Software engineering based self-checking process for cyber security system in VANET

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)
Vol. 10, No. 6, December 2020, pp. 5844~5852
ISSN: 2088-8708, DOI: 10.11591/ijece.v10i6.pp5844-5852  5844
Journal homepage: http://ijece.iaescore.com/index.php/IJECE
Software engineering based self-checking process for cyber
security system in VANET
Muntadher Naeem Yasir1
, Muayad Sadik Croock2
1
Department of Computer Science, Iraqi Commission for Computers and Informatics (ICCI),
Informatics Institute for Postgraduate Studies, Iraq
2
Department Computer Engineering, University of Technology, Iraq
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Feb 22, 2020
Revised May 4, 2020
Accepted May 17, 2020
Newly, the cyber security of vehicle ad hoc network (VANET) includes two
practicable: vehicle to vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) that
have been considered due to importance. It has become possible to keep pace
with the development in the world. The people safety is a priority in
the development of technology in general and particular in of VANET for
police vehicles. In this paper, we propose a software engineering based
self-checking process to ensure the high redundancy of the generated keys.
These keys are used in underlying cyber security system for VANET.
The proposed self-checking process emploies a set of NIST tests including
frequency, block and runs as a threshold for accepting the generated keys.
The introduced cyber security system includes three levels: Firstly,
the registration phase that asks vehicles to register in the system, in which
the network excludes the unregistered ones. In this phase, the proposed
software engineeringbased self-checking process is adopted. Secondly,
the authentication phase that checks of the vehicles after the registration
phase. Thirdly, the proposed system that is able to detect the DOS attack.
The obtained results show the efficient performance of the proposed system
in managing the security of the VANET network. The self-checking process
increased the randomness of the generated keys, in which the security factor
is increased.
Keywords:
Cyber security
NIST
Self-checking process
Software engineering
VANET
Copyright © 2020 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science.
All rights reserved.
Corresponding Author:
Muntadher Naeem Yasir,
Department of Computer Science,
Iraqi Commission for Computers and Informatics (ICCI),
Informatic Institute for Postgraduate Studies,
Al-nidal Street, Baghdad, Iraq
Email: muntadher.naeem@yahoo.com; 120102@uotechnology.edu.iq
1. INTRODUCTION
The VANET has a significant influence in our modern era towards development and keeping pace
with the developed countries that operate according to this type of network. VANETs operate on one of two
nodes: either OBUs or RSUs. OBUs are devices onboard mobile vehicles. RSUs referes that the vehicles are
connected to each other as well as to the server and work as the router inside the network [1, 2]. It is through
the use of dedicated short range communication (DSRC) devices [3-7].
Different studies and research work in the field of security in VANET had presented to tackle
the raised problems in terms of the self-checking process for keys. In [8], Researchers suggested an algorithm
(ECDSA), where this algorithm mathematically derived from the digital signature algorithm. This algorithm
uses a pair of different keys. The keys consist of a primary key is the public key and the second key is
the private key. The primary key created based on multiples of the secondary key, where it is considered
the random multiple of the primary point. The two keys used in the authentication process within the proposed

Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708 
Software engineering based self-checking process for cyber security system in ... (Muntadher Naeem Yasir)
5845
system. The researchers work problem is the reliability in building the primary key if a problem occurs in
the secondary key that decreases the randomness of the primary key. In [9], the authors proposed an (ECMV)
technology. This technology depends on the PKI infrastructure. The action of the mechanism is to give
a short-term certificate for each vehicle, as it updated through the vehicles passage next each RSU.
This mechanism works to generate the key for each digital certificate, which increases the load on the network.
