Routing Protocols and Security Issues in MANET
Sandeep Kumar1, Monika Goyal2, Deepak Goyal3, Ramesh C. Poonia4
1
Amity University, Jaipur, India
sandpoonia@gmail.com
2
Jagannath University, Jaipur, India;
3
Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak, India
Abstract: Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is an
association of large number of sensor nodes and having self
directed commands using the un protected wire less
connections. The individual nodes in the network can
accompany and leave the network with out any permission.
MANET is an infrastructureless network. The network
topology is rapidly change due to nodes mobility, resource
constraint and bandwidth limitation of wireless medias. This
nature of nodes leads to different types of security threats.
MANET suffers from disruption so that node not able to take
part in path finding methodswith a target to spoil the full
network functioning. A number of protocols have been
found for efficient routing. There are many types of security
attacks which disturb the net work operation. In this survey
paper focuses of many proposed routing protocols for
MANET and types of security attacks and a survey of the
existing techniquesof detection and prevention of attacks is
presented.
Keywords:MobileAdhocNetwork,DynamicTopology,Black
HoleAttack,WormHoleAttack,GrayHoleAttack.
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad-hoc Networks are the networks of moveable
computing machines connected in a wireless network without
any centralized or fixed infrastructure. In MANET due to its
dynamic topology any node can join and leave a network.
Every node acts as both a host and router. Mobile Ad-hoc
Network is a self-directed system of arbitrarily moving nodes.
In case of MANET each node works like host as well as router
also in order to keep availability of services. There are number
of routing protocols in MANET but Ad-hoc on demand
Distance Vector (AODV) is one of the most popular routing
protocols.
The AODV [1] is soft target for malicious node that resides
inside the network. Its performance degraded due to malicious
nodes as they dropall the data packets. It is known as "Co-
Operative Black hole Attack". Due to this type of nature nodes
are feeble to much type of attacks. The MANET suffers from
disruption so that node may or may not take part in path
finding methods with an intension to spoil the full net work
functioning. The network topology is rapidly change due to
nodes mobility, resource constraint and bandwidth limitation
of wireless medias [2].
978-1-5386-0514-1/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
A. The main features of MANET:
x Lack of association between nodes.
x Less secure as compare to wired network.
x Frequent dynamically topologies.
x Many band width and energy constraints.
x Every node has self configuring ability.
x No need of fixed infrastructure.
x If two nodes are within radio range they contact directly.
x Nodes connections are irregular.
x It is a self–directed system of moveable nodes.
x It can interface and operate separated with a fixed
network.
x User mobility is high.
x Distributed system of host configuration and routing
operation.
x More expandable than fixed network.
II. FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES IN MANET
Mobile ad-hoc networks are different from other networks due
to its host nodes constraints. They have limited energy,
computing power, memory, changing topology, and its
scalability. Some fundamental issues in MANET are:
A. Topology
In MANET nodes are free to move randomly. The nodes
dynamically establish routing between them as they create
their own network. So the topology of MANET may change
randomly and frequently atir regular times. Nodes
communicating with each other without any structured
network.
B. Security
In MANET nodes are connected with a wireless network. In
this type of net work data is transferred between sender and
receiver through intermediate nodes. All nodes must act as
router to deliver the packet to destination node. Nodes act as
both host and router, in such type of net work many types of
security attacks can occur which disturb the network
operation. Such nodes dropped the data and transfer to its
desired destination instead of original destination. Security
 2017 International Conference on Infocom Technologies and Unmanned Systems (ICTUS'2017),
Dec. 18-20, 2017, ADET, Amity University Dubai, UAE

attacks are generally two types: Passive attacks and Active
attacks. Some attacks are like Black Hole, Worm Hole, Grey
Hole, Sink Hole disturb the functioning of network. Security
criteria guaranteed the safety of network like: Integrity,
authorization, authenticating, confidentially,
nonrepudiation[3].
with size of network. That’s why performance of network
decline in result. The Destination-Sequenced distance vector
(DSDV) and Wireless Ad-hoc Routing (WARP) are two
examples of table driven protocols.
B. On-Demand Routing Protocol

