ATTACK RESISTANT TRUST-CONSPIRE (ART-C): A TRUST
MANAGEMENT SCHEME FOR SECURING VANETs
M. Gayathri, S. Sharanya, P. Saikiran and M. Aravind
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, SRM University, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, India E-Mail: [email protected]
ABSTARCT
Vehicular Adhoc Networks (VANETs) has apparently enhanced the travel experience by including electronic gadgets and equipment as a part of the journey. The advancements made in VANETs lure the attackers and impose serious security threats to the communication channel. Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) is gaining popularity in developing a more secure VANET. The past reviews in EDCA or IEEE 802.11e mainly focus on the immersion throughput. This paper proposes a diagnostic model for IEEE 802.11e EDCA under non-immersed conditions in view of the edge transmission-cycle approach. This approach assesses the information trust and hub trust from the vehicular information collected through VANETs. The hub trust further segregated into, useful trust and suggestion trust, which show how likely a hub can fulfill its usefulness and how dependable the proposals from a hub for different hubs will be, separately. The viability and effectiveness of the proposed Attack Resistant Trust (ART) Management plan is approved through broad investigations and discover the pernicious hub and the same has been wiped out with the goal that we are expanding the execution high.
Keywords: attack resistant trust, attack resistant trust- conspire, hub trust, information trust, VANETs.
1. INTRODUCTION
The street transportation framework has elevated car manufacturers to incorporate remote correspondences and systems administration into vehicles. The remotely organized vehicles shape into Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANETs), in which vehicles collaborate to handle different information messages in multihop ways, without the need of any incorporated organization. Thus VANETs organize themselves to be a sheltered and interoperable vehicular communication channel.
The physical infrastructure of VANETs includes On Board Unit (OBU) and Road Side Unit (RSU), acting as hubs for communication. The RSU is responsible for detecting, handling, and remote correspondence activities in both Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications that detects street mischances, movement conditions (e.g., blockage, crisis braking, frigid street) and other important transportation conditions. The main challenge faced in VANET development is security threats. VANETs stand defenseless against the security dangers because of its expanding dependence on correspondence, registering and control technologies. The security challenges confronted by VANETs demands secrecy, non-revocation, get to control, ongoing operational requirements/requests, accessibility, and security assurance.
Traffic Estimation and Prediction System (TrEPS) in VANETs is helpful for proactive activity control and voyager data. TrEPS upgrades and enhances arranging examination, operational assessment, and
ongoing propelled transportation frameworks operation. For instance, TrEPS offers expert vide contribution to activity chiefs who choose when and where to post particular messages.
Avoid Congestion: Exit here for alternate route
The rising data sources like modern electronic gadgets aids TrEPS to precisely assess the current traffic conditions and better make forecasts. The rising data sources can effectively trace group based movement resulting in improved street condition revealing administration. These rising data sources demand a better organized environment to disperse the collected back ground data. This sharing of data may sometimes cause clashing activity since the data stream in from different sources, which is illustrated in Figure-1.
Figure-1. VANET scenario.
In contrast with classical wired systems, VANETs themselves are more helpless against malignant assaults because of its own nature. The dynamic net-work topology, restricted power supply and blunder inclined transmission media makes the VANETs more vulnerable for the attackers to lure the network. Apart from the above mentioned ones, there are more advanced assaults that are hard to diagnose. It is always essential for the VANETs to ensure the wellbeing of vehicles, drivers, and travellers by offering a proficient transportation framework. We trust that the reliability of VANETs could be enhanced by tending to both information trust and hub trust comprehensively.
This paper proposes an assault safe trust administration plot termed as ART conspire that adapts to pernicious assaults and in addition, to acting as a hub it evaluates the reliability of information. These schemes display and assess the reliability of information and hub with two separate metrics namely information trust and hub trust, respectively. The information trust metric is used to survey the reliability of information of VANET activity. The hub trust demonstrates the reliability of the hubs in VANETs. The ART framework also distinguishes noxious hubs in VANETs. To assess the execution of the proposed ART conspire, broad experiments have been directed. Test comes about demonstrate that the proposed ART plan can precisely assess the dependability of information and hubs in VANETs, and it is additionally impervious to different malevolent assaults.