In [10], the authors worked on a CMAP proposal to discover data sent from harmful compounds in
VANETs. The mechanism of work of this protocol was to reduce the costs of Computational vehicles to
verify received messages. Nevertheless, here the costs increased with the vehicles number increasing,
because that the work of the protocol depends on the density of the presence of the vehicles. In [11], TESLA
protocol uses similar keys instead of using different keys. According to the study, researchers find that
the using of similar keys is much faster than digital signatures. This protocol avoided the denial of service
attacks. Therefore, it was difficult to verify the lack of intrusion on the network data because the approved
keys are the same. The problem here is in the case of knowing the key without making sure of increasing
the randomness of the keys. In [12], the researcher used a method based on the groups signature for increased
network security. Its mechanism of action is the association of a group's primary key with several private
keys for another group. Here the attacker can easily find the message sent through the researcher's lack of
interest in increasing the randomness of the keys which may lead to gaps in the network.
In [13], the authors proposed a basic group of key management system (CRT). The mechanism of
the action of this protocol is to reduce the number of broadcast messages to allow the side road units to get
the key. Yet, the researcher worked to increase the complexity of the primary server accounts without
emphasizing the increasing complexity of the randomness of the keys. In [14], the authors suggested a system
with a specific mechanism, which is to encrypt the public key to create an imaginary name. Through this
name, exotic vehicles audited on the VANET network by obtaining a real combined identity. Whatever
distinguishes the researchers work here is the ability of the system used to renew for use again which results
in addition to improving security. The problem with researchers' work is the increase in the cost of storage.
In [15], The researchers suggested VANET's lightweight binary system to ensure the confidentiality
of the network's work. The system used a double password based on the proposed authentication mechanism
for the system. Nevertheless, network security was mostly dependent on the key given by CA. In [16],
the authors worked on proposing a work technique called (3PAKE). This technology dealt with security
attacks that cause increased cost and separation of service or request for unsafe service as well as the failure
of the audit. Thus, they did not address the analysis of the rest of the types of attacks that fall within the work
of the same basic framework for service interruptions within the network. In [17], the authors suggested
a mechanism for maintaining the privacy of VANETs work. This mechanism was conditional upon
the signature of the system efficiency increase. Consequently, the disadvantage of this system was that it did
not suggest ways to increase the randomness of the encryption for the signature to increase efficiency.
As a result, the literary study of some researchers associated with the use of randomness of the key
in the VANETs. The proposed cyber security system differs in terms of employing the software engineering
based self-checking process, construction, phases and handling of DoS attacks. The proposed system
supports two different types of communication, police vehicle to police vehicle (PV2PV) and police vehicle to
infrastructure (PV2I). Our work in the proposed protocol focused on the use of the self-check process during
the registration phase. The self-check process uses NIST tests as thresholds to gurantee the validity of
the generated keys in terms of rendomnass [18, 19].
2. PROPOSED SYSTEM SCHEMA
To establish a vehicular ad hoc network of police vehicles, we need a fast and secure system to
complete the communication process. In Figure 1, we clarify the work of the system through the included
chart that is proposed to indicate the work of the three phases of the system: Registration, Authentication and
Detection of attacks. Each phase has a different work mechanism, but between all the phases there is a close
association that depends on the results of the previous phase. In addition, the proposed system focuses on
the use of a set of NIST tests in the registration phase specifically inside the server [18-22]. These tests work
for ensuring the randomness for the key given to the vehicles after it is generated inside the server based on
software engineering process (self-checking process). The aim of the proposed system is the urgent need to
preserve the security and confidentiality of the data exchanged between the vehicles. It is also used to address
the attacks that have become more prevalent in specified time that is mentioned in particular the DoS attacks
that were designed to separate the vehicle from service.

 ISSN: 2088-8708
Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 10, No. 6, December 2020 : 5844 - 5852
5846
Figure 1. Proposed system schema
3. GUI OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
The discuss of the clarification regarding the proposed graphical iser interface (GUI) model,
as shown in Figure 2. Both of C # and SQLServer were used in designing, building and programming
the proposed system for operating a vehicular ad hoc network. We have worked on adding a group of
vehicles, including what represents the police vehicles (number of vehicles: 11), vehicles attacking (number
of vehicles: 3) and natural vehicles (number of vehicles: 6). The proposed model contains several parts:
including what represents the environment of vehicle movement, the infrastructure that includes the server as
well as the list of events that show us the results of the proposed system in all phases from the registration
phase to the communication phase and detection of the attack.
