An Review Approach For Collaborative Scheme Of Trust & Route Maintenance

(1)

Volume 2, Issue 7, 2015

21

Available online at www.ijiere.com

International Journal of Innovative and Emerging

Research in Engineering

e-ISSN: 2394 – 3343 p-ISSN: 2394 – 5494

A Review Approach for Collaborative Scheme of

Trust & Route Maintenance

Er. Srishty Tanwar, Er. Sahil Batra

Student M.Tech. , Geeta Institute of Management and Technology, Kurukshetra, India A.P , Geeta Institute of Management and Technology, Kurukshetra, India

ABSTRACT:

Performance of mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) is a factor of the extent of their co-operation between individual nodes. To constitute the network node co-operate with each other. The existence of mischivious nodes may block the routing operation in MANETs and routing becomes difficult. To overcome this behavior, the network nodes, which behave according to the protocol should be recognized at the route selection process along with the hop count. This is achieved by assuring the normal behavior for each participating nodes in the network. In this paper, a protocol is reviewed which is based on self monitoring (agent-based) and follows the dynamic source routing (DSR) algorithm. This protocol is known as agent-based trusted dynamic source routing protocol for MANETs. The objective of the protocol is to manage trust information with minimal overhead and improvement in time delay. This objective is achieved by a multi-agent scheme (MAS). MAS consists of agents which are known as: monitoring agent and routing agent. An objective model for measurement of the trust value is reviewed. This model is weighted by both numbers and size of routed packets.

Keywords:Ad Hoc, Trust Management, Agent, MAS, Reactive, Proactive, Hybrid.

I. INTRODUCTION

Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs) are a collection of mobile nodes which communicate with each other via multi-hope wireless links. Each node in MANETs must act as a router as well as host at the same time. MANETs routing protocols are classified into two categories, tabledriven (proactive) and on-demand (reactive). On-demand routing protocols which are considered in this paper perform better with significantly lower overheads than table-driven routing protocols in many situations [2]. In general, both types of routing protocols for MANETs are based on the assumption of all participating nodes are fully cooperative. Due to MANETs characteristics such as openness, mobility, dynamic topology and protocol weaknesses, these may be targeted by attackers in a number of ways.Several routing protocols have been proposed for MANET. Most of them assume centralized units or trusted third parties, which actually destroy the self-organization nature of MANETs. These protocols are effective to fight against external attacks, but are not able to prevent selfishness like misbehaviors. For example, a node may refuse to forward data packets for other nodes to save its battery. So a comprehensive approach is necessary for MANETs to prevent both attacks and misbehaviors. This approach is regarding the security improvement of the abovementioned protocols. This is achieved by developing mechanisms for measuring the trustworthiness of the network nodes. The measure of the trustworthiness of such nodes is through a term called trust level, which results in what is called trusted routing protocols. Many trusted routing protocols have been suggested as an effective security mechanism in MANETs.

A. Reactive Routing Protocol:-

On demand routing protocols which require routes when its demanded for the transfer of data packets are known as reactive routing protocols. If source has to send data packets to the receiver, then on the basis of this requirement the protocol find out the route from source to destination.e.g. AODV, DSR

B. Proactive Routing Protocol:-

Table driven protocols which require updation at regular interval of time of the maintenance of information about every node inside the network and store this information inside the route table in the type of the cache are known as Proactive Routing Protocols.e.g. DSDV, GSR, WRP.

C. Hybrid Routing Protocol:- DSR

(2)

22 than periodic protocols, since they transmit routing information only in response to actual packets to be sent or in response to topology changes affecting routes actively in use. Lower routing overhead allows more of the available bandwidth and battery power to be used towards delivery of application data. In a secure routing protocol, reduced overhead has the added benefit of reducing the number of routing packets that need to be authenticated, thereby reducing the computational overhead needed for security. The operation of DSR is divided into two activities: Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. In this section, we describe the basic form of Route Discovery and Route Maintenance in DSR. In DSR, when a node has a packet to send to some destination and does not currently have a route to that destination in its Route Cache, the node initiates Route Discovery to find a route; this node is known as the initiator of the Route Discovery, and the destination of the packet is known as the Discovery’s target. The initiator node transmits a ROUTE REQUEST packet as a local broadcast, specifying the target node and a unique identifier from the initiator . Each node receiving the ROUTE REQUEST, if it has recently seen this request identifier from the initiator or if its own address is already present in an address list in the REQUEST, discards the REQUEST. Otherwise, the appends its own node address to the address list in the REQUEST and rebroadcasts the REQUEST. When the ROUTE REQUEST reaches its target node, the target sends a ROUTE REPLY back to the initiator of the REQUEST, including a copy of the accumulated list of addresses from the REQUEST. When the REPLY reaches the initiator of the REQUEST, it caches the new route in its Route Cache. Route Maintenance is the mechanism by which a node sending a packet along a specified route to some destina tion detects if that route has broken, for example because two nodes in it have moved too far apart; an example of Route Maintenance . DSR is based on source routing: when sending a packet, the originator lists in the header of the packet the complete sequence of nodes through which the packet is to be forwarded. Each node along the route forwards the packet to the next hop indicated in the packet’s header, and attempts to confirm that the packet was received by that next node; a node may confirm this by means of a link-layer acknowledgment, passive acknowledgment , or network-layer acknowledgment. If, after a limited number of local retransmissions of the packet, a node in the route is unable to make this confirmation it returns a ROUTE ERROR to the original source of the packet, identifying the link from itself to the next node as broken. The sender then removes this broken link from its Route Cache; for subsequent packets to this destination, the sender may use any other route to that destination in its Cache, or it may attempt a new Route Discovery for that target if necessary.

