Preventing Malicious Node and Provide Secure Routing In Manet

IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering (IOSR-JECE)
e-ISSN: 2278-2834,p- ISSN: 2278-8735.Volume 10, Issue 1, Ver. II (Jan - Feb. 2015), PP 09-13
www.iosrjournals.org
DOI: 10.9790/2834-10120913 www.iosrjournals.org 9 | Page
Preventing Malicious Node and Provide Secure Routing In Manet
R. Gayathri1
, J.Maria Sofi Anusuya2
P.G. Student, Department of Electronics and communication Engineering, Dhanalakshmi srinivasan
Engineering College, perambalur, India1
Associate Professor, Department of Electronics and communication Engineering, Dhanalakshmi srinivasan
Engineering College, perambalur, India2
Abstract: A mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is an autonomous system of mobile nodes connected by wireless
links. Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANET) are characterized by open, distributed and dynamic architectures,
built on top of the shared wireless medium; all features contribute to make MANET very vulnerable to attacks at
any layer of the Internet model. We consider the following problem: nodes in a MANET must separated data
packet using rateless codes but some nodes are assumed to be malicious, i.e., before transmitting a coded packet
they may modify its payload. Nodes receiving corrupted coded packets are prevented from correctly decoding
the original chunk. We propose SIEVE, a fully distributed technique to identify malicious nodes. SIEVE is based
on special messages called checks that nodes periodically transmit. A check contains the list of nodes identifiers
that provided coded packets of a chunk as well as a flag to signal if the chunk has been corrupted. SIEVE
operates on top of an otherwise reliable architecture and it is based on the construction of a factor graph
obtained from the collected checks on which an incremental belief propagation algorithm is run to compute the
probability of a node being malicious. We show that SIEVE is very accurate and robustness under several
attack scenarios and deceiving actions. We also focused on decentralized networks, called MANETs, where
communication between mobile nodes is purely ad-hoc based, exploiting rateless coding to minimize data loss
due to transmission unreliability, and detecting malicious nodes sending corrupted packets to detect and prevent
problem in a strongly distributed environments, using SIEVE.
I. Introduction
MOBILE Ad-hoc Networks (MANET) are characterized by open, distributed and dynamic
architectures, built on top of the shared wireless medium; all features contribute to make MANET very
vulnerable to attacks at any layer of the Internet model.
We consider a particular type of active, non cryptography related attack, where insider nodes corrupt
data at the application level (this is also known as pollution attack). In this paper we deem as a use case a data
dissemination application over a MANET. Nodes generate data chunks to be Disseminated to all participants
using rateless codes; some malicious nodes deliberately modify coded packets of a chunk before relaying them
to prevent honest nodes from obtaining the original information.
In this paper we propose SIEVE a decen-tralized, accurate and robust technique to identify malicious
nodes on top of an Other-wise reliable and attacker free architecture. Each node in SIEVE dynamically creates a
bipartite graph whose vertexes are checks and uploading nodes. A check is a report created by a node upon
decoding a data chunk; a check contains a variable length list of nodes identifiers that provided parts of the data
as well as a flag to signal if the data chunk has been corrupted. Detection of the compromised chunks is
achieved exploiting the constraints imposed by linear channel coding. The factor graph is periodically and
independently analyzed by each node running an incremental version of the Belief Propagation (BP) algorithm
[3]–[6]. The proposed algorithm allows each node to compute the probability of any other node being malicious;
these latter probabilities are used to derive a suspect ranking of nodes in the MANET. Each node updates its
local factor graph using the checks obtained by its own decoding operations as well as checks that are
periodically gossiped by neighbor nodes.
1.1 Our Contributions
The major problem of the paper are the identification malicious nodes in terms of the estimation of the
marginal probabilities on a bipartite graph and the proposal of a decentralized and accurate solution based on the
BP algorithm. It is worth pointing out that the Selected data dissemination application is just a quite popular use
case to a single scenario. In particular, SIEVE can be used in any application that uses multi-party download or
collaboration, provided that is possible to detect that a given set of collaborating entities is compromised by at
least one malicious node. As opposed to cryptographic/algebraic techniques proposed in the area of network
coding based wireless mesh networks, e.g., [9]–[12] SIEVE does not rely on verification tools to check the
integrity of every coded block. In SIEVE the BP algorithm is used to infer the identity of the malicious nodes

