Poster Paper

Proc. oft. Con/ on Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing ZU!!
BLACK HOLE ATTACK AND THEIR COUNTER MEASURE BASED ON TRUST MANAGEMENT IN
MANET: A SURVEY
U.Venkanna1, R.Leela Velusami
I
Department of computer science engineering, National Institute of Technology,Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, India - 620
015
l\15-l|_P5ld.6P dd5|!lll.Ol
Abstract: Mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is an
autonomous system connected by mobile nodes with
wireless links. Due to absence of infastructure,
MANET is used in various applications, such as
battleteld, business applications, and remote areas. As,
communication among the nodes is through the insecure
wireless link, security is very important issue for this
type of networks. MANET is vulnerable to attacks such
as Black hole attack, Gray hole attack, wonhole attack,
Sybil attack, and Route table modifcation attack. Black
hole attack has serious impact on routing and delivery
ratio of packets. To overcome Black hole attack, a
mechanisms such as tmst based routing, intmsion
detection system, sequence number comparison and
Data Routing Information table (DR!) has been
proposed. Tmst based On Demand routing mechanism
identites and decreases the hazards by malicious node
in the path. This paper provides a survey of preventing
and identifing Black hole attack using tmst
management mechanism in MANET.
Keyords: Tmst, reputation, Black hole attack,
security, MNET.
INTRODUCTION
MANET is an autonomous and decentralized wireless
system. It is also called self organized, infrastmcture
less networks. Each node not only operates as an end
system, but also acts as a router to fard packets.
Nodes cooperate with each other to route the control
and the data packets from source to destination. Routing
in MANET is classifed in two types proactive (table
driven) and reactive (On-Demand). In a proactive
routing protocol, nodes periodically exchange routing
infation with other nodes. In a reactive routing
protocol, nodes will exchange routing infation only
when needed. Due to dynamic changing topology, open
medium, and no clear line defense attacks on MANET
201 I lET
232
are possible. Attacks in MANET are classifed into two
types: passive attacks and active attacks. A passive
attack does not disrupt operation of protocol, trap the
infonation by listening to the traffc. An active attack
involves action such as moditcation and deletion of
exchanged data.
In reactive routing protocol of MANET
nodes along the path must cooperate with each other to
achieve maximum packet delivery ratio. If a
misbehaved node is in the path the packet delivery ratio
reduced. To identit the misbehaved node and to
improve the perfnance of MANET, trust value for
node is introduced. The tmst value of node indicates the
behavior of node. A low trust value identites a
misbehaving node in the network.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
section background gives a short background on Black
hole attack and misbehave node, section trust
management describes the tmst management system,
Section existing solutions discusses the existing
methods for trust management and tnally Section 5
summarize the paper.
BACKGROUND
Proactive and Reactive routing protocols need good
cooperation among the nodes to route the data from
source node to destination node. Cooperative nodes
never drop the packets or modit the contents.
Misbehavers nodes are uncooperative nodes drop the
packets and modif the contents. Misbehaver nodes are
of two types seltsh nodes and malicious node [2].
Selfsh nodes are not fully participating in packet
forwarding functionalit because they are more
concered about the resources such as battery. Seltsh
nodes drop all data packets that passes through them. A
malicious node intentionally drops the packets. Due to
this misbehaver node, MANET is susceptible to various
types of routing attacks such as Black hole, Gray hole,
IE
Poster Paper
Proc. oft. Con/ on Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing ZU!!
Worm hole, Sybil attack, and resource consumption
attack.
Black hole attack
A black hole attack [3] is a kind of denial of service
attack where a malicious node can attract all packets by
falsely claiming a fesh route to the destination and
absorb them without forwarding them to the destination
Fig. 1 shows how the Black hole problem arises.
In Fig I A wants to send data packet to node D. To
initiate the process reactive routing protocol is involved.
In the process of route discovery if node C is malicious
node it replies to Node A as soon as it receives RREQ,
the existence of a path through it to node D. Node A an
receiving the reply from node C, will ignore another
route replies fom rest of nodes in MANET without
checking the validity of path received fom node C.
Node C will consume all the packets or drops.
The presence of misbehavior nodes packet
deliver ratio was decreased. To identif misbehaved
node in the route trust management is used. To improve
security in MANET need a mechanism that allows a
node to evaluate trustworthiness of other nodes.