The organization of the paper is as follows, section 2 reviews the related works in the safe trust administration of VANETs. Section 3 introduces the problem with the experimental set up, network and adversary model. Section 4 describes the Attack Resistant Trust Management (ART) scheme. Section 5 shows the experimental evaluation of the scheme and section 6 concludes the paper.
2. RELATED WORK
Many research activities are under progress in detection of malicious nodes in VANETs. Some of the prominent works are reviewed here.
2.1 Misbehaviour detection for ad hoc networks Misconduct of a node or hub in Adhoc network is defined as the deviation of the system’s functioning from the normal operational profiles. The literature in adhoc
networks indicates four types of mischievous activities that causes the misconduct of the dedicated hubs namely, severely fizzled hub practices, egotistical assaults, and noxious assaults.
Apart from these activities, some narrow minded assaults are also aimed towards the hubs in which the hubs do not to completely take part. One example of this type of assault is depletion of battery. Few assaults have been traced which concentrate on the information that are transmitted and shared among hubs in specially appointed systems such as disguising assault, replay assault, message altering assault, shrouded vehicle assault, and dream assault. Another major objective of bad conduct discovery methodology is to guarantee that information has not been altered in travel. In simple words the hubs should ensure that what was sent is the same as what was received.
Intrusion Detection System (IDS) is recommended to detect node misbehaviours in ad hoc networks. Several approaches have been proposed to build IDS probes on each individual peer due to the lack of a fixed infrastructure. In these approaches, there is one IDS probe installed on each node, and each IDS probe is assumed to be always monitoring the network traffic, which is obviously not energy efficient. In contrast, Huang
et al. [20] proposed a cooperative intrusion detection
framework in which clusters are formed and the nodes in each cluster fulfil the intrusion detection task in turn. This cluster-based approach reduces the power consumption for each node.
Routing misbehavior is another major security threat that has been extensively noted in ad hoc networks. In addition to externally intruding into ad hoc networks, an adversary may also choose to compromise some nodes in ad hoc networks, and make use of them to disturb the routing services so as to make part of or the entire network unreachable. Marti et al. [21] introduced two related
techniques, namely watchdog and path rather, to detect and isolate misbehaving nodes, which are nodes that do not forward packets.
hubs to coordinate with, and even make a move to rebuff a conniving hub if important.
The trust administration framework depends on two sorts of perceptions to assess the hub practices. The primary sort of perception is named as direct perception or coordinate perception. This perception is specifically made by the hub itself, and can be gathered either inactively or effectively. The hub watches its neighbours' activities, and the data is gathered inactively. In the other type of perception called second-hand perception or aberrant perception, the perception is acquired by trading direct perceptions with different hubs in the system. The principle hindrances of second-hand perceptions are false report and its organisation inside the network.
Michiardi et al. [29] proposed CORE, a
mechanism to identify selfish nodes. This deploys surveillance system and a reputation system to observe and evaluate node behaviours so that the malicious nodes cannot spread fake charges. The reputation system is responsible for building reputations for each node. It is evident that selfish nodes reject to cooperate in some cases; their reputations will obviously be lower than the other nodes. The selfish nodes will be penalised as the further request from those nodes will be ignored this participation in the network will be reduced.
Patwardhan et al. [30] framed an approach where
the reputation of a node is determined by data validation. The data from pre-authenticated Anchor nodesare regarded as trustworthy. Data can be validated by either by mutual agreement among peers or by direct communication with an anchor node. Malicious node are delineated if the data from that node is invalidated by the validation algorithm.
