Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted System for Security Enhancement in Mobile Ad Hoc Network

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TRENDS IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1 – MAY 2015 - ISSN: 2349 - 9303

Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted System for Security Enhancement in Mobile Ad Hoc Network Miss.A.Vidhya1

Mrs.S.Jeevitha2

PG Scholar, Kalasalingam institute of technology, Virudhunagar.

Vidhya.aathithan7@gmail.com

Asst.Prof, Kalasalingam Institute of Technology, Virudhunagar.

Jeevitha.ramkumar@gmail.com

1

2

Abstract—Every MANET application has its own policy and they need some special policies to enhance the security. In MANET, each node acts as the router. The main challenging of the MANET setting up routing paths through the legitimate nodes only. To make the MANET as the trusted system some external policies or schemes are needed. However, whether for malicious or selfish purposes, a node may not cooperate during the network events or even try to interrupt them, both are consider as misbehaviors. Substantial analysis efforts have been made to finding misbehaviors. Both the faulty behaviors and malicious behavior are generally equally treated as misbehaviors without any further analysis by most of the malicious behavior detection mechanisms. In this paper, propose the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable trusted framework, in which various contextual information, such as battery status weather condition and communication channel status, are used to identify whether the misbehavior is a result of malicious activity or not.

Keywords— Context Information, Misbehavior detection, Mobile Ad-hoc Network, Policy, Security, Trust.

——————————  —————————

1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION A Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET), since can be intended through its label, is commonly composed of the energetic group of cooperative nodes that will are willing to pass on packets pertaining to other nodes a result of the deficiency of any kind of pre-deployed community commercial infrastructure. The nature from the cell phone nodes in MANET can make these people particularly at risk of many different security hazards simply because they commonly personal reduced computational learning resource together with brief radio range a result of the constrained battery power these people bring, and they might be transferring continually. For that reason, security is amongst the most critical troubles pertaining to MANET[1, 2]. Node misbehavior can be a really class of security menace pertaining to Mobile Ad Hoc networks (MANETs). Moreover, node misbehaviors may well cover anything from deficiency of assistance to help active episodes looking from Denial-of- Assistance (DoS) and subversion associated with site visitors. One example is, with the constrained means (such since battery power and bandwidth, etc) that each node can possibly have, the egoistic node may well choose not to ever cooperate having other nodes to be able to sustain a unique means [3]. Put simply, every time a egoistic node can be inquired to help forward a few files packets pertaining to other nodes, it might decline a part or all of the incoming packets.

By it suggests, it might protect this battery power and monitor a few additional packets for the health of alone. Conversely, a few malicious nodes try to affect this network services, and they may intentionally misroute, drop or modify packets while it is not a priority for them to save battery lives [4,5].

Nonetheless, several of these misbehaviors also can arise as a result of environment in addition to freedom related reasons, not simply malicious motive. It really is simple of which malicious actions are usually considerably more hazardous as opposed to flawed actions, due to the fact the aim of your malicious enemies would be to disturb your circle operations by means of performing your misbehaviors, although flawed nodes tend not to seek to blatantly break up your circle in addition to his or her results usually are self limiting [6, 7]. Therefore, it is vital for you to effectively identify malicious enemies through flawed nodes.

Allow us to get your site visitors keeping track of system as one example, which is represented within Determine 1. Existing generation keeping track of systems use soil receptors in addition to surveillance cameras. Nonetheless, using increasing computing in addition to transmission functions set within motor vehicles, his or her on-ship receptors themselves can be used to keep track of traffic [8].

92

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TRENDS IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1 – MAY 2015 - ISSN: 2349 - 9303 Coming from Fig 1(a), all of us find that a motor vehicle observes a car accident forward, and it also account this type of instance on the system. Thus, the visitors security demonstrated with Fig 1(a) is valid. In contrast, Fig 1(b) exhibits two contradictory visitors frightens. Provided there's not any crash in this particular scenario, the auto of which reports this type of instance on the system is usually misbehaving. Nonetheless, we should instead even more take a look at the wording to decide in the event this specific car or truck is usually defective or detrimental. For instance, when the car or truck is usually travelling as well quickly or there exists a blizzard, then a sensor for the misbehaving car or truck might failure and mail a bad crash notify with no detrimental intent [9, 10].

