An Architecture for Dynamic Trust Monitoring in Mobile Networks

  • Olufunmilola Onolaja
  • Rami Bahsoon
  • Georgios Theodoropoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5872)


Collusion attacks remain a major problem of reputation and trust models, in mobile ad hoc networks. By covering up malicious behaviour of one another from the remaining part of the network, two or more malicious nodes may collaborate to cause damage to or disrupt the network. A number of models exist, which have been proposed to address this issue. Despite these however, the assurance of trusted communication still remains a challenge in these networks. We present a dynamic trust model that detects malicious behaviour at runtime and prevents collusion attacks. Our proposed model employs a novel approach that has the advantage of predicting the future trustworthiness of nodes, based on historical and online behaviour of nodes. This is achieved by an architecture that applies the paradigm of Dynamic Data Driven Application Systems, in solving the problem of collusion attacks in mobile networks.


Cluster Head Mobile Network Malicious Node Reputation System Dynamic Source Route 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gambetta, D.: Can we trust? Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Basil Blackwell, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchegger, S., Le Boudec, J.: Performance analysis of the confidant protocol (cooperation of nodes: Fairness in dynamic ad-hoc networks). In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, MobiHoc., pp. 226–236 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darema, F.: Dynamic data driven applications systems: a new paradigm for application simulations and measurements. In: Bubak, M., van Albada, G.D., Sloot, P.M.A., Dongarra, J. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3038, pp. 662–669. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Douglas, C.: Dynamic data driven applications systems. In: Bubak, M., van Albada, G.D., Dongarra, J., Sloot, P.M.A. (eds.) ICCS 2008, Part III. LNCS, vol. 5103, pp. 3–4. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michiardi, P., Molva, R.: Core: A collaborative reputation mechanism to enforce node cooperation in mobile ad hoc networks. In: Advanced Communications and Multimedia Security, vol. 100, pp. 107–121 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchegger, S., Le Boudec, J.: Self-policing mobile ad hoc networks by reputation systems. IEEE Communications Magazine 43(7), 101–107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srinivasan, A., Teitelbaum, J., Liang, H., Wu, J., Cardei, M.: Reputation and Trust-based Systems for Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks. In: Algorithms and Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, Q., Wu, D., Khosla, P.: Sori: A secure and objective reputation-based incentive scheme for ad-hoc networks. In: Proc. WCNC Wireless Communications and Networking Conference. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, vol. 2, pp. 825–830. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balakrishnan, V., Varadharajan, V., Lucs, P., Tupakula, U.: Trust enhanced secure mobile ad-hoc network routing. In: Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, AINAW 2007, vol. 1, pp. 27–33 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, H., Wu, H., Hu, J., Gao, C.: Event-based trust framework model in wireless sensor networks. In: Proc. International Conference on Networking, Architecture, and Storage, NAS 2008, pp. 359–364 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ganeriwal, S., Balzano, L.K., Srivastava, M.B.: Reputation-based framework for high integrity sensor networks. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks 4(3), 15:1–37 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marti, S., Giuli, T., Lai, K., Baker, M.: Mitigating routing misbehavior in mobile ad hoc networks. In: Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, MOBICOM, pp. 255–265 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Djenouri, D., Khelladi, L., Badache, A.N.: A survey of security issues in mobile ad hoc and sensor networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 7(4), 2–28 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    FemtoForum: Femtocell technology (2007),
  15. 15.
    Buchegger, S., Tissieres, C., Le Boudec, J.: A test-bed for misbehavior detection in mobile ad-hoc networks - how much can watchdogs really do? In: Proceedings - IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, WMCSA, pp. 102–111 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hussain, F., Chang, E., Hussain, O.: State of the art review of the existing bayesian-network based approaches to trust and reputation computation. In: 2nd International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection, pp. 154–158 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rafsanjani, M., Moveghar, A., Koroupi, F.: Investigating intrusion detection systems in manet and comparing idss for detecting misbehaving nodes. In: Proceedings of world academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, pp. 351–355 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olufunmilola Onolaja
    • 1
  • Rami Bahsoon
    • 1
  • Georgios Theodoropoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceThe University of BirminghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations