13209-13218 - Available Online through

B.S.Sathish* et al. International Journal Of Pharmacy & Technology

IJPT| June-2016 | Vol. 8 | Issue No.2 | 13209-13218 3209

ISSN: 0975-766X CODEN: IJPTFI

Available Online through Research Article

www.ijptonline.com ADVANCED DETERMINATION OF NODE-MISBEHAVIOUR USING OVERHEARING AND

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS IN WIRELESS AD-HOC NETWORKS B.S.Sathish

1*, Dr.P.Thirusakthimurugan

2, Ganesan P

1,

1V.Kalist

1Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.

2Department of EIE, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry, India.

Email: [email protected]

Received on 13-05-2016 Accepted on 12-06-2016

Abstract

In Wireless Ad-hoc networks, nodes-operate among themselves to forward information packets from a supply node to a

destination node. Nodes might participate in route discovery or route maintenance method however refuse to forward

packets owing to presence of faulty hardware or package or to save lots of their resources, such as, battery power and

information measure. Detection and isolation of misbehavior nodes area, unit vital problems to boost the standard

communication service and to save lots of resources of well behaving wireless nodes, During this work firstly, a

neighbour Overhearing based mostly misbehaviour Detection (OMD) theme is planned. In OMD, each node

transmissions of its neighbours and calculates packet forwarding quantitative relation of its own in addition as its

neighbours. Source node uses the calculated data to spot a misbehaving node. Secondly, associate Autonomous Agent

based mostly misbehaviour Detection (AAMD) technique is planned.

Keywords: Wireless Ad-hoc Networks, Misbehaviour, Overhearing, Hash chain, Trusted Third Party, Autonomous

Agent, Victimisation, Route discovery

1. Introduction

Wireless ad-hoc network is a decentralized network which is not supported by any pre-existing infrastructure. Nodes in

this type of network work collaboratively to realize end to end communication. Multi-hop routes are used to overcome

limited communication range of nodes in the network. In wireless ad-hoc networks, a source node relies on intermediate

nodes to forward data packets to a designated destination node. Wireless ad-hoc network is deployed in some hostile or

uncontrolled environment where nodes may not behave according to the defined protocol. So, there will be a probability


IJPT| June-2016 | Vol. 8 | Issue No.2 | 13209-13218 Page 13210

of presence of misbehaviour nodes. Nodes may deny to forward packets (misbehaviour of nodes) to save battery power

and other resources, may provide false routing information or may drop packets to degrade the performance of the

network. Misbehaving nodes can be of different types, an overloaded node may lack of processing power, buffer space or

available network bandwidth to forward packets. A faulty node might have a software fault where as a malicious node

may launch a DOS attack. A selfish node may refuse to forward packets to save its battery power and other resources to

forward its own traffic. Existing solutions for identifying misbehaving nodes either require some type of hardware support

or use some form of per-packet evaluation of peer behaviour. Credit based approaches require some type of hardware

support or a payment system and do not identify misbehaving node. Reputation based approaches are based on

transmission overhearing which are expensive and incur more communication overhead. Acknowledgment based

approaches require issuance of per-packet acknowledgment, thus introducing high communication overhead. Audit based

approach introduces high communication overhead and identification delay for route discovery and audit process.

Moreover, existing techniques fail to detect dropping attacks accurately and efficiently. The rest of the paper is organized

as follows. In section II a brief details of proposed work compare with existing work on misbehaviour detection is given.

Section III discusses the concepts related to proposed mechanisms. In section IV the experimental setup and simulation

results are shown. Concluding remarks are presented in Section V.

2. Related Work

Various techniques have been developed to detect the dropping misbehaviours in wireless ad hoc network. Proposed

schemes can be classified as:

A. Credit Based Systems

In credit based systems, some credits are given to intermediate nodes whenever a node forwards packets or provide

services to other nodes in the network. The credits received can be used by the nodes to transmit their own traffic. Buttyan

and Hubaux have proposed two models which can be used in credit based schemes: Firstly, Packet Trade Model in which

each intermediate node gives some credits to previous node and buy packets from it and sells the packets to next node for

more credits.

The destination node bears the overall cost of forwarding the packets. Secondly, Packet Purse Model in which credits are

loaded into packet before it is sent by the sender node.