In recent years, there has been a rich literature on the topics of misbehavior detection as well as trust management for ad hoc networks. Hence, the similar work for these two research topics will be discussed separately in this section.

i) Misbehavior Detection for Ad hoc Networks The phrase misbehavior typically identifies a group of abnormal conduct in which deviates from the pair of conduct that many node is supposed to be able to carry out inside MANETs [12, 13].

Normally, misbehaviors can happen from each and every coating inside MANETs, like (1) malicious flooding of the RTS frames in the MAC layer, (2) drop, modification, and misroute to the packets in the network layer, and (3) deliberate propagation of fake opinions regarding the behaviors of other nodes in the application layer. ii)

Trust Management for MANETs

The principle aim associated with trust operations is usually to evaluate conduct associated with additional nodes and consequently build a name for every node good actions evaluation. Generally, a trust operations program relies on two kinds of findings to guage your node behaviors [14]. The 1st form of remark is known as because direct remark, or maybe in other words, first-hand remark. First-hand remark will be the remark that is certainly right of a node by itself. One other form of remark is termed roundabout remark or maybe second-hand remark. Second-hand remark is often obtained simply by trading first-hand findings with additional nodes in the network [15]. The principle drawbacks associated with roundabout findings are usually relevant to overhead, false.

iii) Policies for Security in Distributed Systems According to Sloman, insurance policies outline some sort of marriage among things and tar-gets. Policy-based safety measures is normally used in systems in which versatility is essential because users, solutions and entry privileges modify frequently, for instance cellular ad-hoc communities along with large-scale sent out systems. Inside these types of sent out systems, it is essential in order that all the heterogeneous agencies conduct themselves appropriately [16,17]. Consequently, coverage dependent safety measures medicine most beneficial procedure with regard to sent out systems; it truly is possible to be able to establish exactly how various agencies work without having adjusting their central mechanisms. Several coverage 'languages' happen to be studied before few years, for instance Extensible Admittance Manage Markup Dialect (XACML) and also the Rei coverage dialect. XACML is a dialect in XML with regard to expressing entry insurance policies. This allows handle in excess of behavior and facilitates image resolution involving conflicts [18].

Via Fig. 2, most of us make sure within the initial step (a), the observer gathers as well as information the misbehaviors which can be carried out by means of node 1, a couple of, as well as 3.

Your remark benefits illustrate that will node 1, a couple of, as well as 3 get altered packets, distributed completely wrong ideas regarding others (for illustration, purposefully accuse different nodes associated with giving up packets even if they've definitely not completed so) as well as delivered constant Request-To-Send (RTS) frames at the exact same level of 10, respectively. Guess that these three kinds of misbehaviors are reprimanded with the exact same price when the trustworthiness of every single node is usually examined. And then, within the next move (b), the observer may perhaps bring some sort of finish that all these three nodes are just as trust-worthy. Therefore, the observer may take care of node a couple of as well as node 3 just as while it requires to find out which node to be able to forwards packets and also which node it will think while trading opinions[11]. Even so, it is apparent the trustworthiness of node a couple of as well as node 3 isn't equal on the subject of both equally bundle forwarding as well as judgment trading.

2

3

CIRCUMSTANCE KNOWLEDGEABLE TRUSTED FRAMEWORK

In the policy and trust driven framework, there are four major functional units, namely Data Collection, Policy Management, Misbehavior Detection, and Trust Management. Figure 3 illustrates the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable trusted framework. The Data Collection unit is mainly responsible for accumulating contextual information and also node behavior information, and then sending often Policy Management unit, the Malicious Node Detection unit, or the Trust Management unit.

