic based, trust based, observation based, reputation based
and others. In cryptographic based techniques [1], [5], [19], asymmetric and symmetric keys are
distributed among nodes to protect the messages from being tampering and losing their integrity.
But encryption/decryption schemes are not suitable for resource-constrained devices.
2.1 Trusted Certificate Server Approach
[19] proposed the use of a trusted certificate server to generate cryptographic certificates for each
node that wants to enter into the network and a public key which is known to all legal nodes. Keys
are created and exchanged through an existing relationship between server and each node. Before
arriving in to the network, each node must request a certificate from server. Each node obtains
exactly one certificate after securely verifying their identity to server. All nodes must retain fresh
certificates with the trusted server. Using this certification, source verifies that the intended target
was reached. In this process, when a node gets route discovery message, it sets up a reverse track
back to the source by recording the neighbor’s id from which it received the route discovery message.
The destination then uncast the route reply message through that reverse track back to the source.
Each node in the track checks the previous node’s signature, updates its routing table with the
address of the node that send it RDP packet, signs the original contents of the message, removes its
certificate and signature and attaches its own certificate and then forward the message. This is done
to prevent alterations in the route discovery packets in transit. Figure 1 shows its route discovery
mechanism.
2.2 Public/Private Key Approach
[1] proposed a protocol with each mobile node has a public/private key pair which is certified from
a certificate authority. Every pair of source/destination has a shared secret key. TESLA is used
as an authentication protocol. To use TESLA for authentication, each sender chooses a random
initial key and generates a one-way key chain by computing a oneway hash function again and again.
To authenticate any received value on the one-way chain, an equation is applied to verify if the
computed value matches an earlier known authentic key on the chain. Each sender predetermines a
time schedule at which it discloses each key of its one-way key chain, in the reverse order from their
creation. It is assumed that each node can obtain an authentic TESLA key from the distribution
center. Legitimate keys are bootstrapped between pairs of nodes. Route discovery process is initiated
by key distribution centre with a special reserved address as target. This address is not the address
of any real node. It then uses each returned path to send legitimate keys to each node in the network.
This process repeats when a node requests a shared key with any other node and also to KDC, in
route reply that node sends the list of nodes for which it requests keys. Before sending the packet,
the sender adds a message authentication code (MAC) computed using key. Since the receiver knows
the sender’s clock may be faster by 1, packet is discarded if the key has already been published or
unless it is received at least 1 before the scheduled key release time. When it is verified that the
packet’s key is not yet published, receiver buffers the packet and waits for the sender to publish key.
2

2.3 Node-capture Attack Detection
[34] provided two methods to detect the node capture: Simple Distributed Detection (SDD) which
uses local information on nodes and Cooperative Distribution Detection (CDD) which uses the local
nodes cooperation. These two methods are based on the simple observation that if a node (e.g. node
A) does not re-meet another node (e.g. node B) within a specific time then it is possible that node B
has been captured. This protocol uses random way-point mobility model [35] and specifically trusts
on the honest node re-meeting time to collect overall information about the presence of other nodes
in network. The SDD is an event based method. Each node set the corresponding meeting time
to the value of its internal clock and starts the corresponding time-out that expires after k seconds.
When two nodes meet, they execute the method, SDD-Meeting. If it is received before the Maximum
Interval Time (MIT), then the counter for node B is reset to 1 and if received after MIT, then the
counter is incremented by 1. It is to avoid false positive alarms. In CDD, nodes share information
only when cooperative nodes are present within the same range of communication. It uses the same
method trace used for SDD. If two nodes e.g. node A and node B are tracing the third node e.g.
node C, then the two nodes compare their meeting time with third node when they last met.
2.4 Forged Routing Messages Detection
[33] proposed Intrusion detection system based on OLSR (optimized link state routing) protocol.
This protocol tries to thwart attack which is made by legitimate nodes present in the network. It
also works where cryptographic based solution doesn’t work. It can be implemented on all nodes in
the network. Nodes continuously evaluate the semantics of routing message and then act accordingly.
When an intruder is spotted, alerts are signaled and they are banned. It checks before taking its
decision- is untrusted node an intruder or not? And accordingly implies a low false positive rate. It
focuses on detection of generation of fake topology control (TC) messages because they can create
confusions in the whole network if disseminated. When a node receives a TC message, according
to its local topology statistics, it checks if the initiator of this TC message is 1-hop distance from
the common announced MPR selector node or if the common announced MPR selector node had
actually nominated the TC originator node as MPR and then assigns one of the three statuses
(normal, suspected or intruder) to its originator. After updating its topology table, receiver then
forwards its TC message.
2.5 Misbehaving Watchdog
[8] explain that Watchdog recognizes misbehaving nodes and a Pathrater supports the routing pro-
tocols to avoid these nodes. It is supposed that all routing nodes do not misbehave. When a node
forwards the packet, Watchdog promiscuously listens in the network and confirms that the next
node in the path also forwards the packet. If the next node does not forward the packet, then it is
confirmed as misbehaving. By using this information, Pathrater selects which route is best to deliver
the packets. They have implemented the watchdog by maintaining a buffer of newly sent packets and
compare each listened packet with the packet stored in the buffer to see if there is a match. There is
certain failure threshold, if it is excesses, then the node is determined to be misbehaving and source
is notified about it. Pathrater calculates the negative value path metric to indicate the presence of
suspected nodes in the path. The nodes having negative ratings are suspended for some time until
their ratings are increased to nonnegative values. Pathrater uses Send extra Route Request (SRR)
to find a new routes if the well-known route holds only misbehaving nodes.
3

