See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343426254

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS A NOVEL SECURITY AUTHENTICATION

ANALYSIS ON MANETS NETWORKS

Article  in  Journal of Critical Reviews · August 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 15

2 authors, including:

Pradeep Kumar Bammidi

Wellfare Institute of Science, Technology and Management
9 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wireless Sensor Networks View project

Secured Routing Protocols of ADHOC Networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pradeep Kumar Bammidi on 04 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 17, 2020

A NOVEL SECURITY AUTHENTICATION ANALYSIS

ON MANETS NETWORKS
1
Dr.M.R.EbenezarJebarani, 2Mr.B.Pradeep Kumar
1
Associate Professor in Electronic and communication department in Sathyabama Institute of Science and
Technology, Chennai
2
Assistant Professor in Wellfare Institute of Science Technology and Management in ECE Department

Received: 22.04.2020 Revised: 24.05.2020 Accepted: 19.06.2020

ABSTRACT
Ad hoc networks are a collection of nodes that are connected to rapidly changing topologies via a wireless
medium. Attacks on protocols of ad-hoc network routing disturb network performance and solution reliability.
We present briefly the most common protocols that are followed by on-demand approaches based on the table
and source. The combined performance of the proposed solutions and ad hoc network parameters is
demonstrated by stable protocols. The inherent characteristics make it an ideal choice in military and civil
communication.Such types of networks' main performance constraints are due to security threats due to complex
topology and the absence of centralized supervision. The normal functionality of the network is negatively
affected by passive and active attacks. The network traffic and network nodes are monitored by passive
attackers. Active attacks such as Blackhole attackers can partially or entirely drop packets from the network. A
secure protocol can mask path, source and destination identities and locations, to ensure safety and privacy in
the event of attacks by intruders.Therefore, this paper introduces a route selection method for MANET, which
improves source, destination and route security features against passive and specified assaults. The method
developed division the whole communication area dynamically into different zones and selects a position as a
temporary destination from the divided zones. The position-approximate node is chosen as the random sponsor
node and data is transmitted via random forwarder node with GPSR. The method is anonymous to the nodes
both in terms of identity and location. Methods to prevent timing attacks are also proposed.

1. INTRODUCTION
Many routing protocols were designed especially for WSNs in which energy knowledge is the main concern.
The WSN's routing protocols vary according to the application and architecture of a network. Ad-hoc networks
are a new wireless communication paradigm for mobile hosts that frequently modify the topology of node
mobility. Ad hoc networks are autonomous structures made up of routers and hosts that can help mobile abilities
and arbitrarily organize themselves. That makes it dynamic and impredictable to change the topology of the ad-
hoc network.Moreover, without any administrative servers or infrastructure, ad hoc network can either be built
or destroyed quickly and autonomously. The insider and outsider of the wireless network is certainly difficult
for people without support from the fixed infrastructure. It is therefore not easy for us to distinguish between
legal and unlawful wireless participants. The abovementioned properties have led to a major challenge when
designing a wireless network system for the implementation of the security infrastructure.If ad hoc network
nodes are mobile and wirelessly connectivityable, they are also called mobile ad hoc network (MANET). In
situations that require a completely decentralized network without fixed base stations, such as fighting areas,
military applications as well as other emergencies and catastrophes, they also need an extreme flexible
communications technologies.
Versatile hubs cooperate in a multi-jump impromptu remote system to make a system without utilizing
framework, for example, passageways or base stations. The versatile hubs are then sending each other's bundles
to permit correspondence between hubs outside the WiFi portfolio. The versatility of the hubs and the
generously diminished limit of the remote condition alongside its impacts on remote transmission, for example,
constriction, proliferation of multipaths and impedance, makes noteworthy difficulties for specially appointed
directing conventions. Meanings of impromptu system utilizes differ from military activities and fiasco
alleviation to assemble systems administration and understudy/meeting connection. Security in the steering
convention is expected to ensure against assaults like a noxious directing confusion in these or other specially
appointed systems administration applications. This article audits assaults on specially appointed systems and
examines current strategies in impromptu system cryptography. We portray the condition of examination and its
exploration challenges in safe specially appointed steering conventions.

2765
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 17, 2020

The major issue at MANETs is safety, mainly because of the nature of the MANET environment and its lack of
fixed topology. Likewise, MANET-Routing is a major issue, as each node acts as the router of the next node in
turn. These routers can be arranged arbitrarily and travel randomly.The information is dynamically exchanged
and updated occasionally. Various approaches to solve safety issues have been studied and various existing
routing protocols designed for safe MANETs have been reviewed.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Anonymous routing protocols are called MANET routing protocols that provide security for the rotate and
network nodes. In the case of MAETs, anonymous routing protocols are critical for secure communication
through identification of the node and for preventing external observer traffic attacks. The anonymity of the data
source senders and destinations who are recipients of the data, as also the router anonymity, includes the identity
and location anonymity of the data source. Anonymity of sources and destinations and identity and locations
means that other nodes are very challenging to acquire the real identity and location of the network sources and
destinations.Anonymity of a route is to ensure that attackers can not trace packet flows either in the route or out
of the route back to their source or destination, and node has no real identity information and node locations in
the route. Existing secure routing protocols are poorly scalable and energy efficient, while taking into
consideration cryptographic delays and overhead in the field. Implementation costs are also a major drawback to
MANET 's safety. The recently introduced anonymous MANET routing protocols include AO2P, ANODR,
ALARM, ALERT and others.
Ad Hoc on-demand position based private routing protocol
Xiaoxin Wu and Bharat Bhargava have proposed an Ad Hoc On Demand Private Routing Protocol (AO2P). For
routing decisions specific to a node ID additional information, such as node locations, is used. Because two ad
hoc nodes are unlikely to coincide with each other, the combination of a position and an ID is uniquely different.
Consequently, node IDs do not need to be revealed if positions for routing are exposed in position based routing
algorithms.If an opponent can not correctly match a node ID position, anonymity of nodes can be achieved.
Only the location of the destination is used for AO2P path discovery. Real source, destination, and transmitting
identifiers are confidential and the false identification of the source , destination, and transmission nodes is used
by the data packet. The route shall be established by the AO2P recipient dispute scheme. R-A02P is another
situation in which the reference point situation is used instead of the destination location to describe the path.
Anonymous on demand routing protocol
The MANET's Anonymous On Demand Routing (ANODR) protocol has been introduced by XiaoyanXiaoyan
Kong. The routing mechanism has three phases for ANODR. This is the exploration of anonymous routes,
anonymous management and the sharing of anonymous routes. Discovery of anonymous routes sets an on-
demand route. Trapdoor is a common cryptographic concept for road discovery security. The intermediate nodes
embedded a cryptographic onion and symmetric key for selection and safety on the route.ANODR is
recognizable and does not have any public key overhead encryption in a route search, except the first route
discovery. The routing table entries are stored on the schedule for anonymous path maintenance.
Anonymous location aided routing protocol
Tsudik and defrawy have proposed to develop an Anonymous Location Aided Routing (ALARM) based secure
routing protocol for MANET. ALARM secure data forwarding in node authentication and locations is
performed using the current node locations. Nodes at certain ALARM locations can be identified by creating
pseudonyms on the basis of Group Signature. Group manager helps to identify the nodes that the Group
Signature provides. All community members create a private key, which is secret from other nodes. This private
key is the signature of the group.Every node also generates a public key and only the community manager will
be exposed. All members of the group share a public key. This gives ALARM anonymity to identity and
location.
Anonymous location based efficient routing protocol
The Anonymous Location Based Efficient Routing Protocol (ALERT) was introduced by Haiying Shen and
Lianyu Zhao. Without using complex cryptographic techniques, ALERT supplies anonymity to the route and the
nodes in the network. The key strategy used by ALERT in implementing route protection is hierarchical
partition. This dynamic area partition and random selection methods of temporary destination location used by
Warning will establish a path that the attackers can not detect. ALERT uses a complex acronym for the identity
protection of networks.ALERT only offers protection from passive network attacks. ALERT takes certain
assumptions about networks, such as that attackers can't issue powerful, active attacks such as Blackhole
attacks, attackers can only intrude in some nodes, and the encrypted data is to a certain degree secure when the
attacker's key is unknown. In the real scenario, however, various kinds of aggressive attack can also impact the
MANET routing.

2766
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 17, 2020

3. SECURITY THREATS & ATTACKS

Several types of attacks jeopardize the secure exchange of MANET information by different criteria. Two types
of attacks against MANETs are possible: passive and aggressive. The attacker does not interfere with the routing
protocol in passive attacks. The traffic is only wakened and valuable information is extracted from it. While
malicious nodes may disrupt the proper operation of a routing protocol in active attacks by altering its routing
information, by impersonating other nodes or by making false routing information[1].
Usually, the use of various encryption mechanisms can avoid passive attacks. Routing level can only be used for
active attacks. It can be external or internal. Passive and active external attacks can be. Passive attacks are
unauthorized routing packet interruption and active attacks to degrade or damage the message from external
sources between nodes. A node that has been compromised is classed as an internal attack. For MANETs, that is
the most serious threat. This can transmit false information about routing to other nodes. The Denial of Service
attacks may be defined as active external attacks on wireless protocol routing.The two kinds of attacks are
covered in detail in [2].
Attacks on ad hoc networks
Attacks on ad hoc protocols are usually classified into one of two categories:
• Routing-disruption attacks. The attacker tries to dysfunctionally route legitimate data packets.
• Resource-consumption attacks. The attacker injects into the network packets in order to access useful goods
Network resources for node resource consumption such as bandwidth, storage and/or computer power.
Both attacks are instances from an application layer view of Denial-of - Service (DoS ) attack. An example of an
attack that causes a node to traverse nodes in a cycle is that an attacker sends forged routing packages to create a
routing loop that uses energy and the bandwidth available. A blackhole routing that attracts and drops data
packets can also be generated by an attacker. A falsified data (i.e. a fighter attracts traffic and may then discard)
was created by an assailant by distripting an attacker. In a particular black hole situation, an assailant can create
a grey hole where, by sending routing packets but not data packets, some packet but not others are lost. A route
detour node could be used by an attacker, or by partitioning the Network, through forged routing information
injected into one node, to prevent one node from reaching another. An attacker may try to get a route by
inserting virtual nodes; we call such an attack a free detour because there is a shorter route available.
In the ad hoc network routing protocols, that monitor malicious nodes perceived on a blacklist of each node, as
in the watch-dog-trail rater protocol 1 an assailant may malign a good node, causing other good nodes to be
added to their blacklist and preventing that node in future routes. A subtler form of routing disruptive attack
produces a network worm holes, which is connected by a private network connection using an attacker node pair
A and B. An example of the attack and a counter-measure are provided in the next section. A rush attack is a
malicious attack aiming to delete duplicate node on-demand protocols. An attacker quickly spreads ROUTE
ROUTES across the whole network and removes any later route legitimate ROUTE REQUESTs when nodes are
dropped due to deletion of the route.
Security Actions in Ad hoc Networks
The use of wireless links allows an administrative hoc network to be susceptible of linking attacks ranging from
passive eavesdropping through active impersonating, replaying messages and distortions of messages. Active
attacks may include the deletion of messages or the injection of errors in messages, the impersonation of a
known knot, etc. The likelihood of nodes being compromised is non-negligible, which wander in a hostile
environment with relatively low physical protection.Therefore malicious attacks from both outside and within
the network from compromised nodes need to be considered. Therefore the forms that protection can be
breached are observed.
Vulnerability of Channels: False messages can be sent and inserted into the network without the complexity of
physical access to network elements, as in any wireless network.
Vulnerability of nodes: Because network nodes are usually not located at physically secured locations, such as
locked areas, they are better captured and operated by an intruder.
Absence of Infrastructure: Ad hoc networks can run independently of fixed facilities. It means the inability to
incorporate traditional technology strategies based on certification agencies and web servers.
Dynamically Changing Topology: For the permanent changes in topology in mobile ad hoc networks,
sumptuous routing protocols are necessary. The problem is that incorrect routing data can be generated via
compromise nodes or because of changes in topology and that it is difficult to distinguish between these two.
For high survival of Ad hoc networks, centrality increases vulnerability with a distributed architecture without
central entities. Owing to frequent shift in intopology the ad-hoc network is complex.Even the relationships of
trust between individual nodes change, particularly when certain nodes are affected. The safety system must be
dynamic and not static and scalable.

2767
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 17, 2020

4. TYPES OF ATTACK ON AD HOC NETWORK

There are different types of ad hoc network attacks, which describe:
Location Disclosure: Disclosure of location is an attack that addresses ad hoc network privacy requirements.
Using traffic analyzing techniques, or using simpler survey methods, an attacker can find the location of a node
or the structure of the entire network.
Black Hole: A malicious node injects false answers to the path requests that it receives in black hole attacks and
advertises itself as having the shortest route to a destination. Such counterfeits may either be made to redirect
network traffic through the malicious eavesdropping node or to actually attract the entire truck such that the
received packets can be dropped and refused service.
Replay: A replay attacker is injecting into the previously captured network routing traffic. This attack usually
focuses on routes that are fresh but can also be used to damage malfunctioning security solutions.
Wormhole: The WurmholeAngriff is one of the most impressive, since it includes the participation of two
pernicious hubs associated with the system. One interloper, for instance hub A, finds traffic steering at one point
in a system and passages it to another point in a system , for instance to hub B that imparts a private association
with A. Hub B at that point returns burrowed traffic to the system specifically. The connection of the node
connecting the wormhole link is entirely regulated by the two aggressors.Packet leashes are the remedy for the
wormhole attack.
Blackmail: This attack is applicable to routing protocols which use malicious node identification mechanisms
and spread messages to blacklist the perpetrator. An assailant may create such reports and attempt to isolate
legitimate network nodes. The security feature of non-repudiation can be useful in these cases, because it
attaches a node to the generated messages.
Denial of Service: Denial of service attacks attempts to interrupt the routing mechanism completely and,
ultimately, the entire ad hoc network activity. The routing table overflow and sleep deprivation torture are
special instances of denial of service attacks. The malicious node floods the network in a routing table overflow
attack with bogus route creation packets to consume participating node resources and interrupt the establishment
of legit track. The attack on sleep default torture aims to consume batteries of a certain node in which it is
constantly involved in routing decisions.
Routing Table Poisoning: Protocols for routing keep tables containing network route information. In the event
of a toxic attack , the malicious nodes produce, send and/or change fabricated signaling traffic to establish false
entries in the participating node tables in the process. An attacker can e.g. send updates for routing that do not
match actual changes in ad hoc network topology. Routing tables may result in non-optimal routes being
chosen, routing loops created, bottlenecks, and even parts of a network being divided.
Rushing Attack: Rush attack is a denial of service result in which ad hoc network routing protocols on previous
request are not detected on routes longer than two hops for an attack , for example DSRs, AODVs and safe
based protocols like the Ariadne, ARANs and SAODV. RAP is a nonexclusive guard against the hurrying of on
request conventions to oppose the surge of assault, and can be applied to any current on-request directing
convention.
Breaking the neighbor relationship: In the case of a communication link between two ISs, an intelligent filter
is placed by an intruder(s) which can modify or change routing update information or even intercept traffic
belonging to any data session.
Masquerading: A foreign intruder may mask non-existent or existing IS through communication by attaching
himself to the connection and illegally joining in the protocol by jeopardizing authentication system during the
neighboring acquisition process. There is an almost identical threat of masquerade to an endangered IS.
Passive Listening and traffic analysis: The attacker may collect information on the path passively. A routing
protocol can not be used for such an attack, it is a breach of user trust in the protocol routing. Sensitive
information on routing should also be covered. However, routing protocols are not responsible for the
confidentiality of user data.

5. NOVEL NODE AUTHENTICATION TECHNIQUE

The authentication of the network's nodes for the control packets is to be done for safe routings that prevent
black hole attacks and MANET floods; that is to say, those nodes which receive a request or an answer packet
must authenticate the initiator which has received it. The authentication mechanism will require small
calculations because of the limited resources available for MANETs. In order to provide routing safety, the
proposed mechanism uses compliments and RSA algorithms. Authentication is carried out in two stages in the
proposed process.At first, each network node must be added to its own IP address prior to sending an RREQ
and, second, the originator signs with the target IP address. The receiving node tests its source packet
authentication by attaching the attached IP and source IP address, in order to provide everyone but it can't
decrypt the encrypted text. Any node which enters the network, not aware of its IP address being added, will be

2768
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 17, 2020

dropped off by its neighbours. packets are forming such nodes.If an authentication node is failing, a alert
message will also be sent through the network, showing the presence and IP of malicious nodes. Sparing
handling time for other neighboring hubs got parcels from the pernicious hub, just by losing them the system
moving forward without any more check. On receipt of the RREQ by the objective hub, the private key
unscrambles and the trustworthiness of the IP address source and goal is checked. In the event that goal finds an
altered transmission, the RREP bundle is created and sent to the source, else it will be a system cautioning. Once
RREP is gotten, the source verifies the destination authentication. The scheme of node authentication is shown
in the figure. 1.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of node authentication.

1. At first 1's supplement of hub's IP address is found

2. S IP XOR D IP = x

3. S sends RREQ scrambling x with open key, Kpu4. Scrambled RREQ is sent to neighboring hubs

5. On accepting RREQ, neighboring hubs confirm IP by adding 1s supplement and advances to goal

6. During the time spent transmission, each hub accepting checks RREQ, yet won't have the option to decode
the ciphertext and advances to the following hub

7. Likewise every hub does likewise

8. At last RREQ is gotten at D and unscrambles the ciphertext with the private key, Kpr

9. x = Ce(mod n) gives plain content

10. (x XOR D IP) gives S IP, check of IPs is done as inRREQ

11. On the off chance that the IPs coordinated, D encodes RREP and transmits to S,else a notice is sent to the
neighboring hubs over the system.

