Multi-path and Message Trust-Based Secure Routing in Ad Hoc Networks

Dhurandher, Sanjay Kumar; Mehra, Vijeta

doi:10.1109/act.2009.55

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the most widely discussed protocols are Authenticated Routing for Ad Hoc Networking (ARAN) [9], ARIADNE [10] and Watchdog Pathrater [11]. There have also been various secure routing techniques [14] - [16] that use multipath based routing where they break the data into different number of sub packets, encrypt them and then finally route them through different paths. In this work we have looked into the secure routing techniques DMR [14], TMR [15] and MTMR [16], and have designed the proposed FACES protocol to provide better security.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of the most widely used algorithms for public key cryptography are RSA and Diffie -Hellman [7], [8]. A number of routing protocols [9] - [16] have been proposed towards providing security in ad-hoc networks. Some of the most widely discussed protocols are Authenticated Routing for Ad Hoc Networking (ARAN) [9], ARIADNE [10] and Watchdog Pathrater [11].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have also been various secure routing techniques [14] - [16] that use multipath based routing where they break the data into different number of sub packets, encrypt them and then finally route them through different paths. In this work we have looked into the secure routing techniques DMR [14], TMR [15] and MTMR [16], and have designed the proposed FACES protocol to provide better security. These protocols [14] - [16] have been discussed in the following subsections, as these protocols are the ones that have been used for comparison with the proposed technique FACES.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this work we have looked into the secure routing techniques DMR [14], TMR [15] and MTMR [16], and have designed the proposed FACES protocol to provide better security. These protocols [14] - [16] have been discussed in the following subsections, as these protocols are the ones that have been used for comparison with the proposed technique FACES.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MTMR [16] uses a trust assignment and updating strategy which can be used to identify and isolate malicious nodes without being hard on the resources of the network. It uses a parameter, the trust requirement of the message such that each message has a certain level of importance based on its content and type.…”

Section: Message and Trust Based Multipath Routing: Mtmrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Security Establishment in MANET Systems using FACES

Manivannan¹,

J.Shakila²

2013

IJSEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Friend based Ad-hoc routing using Challenges to Establish Security (FACES) is an algorithm to provide secure routing in ad-hoc mobile networks. The scheme proposed has been drawn from a network of friends in real life scenarios. The algorithm is divided into four stages, viz. Challenge your neighbour, Rate Friends, Share Friends and Route through Friends. One of the major advantages of this scheme is that the nodes do not need to promiscuously listen to the traffic passing through their neighbours. The information about the malicious nodes is gathered effectively by using Challenges, which reduces the overhead on networks. As a result of this scheme of operation, the network is able to effectively isolate the malicious nodes which are left with no role to play in the ad-hoc network. One major benefit of this scheme is that the nodes do not need to promiscuously listen to the traffic passing through their neighbours. The information about the malicious nodes is gathered effectively by using Challenges. This reduces the overhead on the network significantly. Through extensive simulation analysis it was inferred that this scheme provides an efficient approach towards security and easier detection of malicious nodes in the mobile ad-hoc network.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Message and Trust Based Multipath Routing: Mtmrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Security Establishment in MANET Systems using FACES

Manivannan¹,

J.Shakila²

2013

IJSEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Message trust‐based secure multipath routing protocol for opportunistic networks

Dhurandher

Singh

Woungang

et al. 2020

Int J Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Opportunistic networks (OppNets) are composed of wireless nodes opportunistically communicating with each other. These networks are designed to operate in a challenging environment characterized by high delay, intermittent connectivity, and no guarantee of fixed path between the sender and the destination nodes. One of the most vital issues in designing and maintaining practical networks over a time period is the security of the messages flowing in OppNets. This paper proposes a new method called message trust‐based secure multipath routing protocol (MT‐SMRP) for opportunistic networks. Various routing protocols such as ProPHet, Epidemic, and HiBOp, to name a few, have been proposed for OppNets, but none of these have applied a secure multipath routing technique. The proposed MT‐SMRP scheme relays the message to the destination through the disjoint paths, each applying a soft‐encryption technique to prevent message fabrication attacks. Simulations are conducted using the Haggle Infocom'06 real mobility data traces, showing that when time‐to‐live is varied, (1) the proposed MT‐SMRP scheme outperforms D‐MUST by 18.10%, 7.55%, 3.275%, respectively, in terms of delivery probability, messages dropped, and average latency; (2) it also outperforms SHBPR by 21.30%, 7.44%, and 4.85%, respectively, in terms of delivery probability, messages dropped, and average latency. Under similar performance metrics, the performance of MT‐SMRP is also shown to be better than that of D‐MUST and SHBPR when the buffer size (respondents. the message generation interval) is varied.

show abstract