C. Energy It keeps the active route information to reduce the amount of

Nodes in mobile ad-hoc network are relying on batteries for
power which have limited energy and life. So energy source of
MANET have a limited lifetime. Communication between
nodes is the main source of power consumption, so energy
preservation is an important issue for operation of MANET.
D. Central control
Due to dynamic nature of network it is not feasible to have a
central point of control in MANET network. It consist number
of wireless node connecting with each other without
centralized control. So in order to achieve security in MANET
it becomes essential to use distributed security solutions.
E. Multi-Hop Routing
This mechanism of routing makes use of more than one node
to communicate with the destination node.
overheads in proactive protocols [5]. Every node maintains
data of just current route to the target node. In these protocols
route is discovered on demand, thus named as On-Demand
routing protocols. When an origin node required sending data
to target node, it searches for a route and then deliver data
packet. The AODV and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) are
two best suitable examples of reactive protocols.
C. Hybrid Routing Protocol
The above discussed two protocols maintain information for
small networks. Hybrid of these two protocols inherits the
advantages of both and can be used for large networks. This
type of protocols provides hierarchical routing with better
performance. The Zone Routing Protocols (ZRP) is best
illustration of hybrid protocol[7],[8].

F. Scalability
Scalability occurs in MANET due to multihop applications.
Mobile adhoc network involve huge networks. Scalability is
critical to the successful deployment of these networks. A
large network of nodes with limited resources has many
challenges like: addressing, routing security etc. Scalability
depends on network size and packet capacity.

III. ROUTING PROTOCOL IN MANET

The MANET defines wireless, multihop and mobile network.
Fig.1.Classification of Routing Protocols for MANET
The major goal of these routing protocols is to define a
competent route between two moving nodes. So the data TABLEI: Comparison of Routing Protocols
delivered within the current route time out intervals. Many
protocols proposed for finding the most favorable path from Proactive Reactive Hybrid
origin to target node. Bandwidth
Requirement High Low Medium
Routing is the technique of data interchange between two host Structure Flat/Hierarchical Flat Hierarchical
nodes in a network. A routing protocol maintains routing Power
information about the connecting nodes and neighbor nodes. Consumption High Low Medium
When a source node connects with destination node it Storage
broadcast its status to its neighbour’s nodes. In MANET three Requirement High Low Medium
types of Routing Protocols are used[4]. Route
Acquisition Table Driven On-Demand Both
A. Table Driven Routing Protocol Mobility Periodic Route Both
Updates Maintenance
Herein protocol each node preserve routing information table Scalability Low Not For For Large
of the network. It contains the network topology data in the Large Network Networks
form of tables. These tables contain record of adjacent nodes, Routing
reachable nodes and hopcount. The overhead may increase Overhead High Low Medium

819
 2017 International Conference on Infocom Technologies and Unmanned Systems (ICTUS'2017),
Dec. 18-20, 2017, ADET, Amity University Dubai, UAE
IV. SECURITY IN MANET
In case of MANET many important requirements are there to
guarantee the security of network. Which are as follow:
A. Dataverification
After the sender node authentication the receiving node verify
data to check whether data is correct or corrupted.
B.Availability
It refer that the network should continue provide service if it is
under an attack. It using alternate methods without disturbing
its operation.
C. Authentication
Sender nodes should be genuine. Destination nodes should
respond to the message which is transmitting by authenticated
node.
D. Integrity of data
There should be no changes in data or messages by attackers
when it reaches to destination node.
E. Privacy
Thedataandinformationcannotbeaccessorviewedbyunauthorize
dusersornodes.
F. Real time constraints
When nodes are connected in MANET for short time period,
real time constraints must be maintained.
V. SECURITY ATTACKS IN MOBILE AD-HOC
NETWORK
The MANET face security attacks from both outside and
inside the network. These attacks are referred as external and
internal attacks respectively[11].
A. Internal attacks
In internal attacks the attacker node directly belongs to that
network. These attacks are directly leads to the attacks on
nodes present in network and links interface between them. As
the attacker node is familiar with all secret information in this
case thus they are very hard todetect. These attackers have
access rights and occur due to reliable nodes.
B. External attacks
In external attacks the attacker nodes are not part of the
network. These attacks disturb the normal communication of
network and produce extra overhead on network[5]. External
attacks are divided into two types
1) Active attacks
In such an attack the attacker node change the information,
authentication, or data stream by creating false data stream or
change packet transition through network.
820
2) Passive attacks
These types of attacks do not disturb routing operation or not
change the data stream of network. Attacker node is an
unauthorized node. It gets the data without damaging the
network functionality. Security attacks can also divided on
layeredbasis[12]. Each layer defines different types of attacks.
Some common type of attacks on various layers is shown in
Table II.
TABLE II: Type of security attacks on layers basis
OSI Layer Types Of Attacks
Physical Layer Jamming ,Tampering
Data Link Layer Collision, Traffic analysis, Resource exhaustion,
monitoring
Network Layer Spoofing, Wormhole, Black hole/ sink hole, Gray
hole, message tempering, Byzantine, Flooding
attack.
Transport Layer Energy drain attacks, Session hijacking, SYN
Flooding, Injects false messages
Multiple Layer Attacks on reliability, False data injections, man-
in-the-middle attack
VI. SECURITY ATTACKS ON NETWORK LAYER
A. Wormhole Attack:
It is one of the most dangerous attacks of network layer. In
wormhole attack attacker node record information, tunnel
them to another point. Wormhole attacks are very dangerous
because they can do damage without knowledge of network.
Radio channels are of broadcast nature thus they may create a
wormhole for packets also who does not belong to them.
B. Gray Hole Attack
This is also called routing misbehavior attack. In these attacks
an attacker node never takes part in route discovery methods.
Other nodes discover routes therefore not a part of active
route. The node poses itself as original one with valid route
and drop messages. This type of attacker node leads to route
discovery failure and damage the network operation. Attackers
are to conserve their energy by interpreting the message and
they do not cooperate with other nodes, which degrade the
efficiency of the network [10].
C. Sinkhole attack:
The attacker node tries to attract all nodes to it and broadcast
false route in this case. In this a malicious node falsely
introduces itself as the end to accept network traffic. Node
tries to offer attractive link. It confuses the network by falling
packets after alternation which affects the network.
D. Black Hole Attack
The attacker send false routing information, declaring that it
has a best route and attract other nodes to transfer data through
 2017 International Conference on Infocom Technologies and Unmanned Systems (ICTUS'2017),
Dec. 18-20, 2017, ADET, Amity University Dubai, UAE