TRUST MANAGEMENT
The trust of particular node based on subjective
assessment by agentpeer ode on reliability and
receiving infation from and (or) traversing through
the node given situation and given time. The main
properties of trust in MANET have dynamic, subjective,
context dependency, and asymmetr. Trust can be
measured in continuous value in between [0,1].
Trust in Ad-hoc networks are classifed into two
types, one is identity trust and another is behavior trust.
Identity trust is based on identity of the node. This can
be achieved by encryption technique, digital signature,
and authentication mechanism. Behavior trust is based
on the behavior of the node and is used to distinguish
between authorized and malicious node. Behavior trust
can be established in two ways direct and indirect. A
direct trust is observation that is directly made by the
node itself Indirect trust is evaluated using advice fom
other nodes, and recommended trust from third party in
MANET.
2011 lET
233
Trust management is to evaluate the behavior of
neighboring nodes, and assigns a trust value for each
node based on the result of behavioral assessment.
****************
RREP lalIcIousRREP

RREO
Fig. . Black hole problem
Trust models are developed for trust management.
These trust models are classifed as centralized models
and distributed models. In centralized models, trust
values are stored in trusted third paty server or
centralized server. However this method is not suitable
due to dynamic changing topology as MANET. In
decentralized models each node assigns trust values to
its neighboring nodes to communicate with other node.
Nodes in the communication range of nodes are
considered to be the neighboring nodes. Initially, a node
is not aware of all the nodes in the communication
range. To establish trust in MANET a node must know
all the other neighboring nodes in the network.
As shown in Fig. 2, Trust Management System
(TMS). Trust management enhances the security and
privacy of mobile ad-hoc networks and also improves
the quality of communication among devices. TMS
consists of two pats, Watchdog and Reputation System
(RS). The functionality of Watchdog is to monitor
routing behavior of a node, and then feed the
info=ation into Reputation System (RS) to update the
reputation of that node.
IE
Poster Paper
Proc. oft. Con/ on Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing ZU!!
rcctobscnton
gng
!ncobscnton
Fig.2 trust management system
RS mainly has three tasks: (1) update reputation value
by direct observation received from Watchdog, (2)
integrate reputation value by combining the indirect
inforation received from other members with direct
observation, and (3) aging reputation which is a
mechanism when fresh direct observation is not
available fr a long time period.
EXISTING SOLUTIONS
There are many solutions proposed fr trust
management and malicious node detection has been
briefy explained. Most of these solutions are based on
methods reputation based, monitoring promiscuously,
neighbor node detection, and trust agent.
Marti et al. [3] proposed the use of Watchdog
and Path rater. Watchdog promiscuously listens to the
transmission of the next node in the path to detect
misbehaviors. Path rater keeps the ratings fr other
nodes ranges vary from 0 to 0.8 where 0.5 signifes
node as neutral. These values are updated periodically
by 0.01 each 200ms and perfrms route selection by
choosing routes that do not contain selfsh nodes.
However, the Watchdog mechanism needs to maintain
the state infrmation on the monitored nodes and the
transmitted packets, which undoubtedly increases
memory overhead.
Buchegger and Boudec. [1] Proposed protocol
CONFIDANT (Cooperation Of Nodes Fairess In
Dynamic Ad hoc Networks). This protocol adds trust
manager and reputation system to the Watchdog and
Path rater scheme. The trust manager evaluates the
events repOied by Watchdog and repO alat to
neighbor node regarding malicious node. Malicious
nodes are isolated from the network.
Michiardi, P. and Molva. [2] Proposed protocol
CORE (Collaborative Reputation), cooperation based on
2011 lET
234
collaborative monitoring. It employs complicated
reputation system. Each node in the network has
Reputation Table (RT) and Watchdog mechanism.
CORE divides reputation of node into three difrent
levels: a) subjective reputation, the reputation calculated
directly from direct interaction between subject and its
neighbor, b) indirect reputation, which is positive repO
by other nodes, and c) Functional reputation, which is
based upon behavior monitored during a specifc task.
These reputations are weighted for a combined
reputation value. This combined reputation value is used
to make decisions regarding the inclusion or isolation of
node to the network. The CORE scheme involved two
types of entities, a requestor and providers that which
are within wireless transmission range of requestor. The
requestor asks the providers for reputation values and
validates the obtained results.