Figure 2. GUI of the proposed system
4. PROPOSED SYSTEM ALGORITHM
The algorithm of Figure 3 shows the work of the proposed system to ward off DoS attacks.
The system contains more than one phase: which is registration, authentication, data transmission and attack
detection. The registration phase between the vehicle and the server is to send a request as well as receive
a key for each vehicle in the network. The authentication phase between two vehicles or between the vehicle
and the server by exchanging the keys between the vehicles and also confirming them inside the server.
Vehicle n+1Vehicle nVehicles
Registration
phase
(NIST)
Authentication
phase
Communication
and DOS Attack
Detection phase
Check Key Exchange
ENC H(Msg = Accident at location Z + parameters)

5847
The phase of data transmission and attack detection. This phase is done after the completion of the previous
two phases. When messages are sent between vehicles, the identity of the sending vehicle and its intentions at
the receiving vehicle are identified if the vehicle is an attack or not. The following steps illustrate the work of
the proposed algorithm to VANET.
Figure 3. Proposed system algorithm
Algorithm:
Step 1 : Start.
Step 2 : Each vehicle has its information registered on the server.
Step 3 : The registration phase in order to complete the registration process within
the network where each vehicle will send a key request to the server.
Is Vehicle
Registration ?
Registrartion
process
Check the Vehicle
Registration
Is Registration
valid ?
Yes
Start
No
Yes
No
Send Vehicle (n) key to Another
Vehicle (n+1) or Infrastructure
Vehicle (n+1) or infrastructure send
their keys to a vehicle (n)
The System Checks
the validity of All keys
Authentication the
keys included ?
Such Vehicle is
Authentication
Such Vehicle is not
Authentication
Send Vehicle (n) message
to Another Vehicle (n+1)
Vehicle n+1
)nT–n+1≤ Tn+1If (ΔT
Vehicle n
)n+1'T–n≤ 'TnIf (ΔT
Vehicle (n+1) send their
message to a vehicle (n)
End
The Communication Process has Ended
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Added to the attack list
Attack detection
send the attack
vehicle information
to the server
Database
Separated the vehicle
from the network
No
No
Registration phase
Authentication phase
Communication and attack
detection phase

 ISSN: 2088-8708
5848
Step 4 : The server, Works to verify the request by knowing whether the vehicle has its
information previously registered inside the server or not. As well as knowing
whether the vehicle is already registered as a vehicle of attack. (Step 2)
Step 5 : The server, after checking the safety of the vehicle, it works to send the key to
the vehicle.
Step 6 : After the registration phase is followed by the authentication phase.
The authentication is done between the vehicles on the network as well as with
RSU. This is done by exchanging the keys between the vehicles and then sending
them to the server.
Step 7 : The server, matching the received keys with the database. If they are identical,
the authentication process completes. Otherwise, the authentication process
terminates and the vehicle is considered alien on the network. (Step 11)
Step 8 : The phase of data transmission or communication and the detection of attacks.
Vehicle n will send a message to Vehicle n+1. The attacking vehicle is detected
when the vehicle receives the harmful vehicle message, checking the time
difference for messages received.
Step 9 : If the time difference is higher than usual. The vehicle is considered harmful and
represents a DoS attack (Step 10). Otherwise, the receiving vehicle will send
a response to the receiving vehicle that operates with the same mechanism for
checking messages.
Step 10 : The victim vehicle: After knowing the harmful vehicles intentions. It sends its
information to the server to store its information, add it to the list of
attacking vehicles and separate it from the service.
Step 11 : End.