it in this case. Attacker node participates in route finding with the behavior of the normal protocol. This process stores
methods by sending RREP message. When source node starts the last three hoptimes for a route reply acknowledged by the
transmission of data, the faulty node do not forward them to destination and the interruption time is calculated between the
destination and destroy them. It is more destructive than grey request and reply divided by the hop count.
hole attack [6],[9].
A Siddiqua et. al.[14] in the year 2015 proposed a new
TABLE III: Comparison between Effects of Security Attacks technique using secure knowledge algorithm in which it
promises data delivery to receiver node to identify and stop
Black Hole Worm Hole Flooding Black Hole attack in MANET and also finds the reasons
Attack Attack Attack behind the packet drop before asserting node as a black-hole
Throughput More with Not Evaluated Not node. In this work, Modified AODV protocol isused, so that
DSR Evaluated each node in the network compares the information resides in
its neighbor node and stores in its fm and rm table entries. Fm
Probability of Great Great Lower table have the details about the recent packet and rm table hold
Success the detail about neighbouring node like destination address,
Damage Lesser Maximum Lesser TTL value, and node energy. If values fm≠rm and cut-off value
is reached then attack other wise node will be trusted. If rm
Technical Lower Higher Lower
and threshold value is reached then it will be a Black hole
Skills
attack.
Packet More with Not Evaluated Not
Delivery DSR Evaluated A. S. Bhandare et. al.[15] in 2015 proposed a detection and
defence mechanism against co-operative black hole attack. It
Solving Less than Maximum Lesser
removes malicious nodes by identifying abnormal activities.
Complexity Worm hole
The performance of proposed method checked with more than
E. Flooding attack one malicious node and improved the PDR upto 76 to 99%.
The best part of this method is that unsafe route decided by
In this attack malevolent nodes inject phony packets in the source node only and no any additional overhead required.
network and flood the network with these unnecessary packets
which creates ghost packets that loop around. The effected N. Choudhary et. al.[16] in the year 2015 used timer based
nodes are not able to receive or forward any packet. Ghost approach to stop black hole attack. This approach identifies
packets are using bandwidth and processing resources along the action of next node on network layer proposed. Results
the way. That affects the network. Certain node can lead to simulated over EXata-Cyber and get improved results. Each
damage cost. node assigned a trust value by its neighbor and a timer also
attached with each data packet. A node is black listed by its
F. Byzantine Attack neighbours if its trust value decreases below specified
threshold.
This type of attack can be done by one or more intermediary
nodes that are working with in network, behaving as A. Dorri et. al.[17] in the year 2015 proposed a new method
malevolent nodes they carry out attacks for example creating for detection and elimination of co-operative malevolent nodes
routing loops or transfer the data packets through nonoptimal in MANET based on AODV routing protocol. In this approach
path or selectively dropping the packets which result disturb safety of path ensured by checking both previous and next
the network. It degrades the routing efficiency within network. hop. Simulation results show that it takes less processing time
Such attacks are difficult to identify. and low over head.
G. Spoofing Attack R. K. Chauhan et. al.[18] in the year 2015 gives a solution for
In this attack, the attacker node pre supposes the black hole attack detection. A local utility function based
strategy was proposed with the help of hint-based probabilistic
characteristics of other node and receives the messages of that
routing protocol to identify black hole nodes. Tip value of
node. This attack can be introduced by any harmful node,
each node is computed and stored in the buffer of each node. It
which is familiar with network credential [12].
calculates the hint value of all the surrounding nodes of sender
VII. RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN SECURITY and test the value with trusted authority (Hint Value<=Trusted
MECHANISM FOR MANET Authority), if the result is yes then set them as black hole node
otherwise fair node.
M. A. Abdelshafy[13] in 2016 proposed a new method called
BRM-AODV protocol which will find the black hole A. K. Jain et. al.[19] in the year 2015 proposed a method for
neighbours. This method uses a Self-Protocol Trustiness that black hole attack detection using route reply caching
detects the malicious attacker which is skilled by complying mechanism. It is based on first Route Reply (RREP) caching