Routing misbehaviour problem

The ultimate goal for the security solutions in MANET focuses on security authentication, integrity, confidentiality, availability and anonymity, to mobile users.The security goal having such parameters can be achived by providing complete protection spanning the complete protocol stack. The problem discussed in this section is related to basic functionality of delivering data bits from one node to another.From other view point it can be considered as efforts to protect connectivity for mobile nodes over open network and having multihop wireless channels. This provides the basis for the support that is provided by any network security mechanisms. The connectivity provided in MANETs of multihop type is provided through two steps: (1) Using link-layer protocols for ensuring one-hope connectivity e.g., wireless medium access control; (2) Multihop extension of connectivity through data forwarding protocols and with the help of network layer routing. The best solution adopts the approach of securing both the layers. The line of defense is unclear, so a security solution which spans to both layers and have the prevention, detection , and reaction as its components is called complete security solutions.[18] In the MANET context, the prevention component is mainly achieved by secure ad hoc routing protocols which prevent the mischievous node from adopting incorrect routing paths to other nodes. Security protocols are based on earlier ad hoc routing protocols, and employ different cryptographic primitives (e.g., keyed-hash message authentication code (HMAC), digital signatures, hashings) used for authenticating routing messages. The detection component discovers ongoing anomalies in the network through identification of michivious behavior exhigited by the attacker nodes.

Such behaviours are detected through end – to – end manner or by overhearing the channel by the neighbouring nodes and after that reaching to a collaborative result. Once an attacker node is detected, the reaction to these attacks provide network with necessary adjustments in routing and forwarding operations which range form neglecting a particular route to collectively excluding the node from the network.

The routing protocols that have been proposed assume that the nodes will fully participate. Unfortunately, node misbehaviour is a common phenomenon. Misbehaving nodes at the routing level can be classified into two main categories [19].

1. Selfish node: operates normally in the Route Discovery and the Route Maintenance phases of the routing protocol. However, it does not perform the packet forwarding function for data packets unrelated to itself. The selfish node attempts to benefit from other nodes, but refuse to share its own resources.

2. Malicious node: create the misunderstanding of existed routes by manipulating the actual routes. Various routing mechanisms use the cost(hop count) as a metric. A node be misguided to a low hop count route for its destinatio, enabling it to intercept traffic for that destination. Node identities are not authenticated, so a node can claim to be the destination of a route.

(3)

23 Agent-based trusted dynamic source routing (ATDSR) protocol

Using the trust and reputation management scheme to secure MANETs requires paying close attention to the incurred bandwidth and delay overhead, which so far have been overlooked by most research work. Searching nodes’ reputation in a network with a central authority is not difficult. However, the absence of any centralized authority in MANETs and the bandwidth limitation of these networks make it challenging to trace nodes’ reputation accurately. Flooding the network with request messages is a useful tool for data searching in a fully distributed environment. However, since message transfer consumes both bandwidth and energy, trust and reputation management schemes that generate large amounts of traffic by flooding the network with request messages are not desirable in MANETs, as they are known for there bandwidth and energy constraints. In addition, because trust and reputation information is usually requested by nodes before they start communicating with each other, trust and reputation management schemes with poor trust and reputation acquisition latency are not acceptable. Moreover, the routing process is getting more complex due to the additional computational overhead. Under these circumstances, a well-designed trusted routing protocol MANETs is a must.

Agent Overview

The mobile agent paradigm has attracted attention from many fields of computer science. Mobile agents roaming the network could search for information, meet and interact with other agents that roam the network or remain bound to a particular machine. An agent manifests four distinct characteristics, namely, intelligence, communication, autonomy and mobility . Intelligence is the ability of the agent to adapt itself and/or change its environment based on the available information. Communication is the property of an agent to exchange data with other agents residing in the same nodes or in other nodes. Through autonomy, the agent has the authority to control its actions and strategies without the necessity of human control.

Mobile agents have the ability to migrate easily across the network performing specific tasks.

Mobile agents’ computation logic and accumulated data are both at risk from attacks from their host computers. Therefore, mobile agent systems should be secured against unauthorized analysis and modification.

II. RELATED WORK

Vishnu Kumar Sharma and Dr. Sarita Singh Bhadauria. In [1], propose an agent based congestion control technique, in which, the information about network congestion is collected and distributed by mobile agents (MA).A Congestion control protocol based on mobile agent is proposed which avoid congestion in network. Some mobile agents are responsible for collecting and carrying the routing information and status about congetion. When mobile agent is moved through the network, it search for a less-loaded neighbor node as it next hop and provides the update of routing table as required from node’s congestion sttus. By this mechanism, the information about network dynamics is provided to the node.

Yasushi Kambayashi. In [2], An ant like working of mobile agent is reviewed for given agents.These protocols are often used in MANETs. MANETs are constituted by the hand held devices like laptop computers, cellular phones which have the capability to form a network without the use of any fixed infrastructures.Only infrastructure used is the device.These devices are capable of forming multi hop routing A node who want to initiate communication with other nodes which may not present in its one-hope range will request The only infrastructure in MANET is the wireless communication interfaces on the devices. In such a circumstance, where some of the wireless devices are not within wireless range of each other, multi-hop routing is required to transmit messages to the destination. A node that wants to start communication with other nodes that are not within its one-hop wireless transmission range has to request intermediate nodes to forward their communication packets to the destination. In this paper, we survey a variety of proposed network protocols to accommodate this situation. We focus especially on biologically-inspired routing algorithms that are based on the ant colony optimization algorithm.

Y. Zhou, A. N. Zincir-Heywood. In [3] , introduces a new agent-based ad-hoc network routing protocol: Mobile Agent Routing protocol (MAR). Mobile agents are simple packets that carry data and explore the network to collect routing information. They communicate with one another to exchange this routing information. By mobile agent exploration, the intelligence is put across the network, which enables the routing to be distributed and adaptive. Comparisons of MAR with another state-of-the-art ad-hoc routing protocol:Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) show that MAR performs significantly better than DSDV within 95% confidence interval at speeds greater than 0.1 m/s in terms of delay and the number of received packets.

(4)

24 routing algorithm is more effective and robust than AODV. The mobile agent multiple constraint based routing scheme is enhanced with security and access control features. The mobile agents have no security mechanism and access control. The authentication scheme is used to permit mobile agents to perform computations. The RSA algorithm is used for the security process. The system improves the QoS factors with bandwidth and energy consideration. The mobile agents are developed using the Aglet.

SHIVANAJAY MARWAHA, CHEN KHONG THAM, DIPTI SRINIVASAN. In [5], A novel routing scheme for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs), which combines the on-demand routing capability of Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol with a distributed topology discovery mechanism using ant-like mobile agents is proposed in this paper. The proposed hybrid protocol reduces route discovery latency and the end-to-end delay by providing high connectivity without requiring much of the scarce network capacity. On the one side the proactive routing protocols in MANETs like Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) require to know, the topology of the entire network. Hence they are not suitable for highly dynamic networks such as MANETs, since the topology update information needs to be propagated frequently throughout the network. These frequent broadcasts limit the available network capacity for actual data communication. On the other hand, on-demand, reactive routing schemes like AODV and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), require the actual transmission of the data to be delayed until the route is discovered. Due to this long delay a pure reactive routing protocol may not be applicable for real-time data and multimedia communication. Through extensive simulations in this paper it is proved that the proposed Ant-AODV hybrid routing technique, is able to achieve reduced end-to-end delay compared to conventional ant-based and AODV routing protocols.

III. CONCLUSION

MANETs are susceptible to adversaries who can compromise nodes. The routing protocol is critical to MANETs performance. Therefore security is crucial, but it is also a hard task due to the nature of such networks. Trusted routing protocols are one means of providing security. A comprehensive review of some important research works focusing on adapting reputation and trust-based systems for MANETs along with a critical evaluation of their strength and weaknesses are also presented. This paper presents an agent-based trusted on demand routing protocol called ATDSR. ATDSR depends on the self monitoring of each node to find out its trust value. The nodes trust values moves across the network during the route discovery messages without flooding the network with extra messages. The advantages of ATDSR are examined and compared with other techniques via simulation done over a variety of environmental conditions such as the number of malicious nodes, host density and movement rates. The results show that ATDSR can effectively improve the energy efficiency and data delivery ratio in the presence of malicious nodes, it is also possible to find routes completely free of any malicious nodes while maintaining the ratio of malicious nodes about 30–40 % of the total nodes.