In addition to the above works, there have been some other research efforts that aim to enhance the security, trust and privacy of VANETs [31]-[37]. Most of the existing trust management methods for ad hoc networks focus on assessing the trustworthiness of mobile nodes by collecting various evidences and analyzing the prior behavioral history of the nodes. However, little attention has been paid to evaluate the trustworthiness of the data shared among these nodes as well. Given that the data reliability and trustworthiness in transportation systems are extremely important as well, we aim to evaluate the trustworthiness of both mobile nodes and data in this work.
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION
This section focuses on the network and adversary model and also the ART scheme for trust management.
3.1 Network model
A VANET for the most of the applications is defined as a remote system of heterogeneous sensors or other figuring gadgets that are conveyed in vehicles. This sort of system empowers ceaseless observation and sharing of street conditions and status of the transportation frameworks. The greater parts of the hubs in VANETs are outfitted with a similar remote correspondence interface,
for example, IEEE 802.11p. The hubs are constrained in vitality and additionally computational and capacity abilities.
3.2 Adversary model
The open air infrastructure of VANETs attracts the intruders to stealthily stick, alter, manufacture, or drop the remote correspondence between any gadgets in range. The principle objective of the enemy or adversary is to attack typical information transmission, manufacturing or adjusting information, encircling the kind gadgets by purposely submitting fake proposals, and so on. In particular, the following pernicious assaults are addressed in this paper.
a) Simple attack (SA): An attacker may control the traded off hubs not to take after typical system conventions and not to give important administrations to different hubs, for example, sending information bundles or proliferating course revelation demands. The traded off hub will not give any fake trust feelings when it gets some information about other hub's reliability.
b) Bad mouth attack (BMA): Here the aggressor can likewise spread fake trust suppositions and attempt to outline the kind hubs so that the really malevolent hubs can stay undetected. This assault intends to disturb the exact trust assessment and make it harder to effectively distinguish the noxious aggressors. c) Zigzag (On-and-off) Attack (ZA): Sometimes
intruders can modify their vindictive conduct designs with the assumption that it is much harder for the trust administration plan to distinguish them. For example, they can direct malignant practices for quite a while and after that stop for some time (all things considered the noxious practices are led in an on-and-off way). The shrewd aggressors can display distinctive practices to various groups of onlookers, which can prompt conflicting trust sentiments to a similar hub among various gatherings of people. It is very difficult to distinguish this type of assaults.
3.3 Attack- resistant trust management scheme (ART) for VANETs
In this segment, the proposed ART plan is introduced in detail. The ART plot addresses two sorts of dependability in VANETs: information trust and hub trust.
3.3.1. Preliminaries
mirror the likelihood with which the hub will lead the behaviour Bk(i) in an appropriate way. θk(i) can be doled out any genuine incentive in the scope of [0,1], i.e., ∀ i ∈ {1, 2, . . ., n}, θk(i) ∈ [0, 1]. The higher the estimation of θk(i), the hub Nk will probably direct Bk(i) appropriately.
Each measurement of the reliability θk(i) for the hub Nk is characterized as a component of the mischievous activities Mk(i) that are identified with Bk(i) and have been seen by the neighbours of the gadget Nk. The dependability of a gadget is framed as a vector Θk = (θk(1), θk(2)), and every component in the vector remains for utilitarian trust and proposal trust, separately. The vector can be expanded as new components get included.
3.3.2 Scheme overview
The ART plan comprises of two stages namely information examination and trust administration. The schematic outline of the ART plan is delineated in Figure-2. The first task in ART conspire is to collect activity information from VANETs for detailed investigation. The next stage is extracting useful knowledge from the information that acts as baseline plans for trust administration. The points of interest of the confirmation or baseline plans are explained in Section IV-C. These confirmations will be used to evaluate the dependability of information and hubs. The reliability of hubs further comprises of utilitarian trust and proposal trust. The subtle elements of the assessment of trust suggestion utilizing collective examination are given in Section IV-D.