5. PROPOSED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING/SELF-CHECKING PROCESS ALGORITHM
In this work, the focused of the proposed system is on using a set of NIST tests in VANET as
a conditional thresholds for accepting the keys. The purpose of using these tests inside the VANET is to
increase the strength of key each vehicle and increase its randomness. Three tests were chosen
namely: frequency, block and runs test through which the key is tests inside the server before sending to
vehicles [18-22]. The proposed algorithm for key randomness tests is illustrated in Figure 4. The generation
of the key is done through the two equations:
Server:
Ns=h[ID_Vs||Ts]⊕R_Vs (1)
Key_Vi=h[ID_Vs||Reqi||Ns]⊕R_Vs (2)
where: ID_Vs server, time ( Ts ), generate values( R_Vs ), Request the sending vehicle (Reqi). After that,
the key converted to a binary number tested inside the three tests that work to know the arbitrary power of
the key before sending it to the server.
5.1. Frequency test
This test obtained from the central limit theory for the number of random. This test aims to find out
whether the frequencies of (1 & 0) across the entire key sequence are nearly equal, and the ratio of (1s & 0s)
is close to half. If the number of (0s & 1s) is not the same, then this means knowing whether the difference
falls within the randomness limit.
The primary test for randomness is the frequency test. If a pattern randomly generated, you would
expect the number of (0s & 1s) to be almost the same. Also, many (0s | 1s) indicate no randomness. The Test
of Frequency Test method estimates a sum where (0s) are encoded as a (-1) equivalent, and (1s) encoded as
a (+1) equivalent. If the sum is equal to (0), there are similar numbers of (0s & 1s), but the sum varies from
(0), whether it is very (-) or very (+), meaning a vast number of (0s | 1s).
Computes:
N : The length of the bit key.
Keyi : The key string.
Each bit 0 & 1 in the key is Serially by ‐1 and 1 alone by using the mathematical relationship:
Xi = 2keyi – 1 (3)
where Xi represents a new value of the bit keyi at the ith
point.
The total of Xi represents Sn:
Sobs = |Sn|/√ 𝑛 (4)

5849
x = Sobs /√2 (5)
P‐value=1‐erf(x) (6)
If (P-value < 0.01), then conclude that the key is non-random. Otherwise, conclude that the key is random.
5.2. Block frequency test
We may notice that if the first half of the key chain filled with one and the other half with zero,
then the test ends with a non-random key. The goal of this test is to ensure that the frequencies (0 & 1) are
evenly distributed along with the key. Block testing means to tackle this randomness type. Block Test divides
a key into blocks and checks the number of (1s) in each block. The random key expects to contain about 50
percent of (1) in each block. In short, the block test accepts the block length parameter, which is the number
of bits per block. From this, the number of blocks can be calculated. Next, the mass test calculates the (1s)
ratio in each block and then uses a magic formula to compute the chi-squared test statistic.
Computes:
M : The length of each block.
The key (n‐bit string) is divided into non‐overlapping N blocks each of M‐bit, where:
N=[n/M] (7)
πi of 1s in each block is given by:
πi =
1
M
∑ key(i − 1)M − jM
j=1 (8)
where 1 ≤ i ≤ N. Chi‐square is:
χ2
(obs) = 4M ∑ (πi −
1
2
)N
i=1
2
(9)
P-value=igamc(N/2,χ2
(obs)/2) (10)
5.3. Runs test
A key length runs test means whether the bits are the same, bound by bits with opposite values.
The goal of this test is to find out if the operating frequencies of (0 & 1) are of different lengths within
the randomness limits. In this test, it is possible to the key to passing the first and second test if there are
equal numbers of (0s & 1s) may be in the following order 101010101010. Here each block will have about
50 percent from 0 bits and 50 percent from 1 bit if we assume that the key chain formed in the form.
The following is 11000100 on four runs: 00,1,000,11. If any key generated, the expected number on
operation tests calculated. This test decides whether the oscillation between such 0s and 1s is too fast or
too slow.
Computes:
Compute the test statistic:
V(obs)= ∑ r(k) + 1n−1
k=1 (11)
where r(k)=0 if keyk=keyk+1, and r(k)=1
Compute P-value=erfc(
|Vn(obs)−2nπ(1−π)|
2√2nπ(1−π)
) (12)
Below the explaination of the proposed self-checking process algorithm is introduced:
Step 1 : Start.
