Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 493–509 | Cite as

Isolating Misbehaving Nodes in MANETs with an Adaptive Trust Threshold Strategy

  • Muhammad Saleem Khan
  • Daniele Midi
  • Saif-Ur-Rehman Malik
  • Majid I. Khan
  • Nadeem Javaid
  • Elisa Bertino
Article

Abstract

Due to dynamic network topology, distributed architecture and absence of a centralized authority, Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are vulnerable to various attacks from misbehaving nodes. To enhance the security of MANETs, various trust-based schemes have been proposed that augment the traditional cryptography-based security schemes. However, most of these schemes use static and predefined trust thresholds for node misbehavior detection, without taking into consideration the network conditions locally at each node. Using static trust thresholds for misbehavior detection may result in high false positives, low malicious node detection rate, and network partitioning. In this paper, we propose a novel Adaptive Trust Threshold (ATT) strategy that adapts the trust threshold in the routing protocol according to the network conditions such as rate of link changes, node degree and connectivity, and average neighborhood trustworthiness. We identify the topology factors that affect the trust threshold at each node, and leverage them to build a mathematical model for ATT computation. We compare our ATT strategy with one of the most recently proposed trust-based security schemes. Our simulation results indicate that the ATT strategy is robust in terms of convergence to the same trust threshold value computed at all neighbor nodes for malicious nodes and is energy efficient. Moreover, the ATT strategy achieves significant improvements in packet delivery ratio, reduction in false positives, and increase in detection rate as compared to non-ATT schemes (static trust threshold based schemes).

Keywords

MANETs Threshold computation Adaptive threshold Static threshold Colluding attackers 