3.3.3 Evidence combination
Prove blend is a critical factor for the proposed ART plot. A portion of the activity information is not solid, so a proof mix strategy is applied legitimately that intertwines various bits of confirmation in the nearness of both reliable and dishonest information. Hence, it is important to combine numerous bits of confirmations so that both information trust and utilitarian trust can be appropriately assessed.
In this work, Dempster-Shafer hypothesis of confirmation (DST) [38] is utilized to combine various bits of proof regardless of the possibility that some of them will not be precise. In DST, the likelihood is displaced by an instability that is limited by conviction (bel) and credibility (pls). Conviction is the lower bound of this interim and speaks to supporting confirmation. Believability is the upper bound of the interim and speaks to non-discrediting proof. For example, if a hub Nk watches that one of its neighbors, say hub Nj, has dropped parcels with likelihood p, then hub Nk has p level of faith in the bundle dropping conduct of hub Nj and 0
Figure-2. Trust management scheme.
degrees of confidence in its nonattendance. The conviction esteem as for an occasion αi and saw by hub Nk can be registered as the accompanying.
belNk(αi) =mNk(αe) (1) e:αe∈αi
Here αe indiactes all basic events that compose the event αi, and mNk (αe). The term ae is an event happening in the node Nk. The node Nk merely get one single report of node Nj from itself,i.e., αi ⊂ αi. Therefore,
belNk (αi) = mNk (αi)
The belief for anu node is derived as,
belNk (Nj) = mNk (Nj)=p and plsNk (Nj) =1-belNk (N j) = 1-p
Given that belief indicates the lower bound of the uncertainty interval and represents supportive evidence, the combined packet dropping level of node Nj is defined as the following:
PdNj=bel (Nj)=m(Nj)=∑_(K=1)^KmNk(Nj)
Figure-3. Trust management scheme.
Algorithm 1 Update of local evidence for node i (ni) using the Dempster-Shafer theory (DST) Input: Vi Confirmations gathered by ni
Output: Vi Refreshed proof controlled by ni Upon reception of Vk from node nk: if Vi = Vk then 1. merge Vi and Vk according to the following rules: a) If hub m is in both Vi and Vk
a.1 Compute the refreshed esteem (Ui) of the relating segments for hub m in both Vi and Vk by the Dempster's govern of mix.
a.2 store Ui to a transitional rundown TEMPi as a section b) if hub m is in either Vi or Vj (not in both)
b.1 Include a virtual section of hub m
b.2 Set every segment of this virtual passage as 0
b.3 Compute the refreshed esteem(Ui) of the relating sections for hub m in both Vi and Vk by the Dempster's govern of mix
b. 4 Store Ui to a middle of the road list TEMPi as a passage.
2. Calculate the top k outliers from TEMPi, and assign these k top outliers to Vi. 3. Broadcast Vi to all of its immediate neighbors.
else keep Vi unchanged, and do not send any message out.
3.3.4 Assessment of trust recommendations using collaborative filtering
It is not generally reasonable for two vehicle hubs to communicate directly with each other in VANETs. So one of the vehicle hub have to take the responsibility to hand-off the information for others. Sometimes a hub may decline to transfer information because of constrained battery control, or a hub may have been compromised by its foes. So it is very essential to know the reason behind the poor transfer of information to a vehicle. If a vehicle has never cooperated with others or had offered poor cooperation with its peers, then the trust suggestions that it
gets from other nodes turns into to be the main information that it can use to assess the reliability of different hubs.
similitude metric is deployed to compare the two vectors [39].
All the more, the trust appraisals of each hub are framed as a vector in the k dimensional space. A hub cannot directly assess another hub, so a default rating is used for initial assessment. The similarity between two hubs is measured by registering the cosine of the edge between these two vectors. Formally, in the evaluations network, the likeness between hubs i and j, is measured by cos(i, j), which "•" remains for the dab result of two vectors.