Step 2 : After a request from the Vehicle n deveecer
Step 3 : The server calculates the equation of number (1), (2) through which a key is
generated
Step 4 : The key is converted to a binary number

 ISSN: 2088-8708
5850
Step 5 : After conversion, the randomness of the key is tested using the frequency test
done by calculating equations (3), (4), (5), (6(
Step 6 : If the test process is successful, the key is passed to the next test. If the test
process for the key fails, the key is neglected and back to Step 3 to generate
another key
Step 7 : After the second test key has passed the test successfully, the key is tested
using a frequency block test by calculating equations (7), (8), (9), (10)
Step 8 : Repeat Step 6
Step 9 : After passing the key the first test and the second test, the key is tested using
a runs test through equations (11), (12(
Step 10 : Repeat Step 6
Step 11 : After the three tests are successfully completed, the key is ready for encryption
using hash function MD5 [23-26]
Step 12 : Send the key to the Vehicle n
Step 13 : End
Figure 4. Proposed self-checking process algorithm
Start
s, PWs: IDChoose
s: RRandom
Computing …
Based on eq. 2 ( Key )
NIST
Frequncy test ?
NIST
Block Frequncy
test ?
NIST
Runs test ?
Sequence passes NIST test for randomness
There is evidence that
sequence is NOT random
Hash Function MD5
End
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Send the register
key to Vehicle n
Server
Convert Key from
integer to binary

5851
6. TEST RESULTS
In this part, we provide a set of tests for a set of keys to 20 vehicles. Some of them are passes,
and some of them fail, depending on the randomness of the key. As shown in the Table 1, if the key is
random, it is validated. Otherwise, it is not passed. All actions depend on the mechanism of making the three
tests used in our proposed network system. In Table 2, we show solutions to a set of keys that did not pass
the three tests by returning them to create a new key. This process is done automatically when each key is
given. This means that no non-random key passed to vehicles, so it is difficult to know which keys are given
to vehicles by the server.
Table 1. Test results for random and nonrandom keys sets
NO Key Generation Statistical Test
Frequency
P-value
Block Frequency
P-value
Runs
P-value
1. 110110101010111111111110100001011100001 0.1495 PASS 0.1117 PASS 0.8555 PASS
2. 110110101010111010000101110000000000001 0.2623 PASS 0.4779 PASS 0.9662 PASS
3. 110110101010111010000101110011111110001 0.2623 PASS 0.4779 PASS 0.4813 PASS
4. 111111110110011101111110100001011100001 0.0023 FAIL 0.0003 FAIL 0.0137 PASS
5. 100000000000000000000000000001011100001 0.0000 FAIL 0.0002 FAIL 0.0524 PASS
6. 110011010111011100101011100001011101101 0.2623 PASS 0.5578 PASS 0.1719 PASS
7. 110011001100110011100110011001100110011 0.6310 PASS 0.9735 PASS 0.9014 PASS
8. 100000000000000000000000000000000000001 0.0000 FAIL 0.0000 FAIL 0.1908 PASS
9. 100111101111011101110111011111101111001 0.0023 FAIL 0.0611 PASS 0.3715 PASS
10. 100111101111011101111110000000000000000 0.6310 PASS 0.0047 FAIL 0.0025 FAIL
11. 110000110001111101011111110001111001111 0.0782 PASS 0.5578 PASS 0.0851 PASS
12. 110111111111111111001101010100111100011 0.0065 FAIL 0.0113 PASS 0.7533 PASS
13. 101011011011111111001101010100111100011 0.0782 PASS 0.2397 PASS 0.2884 PASS
14. 100001111000110001110011001100111100011 0.8728 PASS 0.9098 PASS 0.1504 PASS
15. 100000000000101000001101001100111100011 0.0782 PASS 0.1359 PASS 0.3049 PASS
16. 111101111110001010011001111000110000000 0.8728 PASS 0.2873 PASS 0.0787 PASS
17. 111101100010001010011001111000111011110 0.4233 PASS 0.3425 PASS 0.7009 PASS