B. Reputation Based Systems

Reputation of a node is calculated by its neighbour by observing the packet forwarding behaviour of the node. Reputation

computed is used in the system for evaluating the trustworthiness of nodes in forwarding traffic and detecting the

misbehaviour of suspicious nodes. This in sequence is then propagating all the way through the network so that the

detected misbehaving node can be removed from the network. Marti et al. have proposed a system that contains two most

important modules, term watchdog and pathrater, to detect and mitigate routing misbehaviour in MANET,

correspondingly. Using the declaration of watchdog module, pathrater rates each path in the cache and selects the path

which avoids node misbehaviour.

C. Acknowledgment Based Systems

Acknowledgment based systems rely on the reception of acknowledgment to verify that a message is forwarded to next

hop. Balakrishnan et al. have proposed TWOACK scheme in which a node sends 2-hop acknowledgment message,

whenever they receive a packet, along the reverse path which verifies that the intermediate node has forwarded the packet.

Samreen et al. have proposed an approach which uses two techniques: 2ACK technique and Principle of Flow of

Conservation (PFC) technique which are used in parallel to enable the detection of nodes that exhibit packet dropping

behaviour. The result generated by first technique is used by the second technique to generate the list of misbehaving

nodes.

D. Audit Based System

Audit based Misbehaviour Detection (AMD) technique integrates three modules:(a) Reputation module is responsible for

management of reputation value of nodes in the network and for updating the reputation based on the input provided by

the audit module.(b) Route discovery Module is responsible for finding most trustworthy path among available paths on

the basis of path reputation value and path selection factor.(c) Audit module identifies the misbehaving nodes in the path

using auditing process. This process is accelerated based on the reputation values provided by the reputation module.

AMD evaluates node misbehaviour on per packet basis without using overhearing technique or acknowledgment scheme.

AMD can also detect dropping attack of selective nature. In this work, firstly, a neighbour overhearing based

misbehaviour detection scheme is proposed. Secondly, an autonomous agent based misbehaviour detection scheme is



proposed. Motivation behind the work is to improve communication overhead and identification delay in a wireless ad-

hoc network as shown in figure 1.

Fig. 1. Block Diagram of Proposed System.

3. Improved Missed Detection Techniques Using Neighbor Overhearing And Autonomous Agents.

In this section, firstly, the system model and basic definitions are bestowed. Secondly, projected neighbour Overhearing

primarily based misdeed Detection (OMD) technique has been mentioned within which every node gift within the path

between supply node and destination node calculates Packet Forwarding Ratio (PFR) of its own and its neighbours.

Supply node maintains a matrix that is updated on the premise of the PFR values calculated by the nodes. This matrix is

employed to spot misbehaving nodes. Thirdly, projected Autonomous Agent primarily based misdeed Detection (AAMD)

technique has been bestowed within which associate degree agent resides at every node which is able to be activated to

calculate PFR of that node as shown in figure 1.

A. System Model

The term neighbour is employed to seek advice from a node that's at intervals wireless transmission varies of another

node. Neighbourhood refers to any or all the nodes that area unit at intervals wireless transmission varies of that node. A

hash chain may be a sequence of hash prices that area unit computed by iteratively line of work a unidirectional hash

performs on associate degree initial value. A crucial property of the hash chain is that its parts will be simply computed in

one direction, however not within the reverse direction as shown in figure 2, Table 1 .

B. Neighbour Overhearing primarily based misdeed Detection: a light-weight approach

In this work, the projected neighbour Overhearing primarily based misdeed Detection(OMD) technique uses the data

provided by the neighbours for behaviour analysis of nodes within the path while not acquisition high communication

overhead. Associate degree algorithmic program for overhearing primarily based misdeed detection is shown in (Sath



Node Algorithm rule 1), Source node maintains a matrix φPFR of Packet Forwarding Ratio (PFR) of every node. The

matrix contains node id denoted as i, forwarding quantitative relation calculated by its own denoted as PFR and

forwarding quantitative relation calculated by its neighbors denoted as PFR wherever j denotes all the neighbours of node

metal.

Sath Node Algorithm Rule 1: Algorithm for Overhearing Based Detection of Misbehaving Node.

Require: Forwarding ratio PFR of each node, time epoch t and t1.

Ensure: Detection of misbehaving node.

1. Initialize matrix φ PFR of Packet Forwarding Ratio (PFR) with zeros.

2. Selection of path PDS−>D using DSR algorithm between source node S and destination

node.

3. Monitoring packet delivery ratio η of the path PS−>D by node S.

4. If η < η0

5. Node S sends a control packet Request PFR to request all the nodes along the path to calculate PFR of its own

PFRii and its neighbours PFRi (where j denotes all the neighbours of node i) at time t for a time duration t1.

6. Calculation of PFRii and PFRij by the intermediate node.

7. At time t+t1 node D sends a reply Request PFR along the reverse path and all intermediate nodes append the

calculated values to the reply.

8. Node S modifies it’s matrix φPFR based on the received Request PFR

9. Node S checks all the entries

10. If PFRii ≠ PFRij

11. Node i is misbehaving node.

12. Else

13. Node i is well behaving node.

Fig. 2. Calculation of PFR values by nodes using neighbour overhearing and verification of misbehavior.



Table. 1. Conflicting Values Verifies the Misbehavior.

ni PFRii PFR

i i-1 PFR

ii+1

1 0.5 0.5 0.5

2 0.6 0.6 0.6

3 0.6 0.4 0.4

4 0.4 0.2 0.4

4. Simulation Results

In the simulation, packet dropping has been implemented under channel conditions given in JProwler. The performance

metrics such as Communication Overhead, Identification Delay and Packet Delivery Ratio have been used to evaluate the

performance of the proposed scheme. Figure 3 shows the communication overhead introduced to detect misbehaving

nodes with respect to percentage of misbehaving nodes. The Y axis is in logarithmic scale. If number of misbehaving

nodes increases in the network, communication overhead to detect those node will also increases as more number of

agents that are residing at the nodes need to be activated.

X – axis : percentage of misbehaving node Y – axis : communication overhead

Fig. 3. The comparison of communication overhead between AMD and AAMD v/s percentage of misbehaving

nodes

The control packets need to be transmitted to more number of nodes to collect the calculated PFR values. In OMD,

increment in identification delay is less as the number of misbehaving nodes increase because a single control packet can

be used for detection of more misbehaving nodes. Identification delay will increase in AAMD in the presence of more

misbehaving nodes because more number of agents will be activated for detection. Figure 4 shows the identification delay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

% of Misbehaving Nodes

AMD AAMD



with respect to path length in presence of one misbehaving node. This additional delay incurs in Overhearing based

Misbehavior Detection (OMD) as more number of nodes need to perform the transmission overhearing and calculation of

Packet Forwarding

X – axis : path length Y – axis : Identification delay

Fig. 4. Identification delay v/s path length (in presence of one misbehaving node)

Figure 5 shows the delay required to identify two misbehaving nodes with respect to path length. To identify the

misbehaving nodes, the identification delay increases if the path length increases.

X – axis : Path Length Y – axis : Identification Delay

Fig. 5. Identification delay v/s path length (in presence of two misbehaving node)

5. Conclusion

We have proposed two techniques for misbehaviour detection in wireless ad-hoc networks. Firstly, an Overhearing based

Misbehavior Detection (OMD) technique is proposed which is based on behaviour evaluation by neighbouring nodes. The

OMD technique reduces the identification delay by transmitting few control packets for identifying the misbehaving nodes

in the network. Secondly, an Autonomous Agent based Misbehavior Detection (AAMD) technique is proposed. The

AAMD technique achieves up-to 25% less communication overhead than the AMD technique. Also, the identification

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

Path length

..

OMD AAMD

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Path Length

OMD AAMD



delay has been reduced (using AAMD) significantly for identifying misbehaving nodes using autonomous agents in the

network. Further, investigation may be done to develop an isolation scheme to isolate the detected misbehaving nodes

from the network.

References

1. A. Visconti and H. Tahayori, “Detecting misbehaving nodes in manet with an artificial immune system based on

type-2 fuzzy sets,” International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, ICITST’09, pp. 1–2,

2009.

2. H. Luo, P. Zerfos, J. Kong, S. Lu, and L. Zhang, “Self-securing ad-hoc wireless networks,” in In Proc. of ISCC, 2002.

3. R. R. Rout and S. K. Ghosh, “Enhancement of lifetime using duty cycle and network coding in wireless sensor

networks,” IEEE Transaction on Wireless Communication, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 656–667, 2013.

4. B. Kannhavong, H. Nakayama, Y. Nemoto, N. Kato, and A. Jamalipour, “A survey of routing attacks in mobile ad hoc

networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 85–91, 2007.

5. A. B. Abderrahmane Baadache, “Fighting against packet dropping misbehaviour in multi-hop wireless ad hoc

networks,” J. Network and Computer Applications, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1130–1139, 2012.

6. D. Djenouri and N. Badache, “On eliminating packet droppers in manet: A modular solution,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol.

7, no. 6, pp. 1243–1258, 2009.

7. F. Kargl, a. Klenk, M. Weber, and S. Schlott, “Advanced detection of selfish or malicious nodes in ad hoc

networks,” in 1st European Workshop on Security in Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks, Heidelberg, Germany, Aug 5-6,

2004, 2004.

8. K. Liu, J. Deng, P. Varshney, and K. Balakrishnan, “An acknowledgement based approach for detection of routing

misbehaviour in mantes,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 536–550, 2007.

9. S. Zhang, J. Chen, and Y.R.Yang, “Sprite : A simple cheat-proof, credit based system for mobile ad-hoc networks,” in

Proc. of INFOCOM, 2003, pp. 1987–1997.

10. L. Buttyan and J. P. hubaux, “Stimulating cooperation in self organizing mobile adhoc networks,” Mobile Net. and

Application, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 579–592, 2003.



11. J. Crowcroft, R. Gibbens, F. Kelly, and S. Ostring, “Modelling incentive for collabration in mobile adhoc

network,” in Proc. of WiOpt, 2003.

12. S. Ganeriwal, L. Balzano, and M. Srivastava, “Reputation based framework for high integrity sensor networks,”

ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–37, 2008.

13. Q. He, D. Wu, and K. Khosla, “Sori: A secure and objective reputation based incentive scheme for adhoc

networks,” in In Proc. of WCNC, 2004.

14. S. Buchegger and J. Y. L. Boudec, “Self policing mobile adhoc networks by reputation systems,” in IEEE Comm.

Magazine, 2005, pp. 101–107.

15. L. Miranda, H.and Rodrigues, “Preventing selfishness in open mobile adhoc networks,” in Proc. of Seventh

CaberNet Radicals Workshop, 2002.

16. S. Buchegger and J. Y. L. Boudec, “Performance analysis of the confidant protocol: Cooperation of nodes,

fairness in dynamic ad-hoc networks,” in Proc. of MobiHoc, 2002.

17. B. Awerbuch, R. Curtmola, D. Holmer, C. Nita-Rotary, and H. Rubens, “Odsbr: An on-demand secure byzantine

resilient routing protocol for wireless ad hoc networks,” ACM Transactions on Information System Security, vol. 10,

no. 4, pp. 11–35, 2008.

18. B.S.Sathish, Dr.P.Thirusakthimurugan (2015). “Fuzzy Position Control of PMBLDC Motor using Adaptive Genetic

Algorithm”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology (Indjst), Vol.8, No. 8, pp.600-606.

19. Shaik, Khamar Basha and Ganesan, P and Kalist, V and Sathish, BS and Jenitha, J Merlin Mary “Comparative

Study of Skin Color Detection and Segmentation in HSV and YCbCr Color Space”, Procedia Computer Science,

volume -57, pp 41- 48, 2015, Elsevier.

20. Kalist, V and Ganesan, P and Sathish, BS and Jenitha, J Merlin Mary, “Possiblistic-Fuzzy C-Means Clustering

Approach for the Segmentation of Satellite Images in HSL Color Space”, Procedia Computer Science vol 57, Pp 49-

56, 2015}, Elsevier.

21. Krishna, R Vivek and Sathish, BS and Ganesan, P and Babu, P Jawahar and Abilash, R, “Design of voice and

gesture controlled Quadcopter”, International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and

Communication Systems (ICIIECS), IEEE, 2015, Pp 1--6, 2015.



22. Ganesan, P and Palanivel, K and Sathish, BS and Kalist, V and Shaik, Khamar Basha, “Performance of fuzzy

based clustering algorithms for the segmentation of satellite images-A comparative study”, IEEE Seventh

National Conference on Computing, Communication and Information Systems (NCCCIS), 20 15,Pp 23 - 27, 2015,

IEEE.

23. Govindaswamy Indhumathi, Dr.R. Seshasayanan “Periodic Wave Generation for Direct Digital Synthesization”,

International Journal on Intelligent Electronics Systems, Sathyabama university, pp 22-27, Vol. 10, January 2016.

24. B.S.Sathish, Ganesan P, ”Color Image Segmentation based on Genetic Algorithm and Histogram Threshold”,

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research (IJAER), vol-10, issue-6, pp 5205-5209, 2015.

Corresponding Author:

B.S.Sathish*,

Email: [email protected]

13209-13218 - Available Online through

Documents

Transcript of 13209-13218 - Available Online through