resting upon only on a simple pollution detection mechanism; as an example, in our reference scenario,
pollution detection is achieved as a by product of the data dissemination protocol based on rate-less codes.
Furthermore, the aforementioned solutions may not be suitable for MANET since mobility is likely to affect key
pre distribution, routing mechanisms, attack behavior, etc. SIEVE fits well two key MANETs features that must
be accounted for when devising any security solution: it is fully decentralized and does not rely on any infra-
structure (as opposed to some solutions in the area of peer-to-peer streaming where special well known nodes
are necessary,e.g., [13]). Furthermore, SIEVE requires small computational, storage, and communication costs
for implementation.
II. Sieve
In this paper we consider a MANET created a N wireless nodes moving in a given area. A set of
Nsource nodes periodically produces a new data packet to be disseminated to all others once every h seconds.
All nodes cooperate to the diffusion of the data chunks by running a distributed dissemination algorithm based
on Luby Transform (LT) codes [15]. Data is transmitted by source nodes using LT codes [15]: a packet is
divided in K equally sized blocks. The source node then creates and forwards coded packets using LT codes
[15], combining random subsets of the K blocks; the size of each coded packet is Scb = S/K.
2.1 LT Encoding And Decoding Process
LT codes have been proposed in [15] this paper is a rateless codes: these are a particular family of
erasure codes where the rate is not fixed by design, so that the number of coded packets can be decided and
changed on the fly. LT codes are rateless based on the binary Galois field GF(2). In [15] it is shown that
selecting the number of blocks to be combined, termed as the packet degree d, according to the Robust Soliton
Distribution (RSD), one gets optimal asymptotic decoding performance. By optimal performance we mean that
the so called decoding overhead, i.e. the number of coded packets to be received in excess of K, turns to be
negligible for asymptotically large K. In particular, the original chunk can be obtained by any node able to
collect any set of M = K · (1 + ) coded packets. The decoding algorithm can be viewed as the solution of a
system of linear equations with K unknowns (the K original data blocks) and M ≥ K equations. In [15] it is
shown that a simple method based on the recursive cancellation of equations corresponding to packets with
degree 1, i.e. representing one original data blocks, guarantees the desired asymptotic performance.
2.2 LT Dissemination Protocol
The rateless principle and randomness of LT codes is used for spreading data in the MANET by letting
source nodes transmit novel coded packets that can be gene-rated randomly and on the fly. A coded packet
conveys the XOR payloads of the corresponding original packets as well as a header signaling the indexes of the
combined packets. The original chunk can be obtained by any node able to collect any set of K · (1 + ) coded
packets without requiring any coordination among the source nodes.
mobile nodes
Desination
SIEVE
Performance
Analysis
Data
Transmission
Mobile Adhoc
Network
Attack Detection
Prevention
Pollution Attack
Fig 1.1 SIEVE preventing malicious node.
Fig 1.1 ,if the source node can transmitted the data from source to destination throught.
SIEVE. SIEVE using LT code to prevent data from malicious node.It can mainly identify malicious node
produces pollution attack.