18. 111101100010001010010000000000000000000 0.0023 FAIL 0.0073 FAIL 0.2278 PASS
19. 111101100011111111110000000000111000000 0.8728 PASS 0.1991 PASS 0.0002 FAIL
20. 111101100011110111110000111000111000100 0.4233 PASS 0.5578 PASS 0.0917 PASS
Table 2. Test solutions for nonrandom keys sets
NO Key Generation Result Solutions Statistical Test
Frequency
P-value
Block Frequency
P-value
Runs
P-value
1. 110110101010111111111110
100001011100001
PASS
2. 110110101010111010000101
110000000000001
PASS
3. 110110101010111010000101
110011111110001
PASS
4. 111111110110011101111110
100001011100001
FAIL 11111111011001110111
1110100001011100001
0.0782 PASS 0.0266 PASS 0.3049 PASS
5. 100000000000000000000000
000001011100001
FAIL 11100101001101110010
1011100001011100001
0.8728 PASS 0.8266 PASS 0.6278 PASS
6. 110011010111011100101011
100001011101101
PASS
7. 110011001100110011100110
011001100110011
PASS
8. 100000000000000000000000
000000000000001
FAIL 10011110111101110111
1111110010011110001
0.0163 PASS 0.0497 PASS 0.5437 PASS
9. 100111101111011101110111
011111101111001
FAIL 10011110110101110111
0111011011101111001
0.0163 PASS 0.2873 PASS 0.0994 PASS
10. 100111101111011101111110
000000000000000
FAIL 10011110111101110111
1110000000011100000
0.6310 PASS 0.0215 PASS 0.0174 FAIL
11. 110000110001111101011111
110001111001111
PASS
12. 110111111111111111001101
010100111100011
FAIL 11011110001000111100
1101010100111100010
0.6310 PASS 0.5578 PASS 0.8428 PASS
13. 101011011011111111001101
010100111100011
PASS
14. 100001111000110001110011
001100111100011
PASS
15. 100000000000101000001101
001100111100011
PASS
16. 111101111110001010011001
111000110000000
PASS
17. 111101100010001010011001
111000111011110
PASS
18. 111101100010001010010000
000000000000000
FAIL 11110110001000101001
0000000111100000010
0.1495 PASS 0.1991 PASS 0.4050 PASS
19. 111101100011111111110000
000000111000000
FAIL 11110110001111011111
0000010000111001000
0.8728 PASS 0.5578 PASS 0.0787 PASS
20. 111101100011110111110000
111000111000100
PASS

 ISSN: 2088-8708
5852
7. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we hed proposed a software engineering/self-checking process based cyber security
system for VANET. The lightweight protocol was adopted for managing VANET. The proposed protocol
consisted of three levels, each of which works to maintain network security from attacks that are related to
DoS attacks to reach the required safety. The technology of self-checking process checked the generated keys
inside the server to ensure the randomness before sending it to all vehicles. It was based on the use of three
types of NIST tests. These tests worked on computing the randomness of the keys. If they fulfilled
the conditions, they sent to the vehicle. The obtained results showed high efficiency in the performance of
the proposed system in detecting the randomness failure and finding the solutions in case.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Hasrouny, et al., “VANET security challenges and solutions: A survey,” Vehicular Communications, vol. 7,
pp. 7-20, 2017.
[2] M. S. Anwer and C. Guy, “A survey of VANET technologies,” Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and
Information Sciences, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 661-671, 2014.
[3] Q. Xu, et al., “Vehicle-to-vehicle safety messaging in DSRC,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM international
workshop on Vehicular ad hoc networks, pp. 19-28, 2004.
[4] V. D. Kumar, et al., “Data transmission between dedicated short range communication and WiMAX for Efficient
vehicular communication,” J. of Computational & Theorical Nanoscience, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 2649-2654, 2018.