RELATED WORKS

93

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TRENDS IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1 – MAY 2015 - ISSN: 2349 - 9303 The trustworthiness of each node is assessed by the Trust Management unit, in which both direct observations (made by a node itself) and indirect observations (obtained from another node) are both taken into account to evaluate how trustworthy a node is.

iii) Misbehaving Node Detection The goal of the Malicious Node Detection unit is to properly identify the malicious nodes in MANETs by using the distributed misbehavior detection mechanism as well as the policies that have integrated the contextual information. In this unit, we use the gossip-based outlier detection algorithm to identify the misbehaving nodes.

i) Data Collection In the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted framework, two types of data are sensed and collected: node behaviors and contextual information. The node behaviors are used by both the Malicious Node Detection and the Trust Management units to identify misbehaving nodes and evaluate nodes’ trustworthiness.

Outliers are generally defined as data points that are very different from the rest of the data with respect to some measure.

The basic observation is that misbehaving nodes generally behave abnormally from those normal nodes. Thus, we can detect those misbehaving nodes by means of outlier detection.

The contextual information is used by the Policy Management unit to specify and enforce policies that can then be used to capture the truly malicious nodes among those misbehaving nodes. With the gradually wider deployment of various sensors in our daily lives, it is easier to better understand the context that surrounds us. For instance, the deployment of vehicle onboard sensors makes it even more convenient to collect the contextual information from additional sources.

The gossip-based outlier detection algorithm contains the following four methods,

1) local view formation : Mobile nodes monitor and record the possible abnormal behaviors of other nodes within their radio range. Each node generates its local view of outliers based on their own observations.

2) local view exchange : Once all the nodes form their local views, they will broadcast the local views to all of their immediate neighbors, i.e., all the nodes that are one hop away from them.

3) local view update : Upon reception of a local view from another node, the recipient will update its local view based on the received view. DempsterShafer Theory used to combine the local view and the received external view.

4) global view formation : When all the nodes hold the same view of outliers, the algorithm halts, and the view that all the nodes hold is regarded as the global view of outliers.

Note that in contrast to the regular gossiping algorithm, the more your nodes that agree to the same view associated with outliers, your fewer how many fresh communications which are sent.

Ultimately, whenever every one of the nodes hold the identical view associated with outliers, your algorithm halts, as well as the

ii) Policy Management In the Policy Management unit, all the contextual information will be used in policies. For example, as is shown in Figure 1(b), if a vehicle is found to report inconsistent traffic information, and then the contextual information is used in this case to determine whether these inconsistent traffic alerts are possibly caused by environmental factors or not.

The system can have multiple policies to consider the effects of various environmental factors. For instance, policies can be declared as (i) If surrounding temperature is beyond range 0F120F then there is a possibility of faulty behavior, (ii) If the motion speed is more than 20 M/S then there is a possibility of faulty behavior, (iii) If the current weather conditions are either of heavy raining, snowing or foggy then there is a possibility of faulty behavior and (iv) If the altitude is higher than 2000 feet, weather conditions are snowing and temperature is below then there is a possibility of faulty behavior.

94

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TRENDS IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1 – MAY 2015 - ISSN: 2349 - 9303 view that each your nodes maintain is undoubtedly your worldwide view associated with outliers. The pseudo-code from the gossip-based outlier algorithm is actually presented throughout Protocol a couple of and utilizes the same notation because defined previously. Additionally, GV means the ultimate worldwide view.