821
 2017 International Conference on Infocom Technologies and Unmanned Systems (ICTUS'2017),
strategy in AODV protocol. Simulation shows that this
modified AODV protocol works very well under many black
hole nodes.
R. Kumar et. al.[20] in the year 2015 proposed a solution for
black hole attack detection and modifies the AODV at source
and destination node. This approach adds extra function at
source node as well as destination node so whenever a RREP
or RREQ message comes to the respective node it checks the
sequence number of the packets and compares it with the
threshold value. The threshold value is defined for three
environments small, medium and large and compares it with
respective environment threshold value. In this approach the
receiver and the sender nodes verifies the sequence number in
the Route reply and Route Request messages respectively.
Everytime RREP and RREQ messages come to the respective
nodes and the sequence number of the packet compares with
the threshold value to prevent and detect the black hole attack
in a network. Here threshold value is given for three different
environments (Small, Medium, and Large) and compare it
with respective threshold value.
R. J. Cai et. al.[21] in the year 2014 introduces extended
neighbourhood connectivity based trust scheme which
periodically broadcasts hello message to couple of hops in
place of direct neighbours. The proposed strategy can identify
the single and conspired attackers during route finding and
remove them. Now when source node gets a route reply from
three hops, then firstly it will find the information stored in
neighbourhood connectivity information table (NCIT). If the
replied path is not reliable with the NCIT, Source node will
fall this RREP and down the trust level of node intermediate
node1.
R. Syed et. al.[22] in the year 2014 proposed scheme for
avoidance of Black hole Attack using AODV. The anticipated
approach makes use of a route legitimacy value associated
with RREP which make sure that there is no any black hole
node in the route. Here RREP is using an additional table to
store validity value with other required details of node like
destination sequence number. A legitimacy check isused at
receiver node which gives the authenticity of a route and made
a secure entry in routing table with low processing overhead.
Mohar lal priya and Krishnamurthi[23] in 2014 proposed a
new modified protocol called as Modified Dynamic Source
Routing Protocol (MDSR). A light weight, energy efficient
and non-cryptographic solution is proposed forgray-hole
detection process in MANET. The malicious nodes isolated
just after detection. This scheme gives routing security with
64% reduction in packet loss rate than DSR. In this strategy
firstly the source node picks the shortest path for the actual
transmission or to forward the packets. Next the packet count
and the transmitted data is compared and if there is any
difference then it will notify to all its immediate neighbours
that there is hidden or faulty node is near in the network.
822
Dec. 18-20, 2017, ADET, Amity University Dubai, UAE
A modern approach to improve the recital of AODV for
MANET was proposed by VK Sagtani et al.[24] ans
significant improvement in performance of AODV observed
in terms of packet delivery ratio.
VIII. CONCLUSION
This paper discussed various routing protocols of distinct
nature and issues of security in MANET. Here we have
focused on types of security attacks in routing protocols. The
main focus is on the black hole attack in network and its
detection and prevention methods. A detailed study of selected
existing methods for detection of black hole attacks in
MANETs presented. A detailed analysis of different types of
security attacks are summarized in form of a table in Table IV.
The detection methods which make use of table driven routing
protocol have superior packet delivery. This detection method
make correct detection probability. This technique has higher
overhead while detecting the black hole attack in MANET. In
the survey we have reviewed different methods and techniques
to defy the blackhole attacks.
REFERENCES
[1] R C Poonia, D. Bhargava, and B.Suresh Kumar.
"CDRA:Cluster-based dynamic routing approach as a
development of the AODV in vehicular ad-hoc networks." In
Signal Processing and Communication Engineering Systems
(SPACES), 2015 International Conferenceon, pp.397-401.
IEEE, 2015.
[2] R. Sheikh, MS Chandel, DK Mishra, “Security Issuesin
MANET: Areview”, IEEE 2010.
[3] S.Umang, BVR Reddy, MN Hoda, “Enhanced intrusion
Detection System for Malicious Node detection in ADHoc
Routing Protocols using Minimal energy Consumption”, IET
Communications 4(17): 2084-2094. 2010.
[4] B Wu, J Chen, J Wu, M Cardei, "A survey of attacks and
counter measures in mobile adhoc networks. "Wireless network
security (2007):103-135.
[5] A. Shastri, R. Dadhich, and R.C. Poonia. "Performance analysis
of on-demand Routing protocols for vehicular ad-hoc
Networks. "International Journal of Wireless & Mobile
Networks (IJWMN) Vol3 (2011):103-111.
[6] R A R Mahmood, A L Khan, “A Survey on Detecting Black
Hole Attack in AODV-based Mobile AdHoc networks” In
High Capacity Optical Networks and Enabling Technologies,
2007. HONET 2007. International Symposium on, pp.1-6.
IEEE, 2007.
[7] MS Alkatheiri J Liu, A R Sangi, “AODV Routing Protocol
under several Routing Attacks in MANETs” In Communication
Technology (ICCT), 2011 IEEE 13th International
Conferenceon, pp.614-618. IEEE, 2011.
[8] S Corson and J Macker, “Mobile adhoc networking (MANET):
Routing protocol performance issues and evaluation
considerations,” IETFRFC 2501, Jan.1999.
[9] S. Hazra, and S.K. Setua. “Black Hole Attack Defending
Trusted On-Demand Routing in Ad-Hoc Network.” In
Advanced Computing, Networking and Informatics-Volume2,
pp.59-66. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
 2017 International Conference on Infocom Technologies and Unmanned Systems (ICTUS'2017),
Dec. 18-20, 2017, ADET, Amity University Dubai, UAE