(4)
In this paper, the client based cooperative sifting is used as primary factor in deciding the proposal trust of different hubs [40], [41]. The estimation of the obscure trust rating rA, B for hub An and another hub B is registered as a total of the evaluations of some other clients for a similar hub B, which appears later in the network.
rA,B = aggrNi ∈ Nˆ r Ni B
where Nˆ means the arrangement of hubs that have most comparative recommendation trust evaluations to node A and that have associated with hub B before and have subsequently acquired information in regards to the dependability of hub B.
The hubs which have comparative trust preferences on a few hubs may likewise have comparable inclinations on others. Therefore, this strategy gives proposals or expectations to the objective hub in view of the assessments of other similar hubs. The suggestion trust is resolved utilizing the accompanying strides. The trust development involves the following three stages:
Trust rating arrangement: Here, the trust appraisals of every hub Ni for any other hub Nj are framed as a q × q network R.
Trusted neighbour choice: Here, the likeness between hubs in so framed model or network is assessed, and the top K most comparative hubs are chosen. It has to be noted that the utilitarian trust of each chose hub will also be assessed to ensure that the exclusive suggestions from the hubs that satisfies their undertakings of course will be trusted.
Predicted put stock in computation: In this stage, the anticipated trust rating of hub i on hub k (Tik), is ascertained. The general trust appraisals between of hub i and hub j is obtained based on the arrangement done in the first step. By Resnick's standard expectation recipe [42], the trust rating (Tik) will be calculated.
4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In this section, the performance of the proposed ART plan is assessed and the exploratory outcomes are displayed.
Table-1. Simulation set up.
Parameter Value
Simulation area 600m x 600m
Number of nodes 50, 100, 200
Transmission Range 120 m
Node Placement Random
Number of Malicious
nodes 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 Node Motion Speed 5 m/s, 10 m/s, 20 m/s
Simulation time 900 s
The GloMoSim 2.03 is used to simulate the algorithm at the reproduction stage. Table I shows the parameters utilized as a part of the development of VANETs in GloMoSim. The weighted voting strategy is used as the Baseline technique to assess the execution of the ART conspire, on the grounds that the weighted voting technique has been widely utilized as a part of numerous past trust administration plans for remote systems [28], [44], [45].
The exactness of the ART conspire is assessed using the following parameters: Precision (P) and Recall (R), two widely metrics in machine learning and data recovery to compute the precision [46]. In this paper, both P and R are assessed in against the recognition of dishonest hubs in VANETs.
The precision is calculated as,
P=N
T w (7)
The recall is found using,
R=N T (8)
technique. This shows that the proposed ART plan is more practical in regard to the correspondence overhead. For instance, when there are 50 hubs in the system, both ART and pattern approach present around 6% of correspondence overhead. ART will again present around 8% of communication overhead when there are 200 hubs, though the benchmark approach presents very nearly 10%. Figure-4(a) and (b) portrays the exactness and review values for the ART plot and the pattern technique with various rates of pernicious hubs. We locate that both the
accuracy and review values diminish when there are a higher rate of pernicious hubs, which is entirely self-evident. Likewise, the ART plan can create a superior execution than the standard technique as far as both exactness and review values. As far as correspondence overhead, Figure-4(c) demonstrates that the ART conspire does not bring about additional correspondence overhead contrasted with the standard when the rate of malevolent hubs shifts.
Figure-4. Effect of node density on ART and baseline. (a) Precision of ART vs. baseline. (b) Recall of ART vs. baseline. (c) Communication overhead of ART vs. baseline.
Figure-5. Effect of adversary percentage on ART and baseline. (a) Precision of ART vs. baseline. (b) Recall of ART vs. baseline. (c) Communication overhead of ART vs. baseline.
Figure-6. Effect of node mobility on ART and baseline. (a) Precision of ART vs. baseline. (b) Recall of ART vs. baseline. (c) Communication overhead of ART vs. baseline.