2.3 Malicious Nodes
The proposed dissemination protocol is an example of a distributed and collaborative approach that has
the potential to simplify and accelerate the spreading of the information in the MANET thanks to node mobility.
On the other hand, few malicious nodes may try to break the system by polluting, i.e. modifying some coded
packets. In this paper we assume that a subset of P N nodes is composed of malicious nodes, That deliberately
modify the payload of the coded packets to prevent honest nodes from correctly reconstructing the original
chunk. In the presence of coding even a single corrupted coded packet can prevent an honest node from
decoding the original chunk.
III. POLLUTION IDENTIFICATION PROTOCOL
SIEVE uses LT codes decoding scheme to detect changed packet and exploits the Belief Propagation
(BP) algorithm [3] to identify malicious nodes.
3.1 LT codes Verification
The every node keeps collecting from different uploaders sets of coded blocks corresponding to
different chunks. LT codes can be exploited to detect if modified blocks have been collected without the need of
any supplementary verification mechanism. Indeed, a node is able to detect pollution as soon as an
inconsistency is found in the solution of the underlying system of linear equations. This is achieved by
observing that a coded packet with a degree 1 equation represents a data packet in the clear. Such data packet
can be simplified from all the incoming equations. Since LT codes have a certain overhead some coded packets
that are linearly dependent on the ones received previously are always collected before successful decoding; this
amount to the reception of some equations whose terms are all already known. As soon as this condition is met
the LT decoder can check the consistency of the payload carried by the coded packet; in other words, the same
linear combination must be obtained combining a set of already known packets. If this constraint is violated the
whole chunk is recognized as corrupted. Please note that the receiver node is not able to identify the corrupted
block(s) but only that at least one of them has been maliciously manipulated.
3.2 Check Construction and Reporting
SIEVE is based on the concept of checks that are reports created by nodes upon decoding a chunk. A
check contains the list of the identifiers of nodes that provided coded blocks of a chunk and a flag to label such
chunk as corrupted or not. A check describing a corrupted chunk is called a positive check while it is termed a
negative check otherwise. Each nodes n maintains a list of all checks created that is denoted as Ln. Each node,
besides accumulating the checks from its local decoding operations, gossips them in the neighborhood.
3.3 performance analysis
Sieve can be identified three main performance analysis as shown in the graph.
The mainly consider the three performance such as throughput, packet delivery ratio and end to end delay.
3.4 Average End To End Delay
Fig 1.2 shows the accurately identify the performance analysis of average end to end delay
Fig 1.2 Average End To End Delay

3.5 packet delivery ratio
Fig 1.3 shows the accurately identify the performance analysis of packet delivery ratio
Fig 1.3 Packet Delivery Ratio
3.6 THROUGHPUT RATIO
FIG 1.4 shows the accurately identify the performance analysis of throughput ratio
Fig 1.4 throughput ratio
IV. Results
The simulation methodology and the indexes we defined to evaluate the accuracy, reactivity, and
robustness of SIEVE. In particular, we show the packet delivery ratio, average end to end delay and throughput
ratio of the factor graph and mobility impact the performance of SIEVE as well as how robust it is with respect
to several deceiving actions operated by malicious nodes. Finally, we show a trade-off between coding
efficiency and SIEVE accuracy.
V. Conclusion
In this we used sieve technique to accurately identified the malicious node. The malicious node
produces pollution attack to a original packet. A data can be separated application based on LT code.
Fortunately, the LT decoding procedure can be used by each node to detect that a data chuck has been attacked;
nonetheless, since parallel downloading form multiple nodes is used, such detection does not allow to identify
the malicious nodes. This latter represents the core problem solved by SIEVE. In SIEVE node collaborations are