2.6 Route Request Packet Approach
[32] explain that security mechanism is made into the route request packets. Sender sends route
request packets with some metric based on its security and authenticity. On receiving this packet,
Intermediate nodes check this packet’s security level. If they find it authentic, they forward or reply
accordingly otherwise drop it. After discovering the secured route by testing the required security
metric on each intermediate node, route reply message is sent back by the receiver node. In this
protocol, packets are encrypted using a symmetric encryption/decryption key which is generated
with respect to different trust levels. Nodes can only read the route request packets or route reply
packets of their trust level. Moreover the floating packets of higher or lower trust level are supposed
to be dropped if they are interrupted by a malicious node because node filters packets that belong to
its trust level. So this mechanism of broadcasting the routing packets by confirming their trust levels
can help in the discovery of attacks by eavesdroppers. It also offers some cryptographic techniques
like digital signatures and encryption to check alteration. This protocol finds the assured secured
route between two nodes.
2.7 Redundant Routing Message Approach
[30] proposed protocol that uses redundant copies of routing messages to spot internal attacks. Pair
wise secret keys are used between source and destination and intermediate nodes along the established
path to protect route discovery messages. Also based on the observations, the node builds the trust
on its neighboring nodes by creating a local Certificate Repository. It is assumed that each node
in the network is initialized with a unique address and pair of public/private keys embedded into
it. Also they can form a self-organized Public Key Infrastructure by relating the current CR and
present maintenance methods for public key management. When a node starts a route discovery
process, it chooses a random number, signs it with its private key and uses key hash function to
protect the route discovery message. Finally, the signature and key hash value is appended to the
route discovery message which is sent to its neighbors hop by hop until it gets reached to target. To
choose a more optimal path, if two nodes show same level of trust, then hop counts are measured,
if hop counts are also same then their performance is checked. When receiver (intermediate) gets
route request message, it computes the trustworthiness quality index (TQI) and appends it to the
route request message along with QoS information before forwarding to next hop.
2.8 Reputation Approach
[43] proposed protocol that uses reputation based scheme. The protocol observes the behavior of
other nodes and rates each node accordingly. Rating is first set to zero, which increments by +1
on every positive action and decrements by -2 on every negative action. Negative threshold is set
to -40 below which the node is added to a list of faulty nodes. The source node forwards the data
packets to the highest reputation node. Intermediate nodes also forward the data packet to the
highest reputation hop till it reaches to the destination node. The destination node acknowledges a
signed DACK (data Acknowledgment packet) to the source that modifies its reputation values table
by recommending +1 to the first hop of reverse route. Subsequently all the intermediate nodes in
the route recommends +1 to their corresponding next hop in the route. Each node stores a Route
Ranker Table to store the reputation values of each node based on its direct observations on that
node. If two next-hop nodes have the same reputation values then randomly anyone is chosen by
the source node and that information is also stored in sent-table. If DACK is not received by source
node in specified time set by source’s timer, it recommends -2 to the first hop of that route and
removes its entry from the sent-table after the time-out expires. Intermediate nodes also recommend
4