Figure-5 outlines the execution of the ART when the hubs move at various paces and the ART plot dependably outflanks the gauge calculation, and the two will present a marginally higher correspondence overhead when the vehicles are moving speedier. Moreover, the
paper also tests the proposed ART conspire against various assaults like SA, BMA, and ZA. Apart from this, the ART conspire is evaluated against diverse sorts of
pernicious assaults. Table-2 outlines the particular assault designs that have been utilized as a part of the experiments. The test results are portrayed in Figures 6-9.
Table-2. Attack Patterns in the Experiment.
Attack pattern Behavior Opinion
SA Misbehaving with probability 0.5 Honestly sharing trust with others
BMA Misbehaving with probability 0.5 Sharing opposite trust opinions with probability 0.5
ZA
Misbehaving with probability 0.5 to half of nodes behaving normally to the other
half of nodes.
Honestly sharing trust opinions with half of nodes sharing opposite trust
opinions with the other half with probability 0.5.
Figure-7. ART vs. baseline under SA pattern. (a) Precision of ART vs. baseline. (b) Recall of ART vs. baseline.
Figure-9. ART vs. baseline under ZA pattern. (a) Precision of ART vs. baseline. (b) Recall of ART vs. baseline.
From Figures 6-9, it is obvious that the ART conspire outperform the weighted voting (standard) approach. Moreover, from Figure-6 it is evident that the contrast between the ART plan and gauge is not that critical, which demonstrates that straightforward assault example is not extremely hard to adapt to for both methodologies. This is genuine on the grounds that malevolent hubs are essentially dropping or altering parcels without spreading any fake trust conclusions and surrounding any favorable hubs.
Figure-7 demonstrates that the weighted voting (gauge) approach experiences the BMA design particularly when there are a lot of malignant hubs in the system, while the ART plan can accomplish more than 80% of accuracy. It is well known that knock assault plans to purposefully impart fake trust insights (i.e., telling others a hub is pernicious while it is really generous, and the other way around) so that the noxious hubs can stay undetected for a more extended timeframe and the favorable hubs will be dishonestly blamed for malignant practices. By utilizing collective sifting based suggestion system and in addition the Dempster-Shafer Theory of proof, the proposed ART plan is significantly more impervious to the weighted voting approach when the insult assault is propelled.
A assailant can likewise dispatch the crisscross assault, in which the assault practices are directed in more discontinuous way. Moreover, the assailant can show diverse assault examples to various hubs. Along these lines, it is actually more hard to recognize the noxious practices and also the assailant who takes after this assault pattern. Viewed from Figure-8, it is obvious that the ART plan can in any case oppose the crisscross assault and accomplish high accuracy and review notwithstanding when there are 40% of pernicious hubs. Then again, the exactness and review values for the weighted voting approach get altogether debased when the rate of the aggressors who take after ZA design increments.
In rundown, we can plainly recognize from Figures 6-8 that when contrasted and the customary weighted voting approach, the proposed ART plan is
better impervious to different assault designs and in addition to the high rate of malignant hubs in the system.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an assault safe trust administration plot named ART is proposed to assess the reliability of both activity information and vehicle hubs for VANETs. In the ART plot, the reliability of information and hubs are displayed and assessed as two separate measurements, in particular information trust and hub trust, individually. Specifically, information trust is utilized to evaluate regardless of whether and to what degree the detailed movement information are reliable. Then again, hub trust shows how reliable the hubs in VANETs are. To approve the proposed trust administration plot, broad trials have been directed, and exploratory outcomes demonstrate that the proposed ART conspire precisely assesses the dependability of information and in addition hubs in VANETs, and it can likewise adapt to different noxious assaults.
REFERENCES
[1] R. G. Engoulou, M. Bellache, S. Pierre and A. Quintero. 2014. VANET security surveys. Comput. Commun. 44: 1-13.
[2] M. Kakkasageri and S. Manvi. 2014. Information management in vehicular ad hoc networks: A review. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 39: 334-350.
[3] B. T. Sharef, R. A. Alsaqour, and M. Ismail. 2014. Vehicular communication ad hoc routing protocols: A survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 40: 363-396.