4.1 Performance Evaluation We use NS2[20] as the simulation platform, and table II lists the parameters used in the simulation scenarios. We use two parameters to evaluate the efficiency of the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted Framework: Precision, Recall Num of Truly Malicious Device Caught P= Total Num of Untrustworthy Devices Caught đ?‘…=

i) Trust Management In the Trust Management unit, the trustworthiness of a node Nk is assessed in three scales. The three dimensions are 1) Collaboration Trust (CT) – for identify the node which are refuse to cooperate in route discovering and packet forwarding 2) Behavioral Trust (BT) – for calculating node trust based on the packet modification 3) Reference Trust (RT) – for identify the propagation of fake opinion regarding the behavior of other CT depends on the way collaborative any node Nk would be when it is requested in order to participate in several community routines for example course breakthrough in addition to package forwarding. BT comes simply by how much unnatural conduct that will Nk features performed, such as package customization, package misroute as well as RTS surging episode. RT is usually computed in line with the correctness with the declaration final results that will Nk propagates. For instance, in the event that Nk has become observed regularly delivering fake observations in order to the friends, next RT must be given a very reduced importance. Like this, some other nodes can certainly correctly think of or maybe disregard the observations which is available from Nk because RT is used because the bodyweight regarding Nk any time those observations usually are included on the regional vistas of these nodes by themselves.

4

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

EVALUATION

AND

In this section, we examine the performance of the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted Framework, and its performance is compared to that of the baseline mechanism. The baseline mechanism that chooses here is the mTrust scheme discussed in our prior work [19], and our prior work has shown that SAT framework outperforms other well known mechanisms [19].

95

Num of Truly Malicious Device Caught Total Num of Truly Malicious Device

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TRENDS IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1 – MAY 2015 - ISSN: 2349 - 9303

The simulation results are revealed within Fig 4 and Fig 5. Most of us locate from Fig 4 and Fig 5 the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted framework commonly out performs the SAT scheme in terms of both precision and recall. Far more particularly, in according to Fig 4(a) and Fig 5(a) both equally generate a higher precision and recall value when the node density is higher. This is true because it is more likely to receive correct messages from others when there are a higher number of well-behaved mobile nodes.

Figure 4(c) and Figure 5(c) tell us that both the precision and recall values decrease when there are a higher percentage of misbehaving nodes, that is quite obvious, and the Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted framework can still yield high precision and recall values even when there are a lot of misbehaving nodes in MANET. We all determine from Fig 4(b) and Fig 5(b) that the precision and recall beliefs with regard to each are going to be degraded once the radio selection is actually lowered. This can be correct because using a smaller sized radio range, it is more difficult for each and every node to get info from different nodes. Fig 4(d) and Fig 5(d) display that when these mobile nodes are generally moving at the higher speed, it will be more difficult pertaining to each to discover the actual adversaries.

5

CONCLUSION

In this paper, a Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted framework is researched with regard to Mobile Ad-hoc Networks in order to identify the absolutely malicious nodes from the faulty nodes, the two that may perhaps present misbehaviors. Through the use of different contextual info, for example channel reputation, node motion speed, the weather, as well as transmission signal durability, a new node may figure out your circumstances beneath that the misbehaviors come about.

Subsequently, node is able to say to no matter if a new node is compelled to do something to be a misbehaving node or even not necessarily, as well as expose your absolutely malicious attackers.

96

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TRENDS IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1 – MAY 2015 - ISSN: 2349 - 9303 [11] R. Lippmann, D. Fried, I. Graf, J. Haines, K. Kendall, D. McClung, D. Weber, S. Webster, D. Wyschogrod, R. Cunninghan, and M. Zissman. Evaluating intrusion detection systems: The 1998 darpa o®-line intrusion detection evaluation.

In Proceedings of the 2000 DARPA Information Survivability Conference andExposition, January 2000.

[12] C. Krugel and T. Toth, ―Flexible, Mobile Agent BasedIntrusion Detection for Dynamic Networks,‖ Euro. Wireless,Italy, Feb. 2002.

[13] R. Ellison, R. Linger, H. Lipson, N. Mead, and A. Moore, ―Foundations forsurvivable systems engineering,‖ The Journal of Defense Software Engineering,pp. 10–15, July 2002.

[14] X. Jiang, and D Xu. "Collapsar: A VM-based architecture for network attack detention center." Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium. 2004. 15--28.

[15] T. Alpcan, T. Basar, and S. Dey, ―A power controlgame based on outage probabilities for multicell wire-less data networks,‖ in Proceedings of the AmericanControl Conference, vol. 2, pp.