-2 to their next hop in the route up to that selfish node who dropped the packet and removes the
corresponding entries from their tables on time-out expire. If the reputation value of the next hop
falls below -40 (threshold value) then it is temporally suspended from the node’s routing table and
an error message is sent to the upcoming nodes in its path. Later this suspended node can re-join
the network with the reputation value initialized to zero. This process aims to prevent selfish nodes
from dropping packets because source nodes only choose the nodes with higher reputation values to
forward their data packets and selfish nodes need to maintain their reputation constant in order to
receive the packets.
2.9 Firewalls
[39] focus on attack which tries to drain the battery of nodes in the network. This scheme is
based on ROFL (Routing as the Firewall Layer) mechanism [40] and sets some constraints on the
network nodes and the services provided to these nodes. When a service is advertisement to some
particular network, only nodes of that particular network can access that service. They cannot access
services which are not advertised for them. Before passing any service announcement to a node, the
node is first been checked that whether it is authorized to access or not. To stop the advertised
service, the routing metric M is set to infinity, and then this infinity route is advertised. Destination
address provides services to only those nodes that come under the list of approved source prefixes.
Immediately, the packet is dropped if it is forwarded from a source address which is not listed in the
source prefix filtering (SPF) constraints of a corresponding route. This packet filtering is applied by
layering it on top of routing. Underlying routing protocol provides the pattern (i.e. unicast, multicast
or broadcast) for distributing routing information. Once a path between source and destination node
is created by underlying routing protocol, each node in that path refers to its local routing table to
match the routing announcement and if the same matched announcement is found, then its source
prefix constraint is extracted i.e. data packet’s header contents (source, destination address and
destination port number) and checked before the receiver takes its forwarding decision. If it is
forwarded from an authorized node, then it is passed to upper layer otherwise it is discarded. To
implement this scheme in AODV, only route reply packet’s information of AODV is replaced with
service specific announcement (SPF constraints, destination port address, service port address etc.).
And then this route announcement is distributed into the network on getting route request and in
case of OLSR, these announcements are distributed by flooding Topology Control (TC) messages
into the network.
2.10 Double-layer Transport Layer
[42] used double-layer scheme that detects attacks at the transport layer but responds to them at
the network layer. It implements four modules. First is watch nodes (LS) module that monitors and
detect misbehavior nodes, second is node isolation algorithm (NIA) that isolates the infected nodes
from the honest node’s list. Third is congestion window surveillance (CWS) module that verifies if
the node has fault or compromised because CW size may be increased due to congestion in network.
Last is alternate route finder (ARF) module. If CWS sees any abnormalities, it calls ARF to find or
build a new path. LS module builds a list that contains each node’s first-hop neighbors and neighbors
of each first hop’s neighbor in the end of neighbor discovery process. This is created to first monitor
the presence of any malicious nodes and later isolate them from the network using NIA. This process
is assumed to be secure and it is done only once in the whole life span of a node. There is no
exchange of packets between the nodes which are not neighbors. The node maintains information
of its second-hop neighbor to verify if a received packet forwarded from its one hop neighbor has
actually forwarded from its second hop neighbor or not. A watch buffer and a malicious counter are
5

maintained in the each node to monitor the packets exchanged between its neighbors. Each entry in
the buffer is time stamped and has a time threshold. Malicious counter monitors the length of sliding
window and it increments for the node which is detected as malicious by the watch node. These
increments depend upon the type i.e. either the packet is fabricated or dropped by the malicious
node. To avoid failures (intentionally or by fault) caused by a legitimate node, a node is declared as
a misbehavior node and revoked from its neighbor’s list, if its malicious counter exceeds threshold.
It is done by announcing an authenticated alert message to each of its neighbors using shared keys
to prevent from false announcements.
3 Future Research Directions
The flexibility of MANETs are very attractive for military and disaster recovery applications. More-
over mobile devices are getting smaller, cheaper, more powerful and more mobile every day. In the
future MANETs will likely be a part of our lives. There has been much research on this promising
new networking. Security is one of the hot topics in the area due to new security threats MANETs
have introduced. The threats to MANETs have been examined in many research papers. However
more research needs to be done on identifying new security threats. We believe that with the increase
in the use of MANETs, new intrusions are going to emerge continuously.
MANETs are prone to attacks from the intruders. Different security mechanisms have been
proposed in the past to provide security in MANETs. In this paper we have tried to compare the
advantages and drawbacks of several approaches. The purpose of doing so is to provide a guideline
towards development of a secure routing protocol and the conditions that make the environment so
prone to attacks. So in future maintaining rate of node’s mobility and topologies in the network
is required. Also distributing use of batteries and other power resources and eliminating tradeoffs
between rate of battery consumption and updating nodes due to frequent topological changes is also
required. Some other factors also should be taken into account like distribution and use of available
bandwidth, providing physical safety to the network bodies, increasing size of network, signal fading
and jittering due to large number of multi hops and setting up of minimum and maximum rate
of transmission power, eliminating tradeoffs between packet delivery and time delay, eliminating
tradeoffs between bandwidth capacity and congestion and distributing authorized access to every
node in the network.
The methodology or the protocol which is to be developed should also take care of the other
aspects of the network which are very important as far as providing security or avoiding threats are
concerned. These are provision of security in all seven layers of OSI, detecting number of malicious
nodes and formulating malicious activities in the network, Maintaining traffic rate of control/data
packets according to the type of traffic (Constant Bit Rate or Varying) and setting up the minimum-
maximum rate, routing load balancing, Medium Access Control methods for channel contention,
reducing tradeoffs between application aspects and security aspects, focusing maximum route avail-
abilities and finding shortest route from them and maintaining periodic routing table information
proactively and reactively.
References
[1] Y.C. HU, A. Perrig, and D. B. Johnson, “ARIADNE: a secure on-demand routing protocol for
ad hoc networks,” in Proc. MOBICOM, 2002, pp. 12-23.
[2] P. Papadimitratos and Z. Haas, “Secure routing for mobile ad hoc networks,” in Proc. CNDS,
2002.
6