CONCLUSION
A new routing security mechanism is discussed in mobile ad hoc network implementing additional and
cryptographical algorithms. In order to ensure security and improve network efficiency, this can be included in
all routing protocols. The proposed routing security mechanism performance is analyzed with an overhead
control, and computer overhead is shown to be small. The current security scenario in the ad hoc network
environment has been presented in an overview. There has been discussion of key management, wireless ad hoc
ad-hoc routing.The ad-hoc networking is still a crude area of research, as the problems of the networks and the
new solutions can be seen. The key administration protocols continue to be very costly and safe. Various
protocols have been proposed for routing ad-hoc network s. We need to be made stronger and more robust in
order to respond to these networks' challenging requirements. The versatility, ease and speed at which these
networks are built means that they are being expanded. The ad-hoc network is therefore largely available for
study , in order to satisfy these demanding demands.

2769
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 17, 2020

REFERENCES
1. S. Marti et al., “Mitigating Routing Misbehaviour inMobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. 6th Ann. Int’l Conf.
Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2000),ACM Press, 2000, pp. 255–265.
2. Y.-C. Hu, A. Perrig, and D.B. Johnson, “Rushing Attacksand Defense in Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing
Protocols,”Proc. 2003 ACM Workshop on Wireless Security(WiSe 2003), ACM Press, 2003, pp. 30–40.
3. Y.-C. Hu, A. Perrig, and D.B. Johnson, “Packet Leashes:A Defense against Wormhole Attacks in Wireless
Ad HocNetworks,” Proc. 22nd Ann. Joint Conf. IEEE Computerand Communications Societies (INFOCOM
2003), IEEEPress, 2003, pp. 1976–1986.
4 D.B. Johnson, “Routing in Ad Hoc Networks of MobileHosts,” Proc. IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing
Systemsand Applications (WMCSA’94), IEEE Press, 1994, pp.158–163.
5. C.E. Perkins and E.M. Royer, “Ad-Hoc On-DemandDistance Vector Routing,” Proc. 2nd IEEE
WorkshopMobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA’99),IEEE Press, 1999, pp. 90–100.
6. A. Qayyum, L. Viennot, and A. Laouiti, “Multi-PointRelaying: An Efficient Technique for Flooding in
Mobile WirelessNetworks,” tech. report RR-3898, INRIA, Feb. 2000.
7. B. Bellur and R.G. Ogier. “A Reliable, Efficient TopologyBroadcast Protocol for Dynamic Networks,” Proc.
18thAnn. Joint Conf. IEEE Computer and Communications Societies(INFOCOM ’99), IEEE Press, 1999, pp.
178–186.
8. M. Corner and B. Noble, “Zero-Interaction Authentication,”Proc. 8th ACM Int’l Conf. Mobile Computing
and Networking (MobiCom 2002), ACM Press, 2002,pp. 1–11.
9. T. Kindberg, K. Zhang, and N. Shankar, “ContextAuthentication Using Constrained Channels,” Proc. 4th
IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications(WMCSA 2002), IEEE Press, 2002, pp. 14–
21.
10. A. Perrig et al., “Efficient Authentication and Signing ofMulticast Streams over Lossy Channels,” Proc.
IEEE
Symp. Security and Privacy, IEEE Press, 2000, pp. 56–73.

The author was born in 1970 in Tamilnadu. She received doctorate degree in the field of
wireless sensor networks in Sathyabama University in 2014, M.E degree in 2007 with
distinction from Sathyabama University. She has more than 17 years teaching experience.
She was working as a Associate Professor in Electronic and communication department in
Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai. She has published several papers
in reputed international/national journal and conferences. Dr.M.R.EbenezarJebarani having
the field of interest in Wireless sensor networks, embedded systems, wireless
communications and Digital Image Processing.

The Author is Born in 1991.he has 5 Years of teaching experience. He has completed his Masters
of Engineering in the stream of Electronics Instrumentation in ECE Dept. Andhra University. He
is perusing his Ph.D. in Satyabhama University, Chennai. Under the Guidance of
Dr.M.R.EbenezarJebarani in the field of wireless sensor networks. He is working as an Assistant Professor in
Wellfare Institute of Science Technology and Management in ECE Department. He has Published several
Papers in reputed International/National Journals, Conferences. Mr.B.Pradeep Kumar has Fields of interest in
Wireless sensor networks, Image processing, VLSI and Embedded Systems.He is a lifetime member in
IAENG,ISRD,WASRTI.

2770

View publication stats