Niki Pissinou et al. [4] proposed secure routing
protocol based upon trust level of the node. This
protocol works as fllows; to frward packets to the
destination it initiates a route discovery process. The
RREQ packet header contains trust level feld along
with other felds in RREQ header. Interediate node
receives the RREQ and modifes the trust level value
and forwards the modifed RREQ to the next node in the
route. Afer receives the RREQ to the destination, sends
back the RREP to the source along with trust level.
Finally source nodes select a path based on high trust
level.
Venkat Balakrishnan et al. [6] proposed
reputation based trust model known as Secure MANET
Routing with Trust Intrigue (SMRTI). In this model, the
evidence of trustwOhiness is captured in an effcient
manner from direct interactions with neighbors,
observing behavior of neighbors and through
recommendations from other nodes in MANET. SMTI
captures evidence from direct interactions with
neighbors in order to identif their benign and malicious
behaviors. H also captures evidence of misbehaviors by
observing the interactions of neighbors. SMRTI consist
of two component, detection and reaction. The detection
component collects the behavior of nodes by directly
observing and recommendation. The reaction
component enfrces the decisions such as accept or
reject a newly discovered route and also predict the
future behavior of node by utilizing the collected
evidences.
IE
Poster Paper
Proc. oft. Con/ on Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing ZU!!
Cuirong Wang et al. [7] proposed a routing
protocol based on trust. Each node in the network stores
trust value of other nodes. This routing protocol selects
a routing path with highest trust val ue of route with less
packet delay, unlike the standard DSR protocol that
only uses minimum hop count. The trust value of node
computed and updated by trust agents that resides on
network nodes. Trust value having the range - I to + I ,
representing fom distrust to absolute trust. The trust
value in route R by source node S is represented as
TS(R) and given by the following equation: TS(R) =WS
(Ni)*TS (Ni), WS (Ni) =1, O<WS (Ni) <I where WS (Ni)
represents the weigt assigned to node Ni by source
node S and TS (Ni) represents the trust value in node Ni
by source node S. TS(R) is a probabilistic value.
Xin Li et al. [8] proposed a trust model based on
Packet forwarding Ratio (PFR). PFR measured at a
node based on ratio of number of packets forwarded to
the number of packets received. Based on PFR, node
trust will be assigned. If node forwards packets
correctly trust val ues increases otherwise trust values
decreases. In this trust model, trust values are assigned
in the range between 0 to I .The trust value 0 signifes
distrust node and trust value I signifes absolute trust.
Trust value between 0 to 0.5 treated as malicious node,
value between 0.5 to 0.75 treated as suspected node,
0.75 to 0.9 less trustworthy node, 0.9 to 1 treated as
trust w0lhy node. If node has less trust values, it is not
allowed to send packets for forwarding.
Pedro B. et al. [5] proposed a recommendation
exchange protocol (REP) which allows nodes to send
and receives recommendations fom neighbor nodes. In
this model trust is developed based on previous
individual experiences of the node and on the
recommendations of its neighbors. Here introduces the
concept of relationship maturity based on time of
relationship between nodes. This concept allows nodes
to give importance to recommendations sent by long
tel neighbor rather than short term neigbors. Each
node assigns trust level to its neighbors. This trust level
ranging fom 0 to I where 0 represent least trust node
and 1 represent more trust node. This model consists of
two plans one is the leaing plan is responsible for
gathering and converting information into knowledge.
Second is the trust plan defnes how to access trust level
2011 lET
235
of each neighbor using the knowledge information
provided by the leang plan and information
exchanged with neighbor. Trust evaluation based on
weighted sum of its own trust and the recommendations
of its neighbor. The recommendations exchanged
through the Recommendation Exchange Protocol
(REP).
Table I compare the different solutions proposed
and each mechanisms discussed above has its own
advantage and disadvantages as listed.
CONCLUSION
A survey of trust based routing protocol in MANET to
prevent black hole attack that is caused by a misbehaved
node is discussed in this paper. A misbehaved node
reduces end to end delivery of packet ratio. To improve
packet delivery ratio there is need for identifing the
misbehavior nodes dynaically based on trust value.
From the survey it found that there are no methods to
handle the colluding two or more malicious nodes in
MANET, which signifcantly degrades the network
perforance. Considering the above drawbacks we
would like to propose a novel efctive trust based
routing method to improve cooperation among the
nodes based on efctive trust calculation. In future we
plan to implement and analyze the perfance of the
proposed trust based routing method.
REFERENCES
[ I ] BucheggerS,BoudecLeJ.Performance analysis of
the CONFIDANT protocol, in dynamic ad-hoc
networks.In:proceed of ACM interational
symposium on mobile adhoc network ing and
computing (MobiHoc'02);June2002.pp.202-236.
