2022
DOI: 10.1109/tdsc.2020.2993769
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting Sybil Attacks Using Proofs of Work and Location in VANETs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
51
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
51
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, Sybil attacks can be used to launch DDoS attacks by exploiting multiple Sybil nodes to flood the target with massive illegitimate traffic to paralyze the whole system functionalities. According to Baza et al, [118], several solutions to detect Sybil attacks have failed since they suffer from technical limitations. For example, (a) identity registration based techniques [129], [130] fail when the attacker pretends multiple identities; (b) position verification-based schemes [131] fail because of the high mobility of vehicles; (c) trajectory-based schemes [132] fail when the attacker succeeds in compromising an RSUs and thus can get a large number of valid trajectories.…”
Section: C: Malware Attackmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, Sybil attacks can be used to launch DDoS attacks by exploiting multiple Sybil nodes to flood the target with massive illegitimate traffic to paralyze the whole system functionalities. According to Baza et al, [118], several solutions to detect Sybil attacks have failed since they suffer from technical limitations. For example, (a) identity registration based techniques [129], [130] fail when the attacker pretends multiple identities; (b) position verification-based schemes [131] fail because of the high mobility of vehicles; (c) trajectory-based schemes [132] fail when the attacker succeeds in compromising an RSUs and thus can get a large number of valid trajectories.…”
Section: C: Malware Attackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, (a) identity registration based techniques [129], [130] fail when the attacker pretends multiple identities; (b) position verification-based schemes [131] fail because of the high mobility of vehicles; (c) trajectory-based schemes [132] fail when the attacker succeeds in compromising an RSUs and thus can get a large number of valid trajectories. In this context, the authors in [118] propose a novel detection technique, using proof of work and location in VANET, which shows a high level of performance with acceptable overhead. Wormhole attacks can severely affect routing protocols without being detected since the attacker can function as a legitimate node [119].…”
Section: C: Malware Attackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also verified the security of their proposed scheme using ProVerif and AVISPA. Later on, some new blockchain based authentication schemes have been proposed [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Besides, the protocols of [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] have more computational overhead.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We follow the same methodology used in [47]- [50] to analyze the security and privacy of our system. We also follow the widely used approach for analyzing security of networks and systems [51], [52].…”
Section: Evaluations a Security And Privacy Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%