ATDSR has a better routing packet overhead than TDSR because it does not require flooding the network with trust values inquiries. The energy consumption of all nodes increases when the ATDSR protocol is engaged.

REFERENCE

[1] Hu, Y. C., Perrig, A., & Johnson, D. B. (2002). Ariadne: A secure on-demand routing protocol for ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 8th Ann. Int’l conference of mobile computing and Networking (MobiCom 2002) (pp. 12–23) ACM Press.

[2] Perrig, A., & Tygar, D. (2002). The TESLA broadcast authentication protocol. RSA CryptoBytes, 5(2), 1–13. [3] Papadimitratos, P., & Haas, Z. J. (2002) Secure routing for mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the SCS

communication networks and distributed systems modeling and simulation conference (CNDS 2002), San Antonio, TX, pp. 27–31.

[4] Zheng, Y., et al. (2014). A survey on trust management for Internet of Things. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 42, 120–134.

[5] Sun, Y. L., Yu, W., Han, Z., & Liu, K. (2006). Information theoretic framework of trust modeling and evaluation for ad hoc networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 24(2), 305–317.

[6] Li, X., Lyu, M. R., & Liu, J. (2004) A trust model based routing protocol for secure ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, USA, pp 1286–1295.

[7] Pirzada, A. A. & McDonald, C. (2006) Reliable routing in MANETs using direct trust mechanisms. In Advances in Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks. Berlin: Springer, ch. 6, pp. 133–159.

[8] Zhan, G., Shi, W., & Deng, J. (2012). Design and implementation of TARF: a trust-aware routing framework for WSNs. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 9(2), 184–197.

[9] Rahman, A. A. & Hailes, S. (1997) A distributed trust model. In Proceedings of the ACM New Security Paradigms Workshop, Cumbria, UK, pp. 48–60.

[10]He, D., et al. (2012). ReTrust: Attack-resistant and lightweight trust management for medical sensor network. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 16(4), 623–632.

[11]Maleknasab, M., & Bidaki, M. (2013). Trust-based clustering in mobile ad hoc networks: Challenges and issues. International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 7(5), 321–342.

[12]Johnson, D., & Maltz, D. (1996). Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks. In I. A. Korth (Ed.), Mobile Computing (Vol. 353, pp. 153–181). Norwell: Kluwer.

(5)

25 [14]Liu, K., & Deng, J. (2007). An acknowledgment-based approach for the detection of routing misbehavior in

MANETs. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 6(5), 536–550.

[15]Marti, S., Giuli, T. J., Lai, K., & Baker, M. (2000). Mitigating routing misbehavior in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’00), pp. 255–265.

[16]Buchegger, S. & Boudec, L. (2002) Performance analysis of the CONFIDANT protocol. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 226–236.

[17]Michiardi, P., & Molva, R. (2002) CORE: A collaborative reputation mechanism to enforce node cooperation in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 6th IFIP conference on security communications, and multimedia, Portoroz, Slovenia, pp. 107–121.

[18]Pirzada, A. A., McDonald, C., & Datta, A. (2007). Dependable dynamic source routing without a trusted third party. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 39(1), 71–85.

[19]Dhurandher, S. K. & Mehra, V. (2009). Multi-path and message trust-based secure routing in ad hoc networks. In Proceedings international conference advances in computing, control and telecomm. Technologies, Trivandrum, Kerala, pp. 189–194.

[20]Li, X., Jia, Z., Zhang, P., Zhang, R., & Wang, H. (2010). Trustbased on-demand multipath routing in mobile ad hoc networks. Information Security, IET, 4(4), 212–232.

[21]Dhurandher, S. K., Obaidat, M. S., Verma, K., Gupta, P., & Dhurandher, P. (2011). FACES: friend-based ad hoc routing using challenges to establish security in MANETs systems. Systems Journal IEEE, 5(2), 176–188. [22]Minar, N., Kramer, K. H., & Maes, P. (1999) Cooperative mobile agents for dynamic network routing. In Software

Agents for Future Communication Systems. Springer, Berlin, pp. 287–304,

[23]Scott, D., Beresford, A., & Mycroft, A. (2003) Spatial security policies for mobile agents in a sentient computing environment. In Proceedings of FASE 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 2621, pp. 102–117) Warsaw, Poland.

[24]He, Q., Wu, D., & Khosla, P. (2002) Sori: A secure and objective reputation-based incentive scheme for ad-hoc networks. In Proceedings of IEEE WCNC, Atlanta, USA.