1661–1666, Piscat-away, NJ, USA, July 2004.

[16] Yu, Ji, and Liu, ―Securing cooperative ad hoc networks under noise and imperfect monitoring: Strategies and game theoretic analysis,‖ IEEE Trans. IFS, vol. 2, Jun. 2007.

[17] Q. Ling and Z. Tian. Minimum node degree and k-connectivity of a wireless multihop network in bounded area. In GLOBECOM ’07: Global Telecommunications Conference, pages 1296–1301.

[18] N. Mistry, D. C. Jinwala, and M Z averi, ―Improving AODV protocol against black hole attacks, " Proceeding of International Muiti Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists vol. II, IMECS 2010, pp. 1034-1039, Hong Kong, March 17-19, 2010.

[19] W. Li, A. Joshi, and T. Finin, ―Coping with node misbehaviors in ad hoc networks: A multi-dimensional trust management approach,‖ in Proceedings of the Eleventeenth International Conference on Mobile Data Management, 2010. MDM ’10.

IEEE Computer Society, May 2010.

[20] Nicola Baldo, Federico Maguolo, Marco Miozzo, Michele Rossi and Michele Zorzi,―ns2-MIRACLE: a Modular Framework for Multi-Technology and Cross-Layer Support in Network Simulator 2,‖ in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Performance evaluation methodologies and tools.

Adaptive Circumstance Knowledgeable Trusted framework is highly strong in order to malicious attackers, and it also may accurately discover your malicious nodes from the faulty types with a limited communication overhead.

REFERENCES [1] M. Carvalho, ―Security in mobile ad hoc networks,‖ IEEE Security Privacy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 72–75, Mar. 2008.

[2] A Nosratinia, TE Hunter, A Hedayat, Cooperative communication in wireless networks. IEEE Commun.

Mag 42(10), 74–80 (2004). .

[3] K. Ren, W. Lou, K. Kim, and Y. Fang, ―A novel privacy preservingauthentication and access control scheme for pervasive computing environment,‖IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1373-1384, July2006.

[4] M Sepulcre, J Gozalvez, J Harri, H Hartenstein, Contextual communications congestion control for cooperative vehicular networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun 10, 385–389 (2011) [5] Y. Hu, A. Perrig, and D. Johnson, ―Packet Leashes: A Defense against Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Networks,‖IEEE INFOCOM, 2002.

[6] W. Li, J. Parker, and A. Joshi, ―Security through collaboration and trust in manets,‖ ACM/Springer Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET), vol. 3 num. 3, pp. 342– 352, July 2012.

[7] C Zouridaki, BL Mark, M Hejmo, A quantitative trust establishment framework for reliable data packet delivery in MANETs. Proceedings of the Third ACM Workshop on Security of Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks (SASN), Alexandria, 7–10 November 2005 (ACM, New York, 2005), pp. 1–10 [8] T Heer, S Gotz, OG Morchon, K Wehrle, ALPHA: an adaptive and lightweight protocol for hop-by-hop authentication. Proceedings of the ACM CoNEXT’08 (Madrid: ACM, 2008) [9] T. Sim, S. Zhang, R. Janakriaman, and S. Kumar, ―Continuous verification using multimodal biometrics,‖ IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intell., vol. 29, pp. 687–700, Apr. 2007.

[10] C. Zouridaki, B. L. Mark, M. Hejmo, and R. K. Thomas, ―Robust cooperative trust establishment for manets,‖ in SASN ’06: Proceedings of the fourth ACM workshop on Security of ad hoc and sensor networks. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2006, pp. 23–34.

Author Profile:  Miss.A.Vidhya is currently pursuing masters degree program in computer science and engineering in Kalasalingam Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu, India.

E-mail: Vidhya.aathithan7@gmail.com  Mrs.S.Jeevitha is currently working as assistant professor in computer science and engineering department in Kalasalingam Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu, India.

E-mail: jeevitha.ramkumar@gmail.com

97