[5] M. Raya and J.-P. Hubaux. 2007. Securing vehicular ad hoc networks. Comput. Security. 15(1): 39-68.
[6] Y. Lin and H. Song. 2006. DynaCHINA: Real-time traffic estimation and pre-diction. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 5(4): 65-65.
[7] J. Angwin and J. Valentino-Devries, Apple, Google Collect User Data, Apr. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB10001424052748703983704576277101723453610
[8] Waze Mobile, Free Community-Based Mapping, Traffic & Navigation App. [Online]. Available: https://www.waze.com/
[9] F. J. R. Douceur. 2002. The sybil attack. in International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, P. Druschel, Kaashoek and A. Rowstron, vol. 2429. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. pp. 251-260.
[10]Y.-C. Hu, A. Perrig and D. B. Johnson. 2002. Ariadne: A secure on-demand routing protocol for ad hoc networks. in Proc. 8th Annu. Int. Conf. MobiCom Netw., Atlanta, GA, USA. pp. 12-23.
[11]F. Nait-Abdesselam, B. Bensaou, and T. Taleb. 2008. Detecting and avoiding wormhole attacks in wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 46(4): 127-133.
[12]S. Buchegger and J.-Y. Le Boudee. 2005. Self-policing mobile ad hoc networks by reputation systems. IEEE Commun. Mag. 43(7): 101-107.
[13]P.-W. Yau and C. J. Mitchell. 2003. Security vulnerabilities in ad hoc networks. in Proc. 7th Int. Symp. Commun. Theory Appl. pp. 99-104.
[14]M. N. Mejri, J. Ben-Othman, and M. Hamdi. 2014. Survey on VANET security challenges and possible cryptographic solutions. Veh. Commun. 1(2): 53-66.
[15]J. Molina-Gil, P. Caballero-Gil, and C. Caballero-Gil. 2014. Aggregation and probabilistic verification for data authentication in VANETs. Inf. Sci. 262: 172-189.
[16]N. Ekedebe, W. Yu, C. Lu, H. Song and Y. Wan. 2015. Securing transpor-tation cyber-physical systems. in Securing Cyber-Physical Systems. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. pp. 163-196.
[17]Y. Zhang and W. Lee. 2000. Intrusion detection in wireless ad-hoc networks. in Proc. ACM 6th Annu. Int. Conf. MobiCom Netw., Boston, MA, USA. pp. 275-283.
[18]H. Deng, Q.-A. Zeng and D. Agrawal. 2003. SVM-based intrusion detection system for wireless ad hoc networks. in Proc. IEEE 58th VTC-Fall. 3: 2147-2151.
[19]C.-Y. Tseng et al. 2003. A specification-based
intrusion detection system for AODV. in Proc. 1st ACM Workshop SASN, Washington, DC, USA. pp. 125-134.
[20]Y.-A. Huang and W. Lee. 2003. A cooperative intrusion detection system for ad hoc networks. in Proc. 1st ACM Workshop SASN, Washington, DC, USA. pp. 135-147.
[21]S. Marti, T. J. Giuli, K. Lai, and M. Baker. 2000. Mitigating routing misbe-havior in mobile ad hoc networks. in Proc. ACM 6th Annu. Int. Conf. MobiCom Netw., Boston, MA, USA. pp. 255-265.
[22]L. Anderegg and S. Eidenbenz. 2003. Ad hoc-VCG: A truthful and cost-efficient routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks with selfish agents. in Proc. 9th Annual Int. Conf. MobiCom Netw., San Diego, CA, USA. pp. 245-259.
[23]Y. Xue and K. Nahrstedt. 2004. Providing fault-tolerant ad hoc routing service in adversarial environments. Wireless Pers. Commun. 29(3/4): 367-388.
[24]M. Kefayati, H. R. Rabiee, S. G. Miremadi, and A. Khonsari. 2006. Misbehavior Resili multi-path data ad-hoc inherent transmission in mobile networks. Proc 4th ACM Workshop VA, USA, SASN, Alexandria. 91-100.