[10] S. Jain, M. Jain, H. Kandwal, “Advanced Algorithm for
Detection and Prevention of Cooperative Black and Gray hole
Attacks in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks“, Intl. Journal of
Computer Application 1(7): 37-42, Feb. 2010.
[11] D.B. Johnson and D.A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source Routing in
Adhoc Network,” Mobile Computing T. Imielinski and
H.Korth, Eds., Kulwer Publ.,1996, pp.152-81.
[12] Al-Shurman, M.Yoo, S.Park, “Black hole attack in Mobile
Adhoc Networks” in Proc. ACM Southeast Regional
Conference, pp.96-97, 2004.
[13] MA Abdelshafy and PJ King. “Resisting Blackhole Attacks on
MANETs”. Consumer Communications & Networking
conferenceon IEEE,2016.
[14] A.Siddiqua, S.Kotari, and AAKhan Mohammed. “Preventing
black hole attacks in MANETs using secure knowledge
algorithm. "Signal Processing and Communication Engineering
Systems (SPACES), 2015 International Conferenceon. IEEE,
2015.
[15] AS Bhandare, and SB Patil. “Securing MANET against
Cooperative Black Hole Attack and Its Performance Analysis-
A Case Study." Computing Communication Control and
Automation (ICCUBEA), 2015 International Conferenceon.
IEEE,2015.
[16] N.Choudhary and L.Tharani. “Preventing black Hole attack in
AODV using timer-based detection mechanism. ”Signal
processing and communication engineering systems
(SPACES), 015 international conferenceon. IEEE,2015.
[17] A. Dorri and H.Nikdel. “A new approach for detecting And
eliminating cooperative black hole nodes in MANET”.
Information and Knowledge Technology (IKT), 2015 7th
Conference on.IEEE,2015.
[18] R.K Chauhan "An assessment based approach to detect black
hole attack in MANET." Computing, Communication &
Automation (ICCCA), 2015 International Conference on.
IEEE2015.
[19] AK Jain and V Tokekar. "Mitigating the effects of Black hole
attacks on AODV routing protocol in Mobile adhoc Networks."
Pervasive computing (ICPC), 2015 international conference on.
IEEE, 2015.
[20] R. Kumar, A Quyoom, and DN Gouttam. "To mitigate black
hole attack in AODV." Next Generation Computing
technologies (NGCT), 2015 1st International Conference on
IEEE, 2015.
[21] R J Cai, P.H.J. Chong, and C Y Aung. "Poster: Trust-based
routing with neighborhood connectivity to preventsing leand
colluded active black hole." Communications and Networking
in China (CHINACOM), 2014 9th International Conferenceon.
IEEE, 2014.
[22] U-H. Syed, AI Umar, and F Khurshid. "Avoidance of Black
hole affected routes in AODV-based MANET." Open Source
Systems and Technologies, 2014 International Conference on.
IEEE, 2014.
[23] M Moharlalpriya and I Krishnamurthi. “Modified DSR
protocol for detection and removal of selective black hole
attack in MANET”, Comput. Electr. Eng., 40: 530-538. 2014
[24] VK Sagtani, and SKumar, “Modern Approach to Enhance
Routing Recitation in MANET”. International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 4(7),
pp.265-270, 2014

TABLE IV: Literature Survey of Detection and Prevention Techniques During Black Hole Attack

Sr.N Author PaperTitle MethodName Protocol Tool Prevention Remarks

o. /Detection
1. M A Resisting Black hole Black hole AODV NS-2 Yes/Yes To detecting a malicious
Abdelshafy Attacks on MANETs Resisting intruder a new concept of
et.al.[13] Mechanism Self-Protocol
Trustiness(SPT) is
introduced.
2. Ayesha Preventing Black Hole Secure AODV NS-2.35 Yes/Yes This algorithm checks the
Siddiquaet. Attacks in MANETs knowledge reason for the packet drop
al.[14] using secure knowledge algorithm and used to check
Algorithm activities of nodes.
3. A S Securing MANET Malicious AODV NS-2.35 Yes/Yes Decision about the unsafe
Bhandareet. against Co-operative Node route is independently
al.[15] Black Hole and its Detection taken by the source. No
performance analysis–A System extra overhead required.
case study
4. N. Preventing Black Hole Timer-Based AODV EXata- Yes/Yes Gives better packet
Choudharye attack in AODV using Detection cyber delivery ratio than AODV
t.al.[16] Timer-Based Detection Mechanism
Mechanism
5. Ali A new approach for DataRoutingin AODV Opnet14 No/Yes Takes less time for
Dorriet.al.[ detecting and eliminating formation .5 processing and less work
17] cooperative Black Hole load to eliminate the

823
 2017 International Conference on Infocom Technologies and Unmanned Systems (ICTUS'2017),
Dec. 18-20, 2017, ADET, Amity University Dubai, UAE

nodes in MANET Black Hole attack.

6. R K An assessment based Local utility Hint-based ONE1.5. No/Yes Used only for detection
Chauhan approach to detect Black function based probabilistic 1 purpose.
et.al.[18] Hole attack in MANET scheme routing
protocol
7. A K Jain et. Mitigating the effects of RREP caching AODV NS-2 Yes/Yes Improves 19% result over
al.[19] Black hole attacks on mechanism AODV protocol.
AODV routing protocol
in Mobile Adhoc
Network
8. R Kumar To mitigate Black Hole Secure Route AODV NS-2 Yes/Yes Proposed modification of
et. al[20] Attack in AODV Discovery AODV protocols by
verifying sequence
number in RREQ and
RREP by comparing with
threshold value.
9. R J Cai et. Poster Trust based Neighbourhoo DSR NS-2 Yes/Yes Verification is done by
al.[21] routing with d connectivity regularly sending hello
neighborhood based trust message to the two hop
connectivity to prevent neighbors. If the data is
single and colluded not consistent than marks
active it as malicious node.
10. U-h Syed Avoidance of Black Hole Using route AODV NS-2 Yes/Yes Just proposed Scheme, yet
et. al.[22] affected routers in legitimacy not implemented.
AODV based MANET value attached
with RREP
11. M. Modified DSR protocol IDS (Intrusion MDSR NS-2 Yes/Yes Used to detect and
Moharlalpri for detection and Detection (Modified prevents elective black
ya et. removal of selective System) Dynamic hole attack by using
al.[23] black hole attack in Source Modified Dynamic
MANET Routing Source Routing Protocol
Protocol) (MDSR)

824