[2] Michiardi, P. and Molva, R. Core: a collaborative
reputation mechanism to enforce node cooperation
in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceeding of IFIP
TC6/TCI I Sixth Joint Working Confrence on
Communication and Multimedia Security, 2002,
107-121.
IE
Poster Paper
Proc. oft. Con/ on Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing ZU!!
?
Author Mcthod
0
ctal[3] Monltonng
I
promlscuously
ad Rcputauon
2

[
] bascd
3
Rcputauon
,T and bascd
ct[]
Nclghbor nodc
4
NlklTlsslnouct dctccuon
;
'cnkat Nclghbor nodc
5
alan ct dctccuon

Monltorlng
6
promlscuously
ang e
a[
7
Nclghbornodc
& I ct[8] dctccuon
Trustagcnt
8
Tcdro. ctal[5]
Advantagc
ltcandctcctmlsbchavlorat
torvardlng lcvcl
ctcctthcmlsbchavlornodc
andlsolatcthcnodclnnctvork
Trcvcntscltshbchalor
Ilndasccurccnd-to-cndroutc
bascdoncollorvccttortot
allthcnodcsln NI1
ocsnotrcqulrcanyaddluonal
packctstorrccommcndauons
ltlsslmplcandcttclcnt
accordlngtothcobtancd
pcrtoancccnhanccmcnt
comparlngto thcrcsults
obtancdvlththcbaslcSR
protocol
caslblcandclblc approach
to tndshocstustpath
Trustrccommcndauonsarc
cxchangcdvvthnclghborsonly
ductothatlcsscncrgy
consumpuonotdcvlcc
- -
Table Comparison of Existing solutions
lsadvantc
lt ca`tdctctamblguous
colllslon,scltshnodcs,pamal
dropplng
Complcxrcputauonsystcm
ltrcqulrcspcrloccxchgcot
rcputauonlntomauon,vhlch
lscostlyadunncccssso
longasnodcsbchavcvcll
ynamlccalculonouustls
notprcscnt
t mallclousnodcslncrcascthc
packct dcllvcryrauo vvll
dccrcasc.
Trustvalucsarccalculatcdas
stauc,dyamlclynotupJatcd
bascdonbchavlor
Noot mallclousnodcslncrcisc
packctdcllvcrauo lsvcry
poor
Somcovcrhcadlntcrmsot
calculauonot maturltylcvcl
-
-
-
-
Mcthod tor Tust
lcvclcompauon
Tathratcr
Trustmanagcr
Rcputauontablc
andatchdog
Por dlsulbuuon
toallnodcs
scs
and
rccommcndauons
tromnclgbors
Trustagcnt
Nclghbor bascd
onpackctdcllv
rauo
Nclghbor
- -
[3] Marti S, Giuli TJ, Lai K, Baker M. Mitigating
routing misbehavior in mobile ad hoc networks. In:
Proceedings of interational conference on mobile
computing and networking (MOBICOM'OO);
August 2000. pp. 255-265.
[6] Venkat Balakrishnan, Vijay Varadharajan, Phillip
Lues, Udaya Kiran Tupakula. Trust Enhanced
Secure Mobile Ad-hoc Network Routing. 21 st IEEE
Interational Conference on AINA W 2007, Niagara
Falls, Canada, pp. 27-33, May 2007.
[4] Pissinou, N., Ghosh, T. and Makki, K.
Collaborative trust-based secure routing in multi hop
ad hoc networks. Networking (Athens, Greece
2004). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
3042, 2004, 1446-145l.
[5] Pedro B. VeUoso, Rafael P. Laufer, Daniel de O.
Cunha, Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte, and Guy Puj olle.
Trust Management in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Using a Scalable Maturity-Based Model. IEEE
transactions on network and service management,
vol. 7, no. 3, September 201 O.
2011 lET
236
[7] Wang, L., Yang, X. and Gao, Y. A Routing
Protocol Based on Trust for MANETs. In
Proceeding of Sixth Annual Interational
Conference on Grid and Cooperative Computing
(Being, China). LNCS, vol. 3795, 2005, 959-964.
[8] Xin Li , Zhiping Jia, Peng Zhang, Haiyang Wang,
"A Trust-based MuItipath Routing Fraework for
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks" , 7t
h
FSKD, 20 I O.
IE