References

  1. 1.
    Marti S, Giuli TJ, Lai K, Baker M (2000) Mitigating routing misbehavior in MANETs. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM international conference on mobile computing and networkingGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchegger S, Le Boudec J (2002) Performance analysis of the confidant protocol. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference on Mobile ad hoc networking & computingGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balakrishnan K, Deng J, Varshney PK (2005) Twoack: preventing selfishness in mobile ad hoc networks. In: IEEE wireless communication and networking conferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shakshuki EM, Kang N, Sheltami TR (2013) EAACK-a secure intrusion-detection system for manets. IEEE Trans Ind ElectronGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zahariadis T, Trakadas P, Leligou HC, Maniatis S, Karkazis P (2013) A novel trust-aware geographical routing scheme for wireless sensor networks. Wirel Pers Commun 69(2):805—826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhan G, Shi W, Deng J (2012) Design and implementation of tarf: a trust-aware routing framework for WSNs. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 9(2):184—197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reddy YB, Selmic RR (2011) A trust-based approach for secure packet transfer in wireless sensor networks. Int J Adv Secur 4(3)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahmed A, Bakar KA, Channa MI, Haseeb K, Khan AW (2015) A survey on trust based detection and isolation of malicious nodes in ad-hoc and sensor networks. Front Comput Sci 9(2):280—296MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wenjia L, Joshi A, Finin T (2010) Coping with node misbehaviors in ad hoc networks: a multi-dimensional trust management approach. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on mobile data management (MDM), pp 85—94Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patwardhan A, Parker J, Joshi A, Iorga M, Karygiannis T (2005) Secure routing and intrusion detection in ad hoc networks. In: 3rd IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communications (PerCom2005), pp 191—199Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li W, Parker J, Joshi A (2012) Security through collaboration and trust in MANETs. Mob Netw Appl JGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li W, Joshi A (2009) Outlier detection in ad hoc networks using dempster-shafer theory. In: 10th international conference on mobile data management: systems, services and middleware (MDM’09), pp 112—121Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shabut A, Dahal K, Bista S, Awan I (2015) Recommendation based trust model with an effective defence scheme for MANETs. IEEE Trans Mob ComputGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boukerch A, Xu L, El-Khatib K (2007) Trust-based security for wireless ad hoc and sensor networks. Computer CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sarvanko H, Höyhtyä M, Katz M, Fitzek F (2010) Distributed resources in wireless networks: discovery and cooperative uses. In: ERCIM workshop on mobilityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ayachi MA, Bidan C, Abbes T, Bouhoula A (2009) Misbehavior detection using implicit trust relations in the aodv routing protocol. In: IEEE international conference on computational science and engineering (CSE)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ren Y, Boukerche A (2008) Modeling and managing the trust for wireless and mobile ad hoc networks. In: IEEE international conference on communicationsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Theodorakopoulos G, Baras JS (2004) Trust evaluation in ad-hoc networks. In: Proceedings of 3rd ACM workshop on wireless securityGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lenzini G, Bargh MS, Hulsebosch B (2008) Trust-enhanced security in location-based adaptive authentication. Electron Notes Theor Comput SciGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Probst MJ, Kasera SK (2007) Statistical trust establishment in wireless sensor networks. In: IEEE international conference on parallel and distributed systemsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zouridaki C, Mark BL, Hejmo M, Thomas RK (2006) Robust cooperative trust establishment for MANETs. In: Proceedings of 4th ACM workshop on security of ad hoc and sensor networksGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCoy D, Sicker D, Grunwald D (2007) A mechanism for detecting and responding to misbehaving nodes in wireless networks. In 4th IEEE international conference on sensing, communication and networking (SECON)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beth T, Borcherding M, Klein B (1994) Evaluation of trust in open networksGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kamvar SD, Schlosser MT, Garcia-Molina H (2003) Eigenrep: reputation management in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings of 12th international WWW conference, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fathy C, El-Hadidi MT, El-Nasr MA (2011) Fuzzy-based adaptive cross layer routing protocol for MANETs. In: 30th IEEE International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khalid O et al (2013) Comparative study of trust and reputation systems for wireless sensor networks. Security Commun NetwGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker J, Undercoffer J, Pinkston J, Joshi A (2004) On intrusion detection and response for mobile ad hoc networks. In IEEE international conference on performance, computing, and communicationsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sheltami A, Basabaa A, Shakshuki E (2014) A3ACKs: adaptive three acknowledgments intrusion detection system for MANETs. Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang D, Yeo CK (2011) Distributed court system for intrusion detection in MANETs. Comput SecurGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aravindh S, Vinoth RS, Vijayan R (2013) A trust based approach for detection and isolation of malicious nodes in MANETs. Int J Eng TechnolGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li W, Joshi A, Finin T (2010) Smart: an svm-based misbehavior detection and trust management framework for mobile ad hoc networks. In: Military communications coference (MILCOM 20Il), pp 1102—1107Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li W, Joshi A, Finin T (2011) Sat: an svm-based automated trust management system for mobile ad-hoc networks. In: IEEE MILCOM conference, pp 1102–1107Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li W, Joshi A, Finin T (2013) Cast: context-aware security and trust framework for mobile ad-hoc networks using policies. Distrib Parallel Databases 31(2):353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khan MS, Midi D, Khan MI, Bertino E (2015) Adaptive trust threshold strategy for misbehaving node detection and isolation. In: Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA, vol 1, pp 718—725Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paillassa B, Yawut C, Dhaou R (2011) Network awareness and dynamic routing: the ad hoc network case. Comput NetwGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Qin L, Kunz T (2006) Mobility metrics to enable adaptive routing in MANET. In: IEEE international conference on wireless and mobile computing, networking and communications (WiMob)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yawut C, Paillassa B, Dhaou R (2008) Mobility metrics evaluation for self-adaptive protocols. J NetworksGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clausen T et al (2006) The optimized link routing protocol version 2, draft-ietf-manetolsrv2-00Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Samar P, Wicker SB (2004) On the behavior of communication links of a node in a multi-hop mobile environment. In: Proceedings of 5th ACM international symposium on mobile ad hoc networking and computingGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rasheed A, Ajmal S, Qayyum A (2014) Protocol independent adaptive route update for VANETs. Sci World JGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sultana S, Gabriel G, Bertino E, Shehab M (2012) A lightweight secure provenance scheme for wireless sensor networks. International Conference on Parallel and Distributed SystemsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peter W (2003) The vint project, the network simulator - ns-2Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Broch J, Maltz DA, Johnson DB, Hu YC, Jetcheva J (1998) A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on mobile computing and networking, pp 85–97Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Venkateswaran A, Sarangan V, La Porta TF, Acharya R (2009) A mobility-prediction-based relay deployment framework for conserving power in MANETs. IEEE Trans Mob ComputGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCOMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyIslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencePurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations