The 2nd International Conference on Wireless Broadband and Ultra Wideband Communications (AusWireless 2007) 2007
DOI: 10.1109/auswireless.2007.61
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prevention of Blackhole Attack in MANET

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
64
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 173 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To prevent a black hole attack, various methods have been proposed [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Threshold-based methods [7], [8], [9] detect a black hole node by checking whether the destination sequence number of the RREP is higher than a threshold value.…”
Section: Black Hole Attack Prevention Methods Using Dynamic Thresholdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To prevent a black hole attack, various methods have been proposed [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Threshold-based methods [7], [8], [9] detect a black hole node by checking whether the destination sequence number of the RREP is higher than a threshold value.…”
Section: Black Hole Attack Prevention Methods Using Dynamic Thresholdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas, in ESTA, no precautions are taken into consideration during this phase, which saves the resources of the intermediate nodes but at a cost of delay and some certain amount of performance degradation due to selection of corrupt path having malicious nodes which are anyways routed out later due to their non-performance, which leads to trust value degradation. In [10], the approach proposed by the authors depends upon multiple route replies, which ESTA also relies on, but in the approach of [10], the intermediate nodes can also reply, which is prohibited in ESTA. In addition, no comparison of the common nodes is done in ESTA as the routes formed are dis-joint paths.…”
Section: Comparative Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tamilselvan and Sankaranarayanan [10] proposed an approach in which the route requesting node waits for the responses from neighboring nodes, which includes the next hop details, for a predetermined time value. After the wait period is complete, the entries in the Collect Route Reply Table (CRRT) are cross checked to see if there is any repetition of the next-hop-node details or not.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the main drawbacks of this method is that if a cooperative blackhole attack occurs it cannot avoid the attack. L. Tamilselvan [3] proposed a solution that uses a fidelity table in which each participating node is assigned with a fidelity level which determines node reliability. The source node will select the node with highest fidelity number and forwards the data.…”
Section: Resisting Blackhole Attacks On Manetsmentioning
confidence: 99%