represented by a bipartite graph linking nodes and detection opportunities, the checks. It is worth pointing out
that such representation is quite general and can be used in many other collaborative scenarios
other than the data dissemination use case analyzed in this paper.
Future works will be focused in two main directions. From the one hand we will complete the design
and experimentation of a full system to counteract an active attack in MANET. The techniques adopted for the
identification and the following removal of malicious nodes clearly require a joint and careful design to
optimize the overall performance.
Reference
[1] B. Wu, J. Chen, J. Wu, and M. Cardei, “A survey of attacks and countermeasures in mobile ad hoc networks,” in Wireless Network
Security, Y. Xiao, X. S. Shen, and D.-Z. Du, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2007, pp. 103–135.
[2] H. Yang, H. Luo, F. Ye, S. Lu, and L. Zhang, “Security in mobile ad hoc networks: Challenges and solutions,” IEEE Wireless
Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 38–47, Feb. 2004.
[3] J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1988.
[4] D. MacKay, Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[5] J. Yedidia, W. Freeman, and Y. Weiss, “Constructing free-energy approximations and generalized belief propagation algorithms,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 2282–2312, Jul. 2005.
[6] J. Yedidia, W. Freeman, and Y. Weiss, “Understanding belief propagation and its generalizations,” in Exploring Artificial
Intelligence in the New Millennium, San Francisco, CA, USA: Elsevier, 2003.
[7] T. Schierl, S. Johansen, A. Perkis, and T. Wiegand, “Rateless scalable video coding for overlay multisource streaming in manets,” J.
Vis. Commun. Image Represent., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 500–507, 2008.
[8] V. R. Syrotiuk, C. J. Colbourn, and S. Yellamraju, “Rateless forward error correction for topology-transparent
scheduling,”IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 464–472, Apr. 2008.
[9] S. Agrawal and D. Boneh, “Homomorphic MACs: MAC-based integrity for network coding,” in Applied Cryptography and
Network Security. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, pp. 292–305.
[10] J. Dong, R. Curtmola, and C. Nita-Rotaru, “Practical defenses against pollution attacks in intra-flow network coding for wireless
mesh networks,” in Proc. 2nd ACM Conf. WiSec, Zurich, Switzerland, 2009, pp. 111–122.
[11] Y. Li, H. Yao, M. Chen, S. Jaggi, and A. Rosen, “Ripple authentication for network coding,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, San Diego,
CA, USA, 2010, pp. 1–9.
[12] A. Newell and C. Nita-Rotaru, “Split null keys: A null space based defense for pollution attacks in wireless network coding,” in
Proc. 9th IEEE SECON, Seoul, Korea, 2012, pp. 479–487.
[13] Q. Wang, L. Vu, K. Nahrstedt, and H. Khurana, “MIS: Malicious nodes identification scheme in network-coding-based peer-topeer
streaming,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, San Diego, CA, USA, Mar. 2010, pp. 1–5.
[14] R. Gaeta, M. Grangetto, and R. Loti, “SIEVE: A distributed, accurate, and robust technique to identify malicious nodes in data
dissemination on manet,” in Proc. IEEE ICPADS, Washington, DC, USA, 2012, pp. 331–338.
[15] M. Luby, “LT codes,” in Proc. 43rd FOCS, Washington, DC, USA, 2002, pp. 271–280.
[16] R. Gallager, Low-Density Parity-Check Codes. Cambridge, U.K.: MIT Press, 1963.
[17] W. T. Freeman, E. C. Pasztor, and O. T. Carmichael, “Learning low-level vision,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 25–47,
2000.
[18] M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, M. Shokrollahi, and D. Spielman, “Improved low-density parity-check codes using irregular graphs,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 585 –598, Feb. 2001.
[19] G. F. Riley and T. R. Henderson, “The NS-3 network simulator,” in Modeling and Tools for Network Simulation. Berlin,
Germany:Springer, 2010, pp. 15–34.
[20] M. N. Krohn, M. J. Freedman, and D. Mazieres, “On-the-fly verification of rateless erasure codes for efficient content
distribution,”in Proc. IEEE Symp. Security Privacy, 2004.
[21] C. Gkantsidis and P. Rodriguez, “Cooperative security for network coding file distribution,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Barcelona,
Spain, 2006.
[22] E. Kehdi and B. Li, “Null keys: Limiting malicious attacks via null space properties of network coding,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2009.
[23] Z. Yu, Y.Wei, B. Ramkumar, and Y. Guan, “An efficient scheme for securing xor network coding against pollution attacks,” in
Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2009.
[24] T. Ho et al., “Byzantine modification detection in multicast networks with random network coding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.
54, no. 6, pp. 2798–2803, Jun. 2008.

Preventing Malicious Node and Provide Secure Routing In Manet

More Related Content

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Preventing Malicious Node and Provide Secure Routing In Manet (20)

More from IOSR Journals (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Preventing Malicious Node and Provide Secure Routing In Manet