[3] Y.-C. HU, A. Perrig, and D.B. Johnson, “PACKET LEASHES: a defense against wormhole
attacks in wireless networks,” in Proc. INFOCOM, 2003, pp.1976-1986.
[4] Y.-C. HU, A. Perrig, and D. B. Johnson, “Rushing attacks and defense in wireless ad hoc network
routing protocols,” in Proc. WISE, 2003, pp. 30-40.
[5] D. Liu and P. Ning, “Eﬃcient distribution of key chain commitments for broadcast authentication
in distributed sensor networks,” in Proc. NDSS, 2003, pp. 263-276.
[6] B. Awerbuch, D. Holser, C. Nita-rotaru, and H. Rubens, “An On demand secure routing protocol
resilient to byzantine failures,” in Proc. WISE, 2002, pp. 21-30.
[7] S. Buchegger and J.Y. Le boudec, “Nodes bearing grudges: towards routing security, fairness,
and robustness in mobile ad hoc networks,” in Proc. PDP, 2002, pp. 403-410.
[8] S. Marti, T. Giuli, k. Lai, and M. Baker, “Mitigating routing misbehavior in mobile ad hoc
networks,” in Proc. MOBICOM, 2000, pp. 255-265.
[9] W. Yu, Y. Sun, and K. J. R. Liu, “Hadof: defense against routing disruptions in mobile ad hoc
networks,” in Proc. INFOCOM, 2005, pp. 1252-1261.
[10] Pradip M. Jawandhiya, Mangesh Ghonge, M.S. Ali and J.S. Deshpande, “A Survey of Mobile
Ad Hoc Network Attacks“, IJEST, 2010, pp. 4063-4071.
[11] L.Tamilselvan, V.Sankaranarayanan, “Prevention of Black hole Attack in MANET,” Proc.
AusWireless, 2007, pp. 21- 26.
[12] S.Lee, B.Han, and M.Shin, “Robust Routing in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” ICPP Workshop,
2002, pp. 73-78.
[13] M.A.Shurman, S.M.Yoo, and S.Park, “Black Hole Attack in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” ACM
SE, 2004, pp. 96-97.
[14] S.Kurosawa, H.Nakayama, N.Kato, A.Jamalipour, and Y.Nemoto, “Detecting Black hole Attack
on AODV-Based Mobile Ad Hoc Networks by Dynamic Learning Method,” IJNS, 2007, pp. 338-
346.
[15] Y.C.Hu, A.Perrig, and D.Johnson, “Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Networks,” IEEE JSAC,
2006, pp. 370-380.
[16] L. Qian, N. Song, and X. Li, “Detecting and Locating Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Ad Hoc
Networks Through Statistical Analysis of Multi-path,” IEEE WCNC, 2005, pp.2106-2111.
[17] X.Su, R.V.Boppana, “On Mitigating In-band Wormhole Attacks in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,”
Proc. ICC, 2007, pp. 1136-1141.
[18] M.A.Gorlatova, P.C.Mason, M.Wang, L.Lamont, R. Liscano, “Detecting Wormhole Attacks
in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks through Protocol Breaking and Packet Timing Analysis,” Proc.
MILCOM, 2006, pp. 1-7.
[19] K. Sanzgiri, D. LaFlamme, B. Dahill, B. N. Levine, C. Shields and E. M. Belding-Royer, “A
Secure Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks,” in Proc. ICNP , 2002, pp. 78-87.
[20] W. Yu, Y. Sun, and K. J. R. Liu, “Hadof: defense against routing disruptions in mobile ad hoc
networks,” in Proc. INFOCOM, 2005, pp. 1252-1261.
7