[5] B. Jia, et al., “Performance Analysis for the Coexistence of Radar and Communication in VANETs,” in 2019
IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC), pp. 979-983, 2019.
[6] M. S. Gurmani and D. P. F. Möller, “Mechanism Protecting Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication,” in Smart
Technologies, Springer, pp. 335-343, 2020.
[7] U. Shaikh and N. Thalkar, “Vehicle Communication Systems: Technology and Review,” in Proceedings 2019:
Conference on Technologies for Future Cities (CTFC), 2018.
[8] D. Johnson, et al., “The elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA),” International Journal of Information
Security, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 36-63, 2001.
[9] A. Wasef, et al., “ECMV: efficient certificate management scheme for vehicular networks,” in IEEE GLOBECOM
2008-2008 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, pp. 1-5, 2008.
[10] W. Shen, et al., “Cooperative message authentication in vehicular cyber-physical systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Emerging Topics in Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 84-97, 2013.
[11] A. Perrig, et al., “The TESLA broadcast authentication protocol,” Rsa Cryptobytes, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2-13, 2002.
[12] J. Guo, et al., “A group signature based secure and privacy-preserving vehicular communication framework,”
in 2007 Mobile Networking for Vehicular Environments, pp. 103-108, 2007.
[13] X. Zheng, et al., “Chinese remainder theorem based group key management,” in Proceedings of the 45th annual
southeast regional conference, pp. 266-271, 2007.
[14] J. Li, et al., “ACPN: A novel authentication framework with conditional privacy-preservation and non-repudiation
for VANETs,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 938-948, 2015.
[15] F. Wang, et al., “2FLIP: A two-factor lightweight privacy-preserving authentication scheme for VANET,” IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 896-911, 2016.
[16] R. Muthumeenakshi, et al., “Extended 3PAKE authentication scheme for value-added services in VANETs,”
Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 59, pp. 27-38, 2017.
[17] C. Sun, et al., “A privacy-preserving mutual authentication resisting DoS attacks in VANETs,” IEEE Access, vol. 5,
pp. 24012–24022, 2017.
[18] L. Bassham, et al., “Sp 800-22 rev. 1a. a statistical test suite for random and pseudorandom number generators for
cryptographic applications,” National Institute of Standards & Technology, 2010.
[19] I. V Chugunkov, et al., “Parallelization of test for assessing pseudorandom number generators using CUDA
technology,” in 2015 IEEE NW Russia Young Researchers in Electrical and Electronic Engineering Conference
(EIConRusNW), pp. 60-64, 2015.
[20] A. Suciu, et al., “Parallel implementation of the NIST statistical test suite,” in Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 6th
International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing, pp. 363-368, 2010.
[21] J. K. M. S. Uz Zaman and R. Ghosh, “Review on fifteen Statistical Tests proposed by NIST,” Journal of
Theoretical Physics and Cryptography, vol. 1, pp. 18-31, 2012.
[22] J. K. M. S. Uz Zaman and R. Ghosh, “A review study of NIST Statistical Test Suite: Development of an indigenous
computer package,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv1208.5740, 2012.
[23] M. Erritali, et al., “A Contribution to Secure the Routing Protocol" Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing" Using
a Symmetric Signature-Based AES and MD5 Hash,” International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems,
vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 95-103, 2011.
[24] R. Shaikh and D. Deotale, “A survey on VANET security using ECC, RSA & MD5,” International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 167-172, 2015.
[25] X. Wang and H. Yu, “How to break MD5 and other hash functions,” in Annual international conference on
the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques, pp. 19-35, 2005.
[26] R. D. Ardy, et al., “Digital image signature using triple protection cryptosystem (RSA, Vigenere, and MD5),”
in 2017 Int. Conf. on Smart Cities, Automation & Intelligent Computing Systems (ICON-SONICS), pp. 87-92, 2017.

Software engineering based self-checking process for cyber security system in VANET

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Software engineering based self-checking process for cyber security system in VANET (20)

More from IJECEIAES (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Software engineering based self-checking process for cyber security system in VANET