[25]S. Buchegger and J.-Y. L. Boudec. 2003. A robust reputation system for mo-bile ad-hoc networks. in Proc. P2PEcon, Berkeley, CA, USA. pp. 1-6.
[26]Q. He, D. Wu, and P. Khosla. 2004. SORI: A secure and objective reputation-based incentive scheme for ad-hoc networks. in Proc. IEEE WCNC. 2: 825-830.
[28]S. Buchegger and J.-Y. Le Boudec. 2002. Performance analysis of the confi-dant protocol. in Proc. 3rd ACM Int. Symp. MobiHoc Netw. Comput. Lausanne, Switzerland. pp. 226-236.
[29]P. Michiardi and R. Molva. 2002. CORE: A collaborative reputation mecha-nism to enforce node cooperation in mobile ad hoc networks in Proc. IFIP TC6/TC11 6th Joint Working Conf. Commun. Multimedia Security, Portoroz, Slovenia. pp. 107-121.
[30]A. Patwardhan, A. Joshi, T. Finin and Y. Yesha. 2006. A data intensive repu-tation management scheme for vehicular ad hoc networks. in Proc. 3rd Annu. Int. Conf. Mobiquitous Syst. Workshops. pp. 1-8.
[31]W. Li, A. Joshi and T. Finin. 2010. Coping with node misbehaviors in ad hoc networks: A multi-dimensional trust management approach. in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. MDM. pp. 112-121.
[32] S. Taha and X. Shen. 2013. A physical-layer location privacy-preserving scheme for mobile public hotspots in NEMO-based VANETs. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 14(4): 1665-1680.
[33]Z. Li, C. Liu, and C. Chigan. 2013. On secure VANET-based ad dissemination with pragmatic cost and effect control. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 14(1): 124-135.
[34]T. Chim, S. Yiu, L. Hui, and V. Li. 2011. OPQ: OT-based private querying in VANETs. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 12(4): 1413-1422.
[35]R. Lu, X. Lin, X. Liang and X. Shen. 2012. A dynamic privacy-preserving key management scheme for location-based services in VANETs. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 13(1): 127-139.
[36]G. Rebolledo-Mendez, A. Reyes, S. Paszkowicz, M. Domingo and L. Skrypchuk. 2014. Developing a body sensor network to detect emo-tions during driving. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 15(4): 1850-1854.
[37]L.-Y. Yeh and Y.-C. Lin, “A proxy-based authentication and billing scheme with incentive-aware multihop forwarding for vehicular networks,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1607–1621, Aug. 2014.
[38]G. Shafer. 1976. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton Univ. Press.
[39]C. Piao, J. Zhao and J. Feng. 2007. Research on entropy-based collaborative filtering algorithm. in Proc. IEEE ICEBE. pp. 213-220.
[40]J. S. Breese, D. Heckerman and C. Kadie. 1998. Empirical analysis of pre-dictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. in Proc. 14th Conf. UAI, Madison, WI, USA. pp. 43-52.
[41]G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin. 2005. Towards the next generation of recom-mender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 17(6): 734-749.
[42]P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, P. Bergstrom and J. Riedl. 1994. Group-Lens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of Netnews. in Proc. ACM Conf. pp. 175-186.
[43]X. Zeng, R. Bagrodia, and M. Gerla. 1998. GloMoSim: A library for parallel simulation of large-scale wireless networks. ACM SIGSIM Simul. Dig. 28(1): 154-161.
[44]M. Raya, P. Papadimitratos, V. D. Gligor and J.-P. Hubaux. 2008. On data-centric trust establishment in ephemeral ad hoc networks. in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM. pp. 1238-1246.
[45]I.-R. Chen, F. Bao, M. Chang, and J.-H. Cho. 2014. Dynamic trust management for delay tolerant networks and its application to secure routing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 25(5): 1200-1210.