[21] Joshua Wright, GCIH, CCNA, 2003, Detecting wireless LAN MAC addresses spooﬁng, technical
document.
[22] Gayathri Chandrasekaran, John-Austen Deymious,Vinod Ganapathy, Marco Gruteser, Wade
Trappe, “Detecting Identity Spoofs in 802.11e Wireless Networks“, In Proc. GLOBECOM, 2009,
pp.4244-4147.
[23] S. Murphy, “Routing Protocol Threat Analysis,” Internet Draft, draft-murphy-threat-00.txt,
2002.
[24] J. F. Raymond, “Traﬃc Analysis: Protocols, Attacks, Design Issues and Open Problems,” in
Proc. Wksp. Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, Berkeley, CA, 2000, pp. 7-26.
[25] J. Hubaux and E. W. Knightly, “Denial of service resilience in ad hoc networks,” in Proc.
MOBICOM, 2004, pp. 202-215.
[26] Lin, R.Lu, H.Zhu, P.H.Ho, X.Shen and Z.Cao, “ASRPAKE: An Anonymous Secure Routing
Protocol with Authenticated Key Exchange for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” in Proc. ICC, 2007,
pp. 1247 - 1253.
[27] Kejun Liu, Jing Deng, Member, Pramod K. Varshney and Kashyap Balakrishnan,”An
Acknowledgment-Based Approach for the Detection of Routing Misbehavior in MANETs“, IEEE
TMC, 2007.
[28] C. Kaufman, R. Perlman, and M. Speciner, “Network Security Private Communication in a
Public World“, Prentice Hall PTR, A division of Pearson Education, Inc., 2002.
[29] Ming Yu , Mengchu Zhou and Wei Su , “A Secure Routing Protocol Against Byzantine Attacks
for MANETs in Adversarial Environments“,in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Society, 2009
pp. 449 - 460.
[30] S. Albert Rabara and S.Vijayalakshmi, “Rushing attack mitigation in multicast manet
(RAM3)“, in Proc, IJRRCS, 2010, pp. 131-138.
[31] Xu Su, Dissertation, “Integrated prevention and detection of Byzantine attacks in mobile ad
hoc networks“, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2009.
[32] S. Yi, P. Naldurg, and R. Kravets, “A Security-Aware Routing Protocol for Wireless Ad hoc
Networks“, in Proc. MOBIHOC, 2002 pp. 286-292.
[33] A. Fourati; K. Al Agha, “Detecting forged routing messages in Adhoc networks“, Springer
published on nov, 2008, pp.205 - 214.
[34] M. Conti, R. Di Pietro, L. V. Mancini, and A. Mei, “Emergent properties: Detection of the
node-capture attack in mobile wireless sensor networks“, ACM WiSec, 2008 pages 214-219.
[35] J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y.-C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva. “A performance comparison
of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols“ in Proc. MOBICOM, 1998, pages 85-97.
[36] S. Ganeriwal, S. Capkun, C. C. Han and M. B. Srivastava. Secure time synchronization service
for sensor networks. In WiSe, 2005, pages 97-106.
[37] K. Sun, P. Ning, and C. Wang, “Fault-tolerant cluster-wise clock synchronization for wireless
sensor networks“ TDSC, 2005, pg.177-189.
8

[38] S. Bansal and M.Baker,” Observation-based Cooperation Enforcement in ad hoc network“, July
2003.
[39] H. Zhao and S. M. Bellovin, “High Performance Firewalls in MANETs“ Proc. MSN, 2010 pages
154-160.
[40] H. Zhao, C.-K. Chau, and S. M. Bellovin, “ROFL: Routing as the ﬁrewall layer,” in New Security
Paradigms Workshop, September 2008.
[41] T. Eissa; S. A. Razak; R. H. Khokhar; N. Samian, “Trust-Based Routing Mechanism in MANET:
Design and Implementation“, Springer, Mobile Networks and Applications June 2011.
[42] H. N. Saha, D. Bhattacharyya, A. K. Bandhyopadhyay and P. K. Banerjee, “Two-Level Secure
Re-routing (TSR) in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks“ Proc. MNCAPPS, 2012 Pages 119-122.
9

How to Counter-act Security Threats in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks?

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to How to Counter-act Security Threats in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks? (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

How to Counter-act Security Threats in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks?