Content uploaded by Neha Sahu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Neha Sahu on Feb 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
1
A Hybrid Approach to Modified AODV Protocol to Detect
and Avoid Wormhole Effected Path over MANET
Neha Sahu
Department of Computer Science
and Engineering,
Technocrats Institute of Technology,
Bhopal
Deepak Singh Tomar
Department of Computer Science
and Engineering,
Technocrats Institute of Technology,
Bhopal
Neelam Pathak
Department of Computer Science
and Engineering,
Technocrats Institute of Technology,
Bhopal
ABSTRACT
In MANET mobile node is responsible for route establishment
using wireless link where each node behave like both as a host
and router. MANET encounter by number of security threat
because of its open untrusted environment with little security
arrangement, whether security over MANET is not to be
enhance up to satisfactory level because of its characteristics.
Among all of security threat worm hole is consider to be a very
serious security threat over MANET. In worm hole two selfish
node which is geographically very far away to each other, makes
tunnel between each other to hide their actual location and try to
believe that they are true neighbours and makes conversation
through the wormhole tunnel. Recently research will focus over
wormhole detection and avoiding path but existing technique
having lower network overhead, lower battery power
consumption in order to longer survival of network with fast
response. This paper introduce a modified AODV protocol that
detect and avoid wormhole path over MANET towards secure
routing , which is based on an hybrid model that encapsulate
location, neighbor node and hop count method.
Keywords
Ad-hoc network, wormhole, threshold, AODV
1. INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of communication system the researchers pay
attention to wireless communication approach. In this way the
mobile ad-hoc network is one the best solution where
communication takes place without any wired media.
Mobile ad-hoc network is a type of ad-hoc network which is
created temporally. In these types of network the nodes have the
special properties. This network has created with the wireless
equipments. The major advantage of this network is- it is
infrastructure less, it can be self-deploy and it doesn’t need a
centralized authority [1].along with that there are many
important characteristic needs for the mobile node. Some of
them discussed below:
The node should be Wireless
Hardware of the node should be consumption Low power
The ability to route the packet
No need of central co-ordinator
Range of the node should be satisfactory
Mobility of the node should be needed
Node installation should be easy
A node can be self healed
Auto sleep mode
The node should support the older protocols until extremely
necessity of developing new protocols not occur.
It is not necessary that all these properties should be the node of
mobile ad-hoc network. But up to a certain extend these
properties are needed in the mobile node.
As far as the connecting media is concert, it is different from
wired network so that, there is a need to use the different
protocols to manage the network. Protocols designs for Mobile
ad-hoc network are different from the protocols used in wired
networks. Some time it seems to be that there protocol stuck in
getting the correct decision because of the attacks.
The wormhole attack is a serious threat for mobile ad-hoc
network that happen in the routing protocol for distracting the
user for sending their data and it cannot be detected easily. Its
present a illusion of shortest path between two end points in
network. For detection of the wormhole attack in MANET a
technique has been proposed. The wormhole puts the attacker
nodes in a very powerful position compared to other nodes in the
network. In the reactive routing protocols such as AODV, the
attackers can tunnel each route request packets to another
attacker that is near to destination node [3, 4]. When the
neighbours of the destination hear this RREQ, they will
rebroadcast this RREQ and then discard all other received
RREQs in the same route discovery process.
Routing protocol over the dynamic link of MANET is
responsible to select shortest and less traffic path but it is very
challenging because of its mobile nodes and its very tedious job
to maintain the accuracy over the network for long time
.wormhole attacker node can use that greediness of shortest path,
make a tunnel over the network and present an illusion of
shortest path via wormhole node.
2. WORM HOLE ATTACK
As earlier we have discussed that wormhole is types of attack
which is worked on the network layer [6, 7]. It creates the tunnel
in order to forward the data from one wormhole node to another
wormhole node. So it also confirms that there is a need of two
nodes. Figure 4 shows the simple scenario of the wormhole. In
this figure there are two networks having number of nodes. In
both network two nodes act as wormhole node. Node N6 and
P11 are the nodes with a tunnel in network 1 and network 2.
Both nodes show that they have the shortest path to get the
destination node in the different network. It might possible that
both nodes can exist in the same network. It depends on the
wormhole creator.
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
2
Figure 1: Illustration of a Wormhole attack
3. RELATED WORK
Maria A. Et al [8] has analysed on the wormhole attack and with
respect to proactive protocols. The authors pay attention to the
network traffic. The author tried to found the anomalous
behaviour of nodes using timing analysis of routing traffic
within the network. The proposed approach is far better than the
previous approaches.
The proposed work [9] has developed the novel protocol in order
to prevent the wormhole attack in the wireless environment. The
author has used the symmetric and asymmetric key cryptography
with Global positioning system. The protocol has tested on the
both GPS node and non –GPS node. The author has tested the
protocol with the ratios of GPS nodes to non-GPS nodes 30:20,
25:25, and 20:30, 15:35, 10:40 and 5:45 under a total network
area of 100 by 100 meters. This gives the higher results.
The author [11] has proposed a protocol which doesn’t uses any
special hardware like directional antenna or synchronized clock.
This protocol doesn’t depend on the physical medium of the
wireless network. In this approach the wormhole detection will
take place after the discovery of route. Here the hope count
techniques have also used between neighbours. The author has
also applied the hound packet. The simulation results show that
the WHOP is quite excellent in detecting wormhole of large
tunnel lengths.
The wormhole is a major problem in mobile ad-hoc network.
For the best result there are many protocols has developed. The
two famous protocols are AODV and DSR. This paper gives the
comparison result between these protocols. The parameter
considered by the author are: packet delivery fraction, the
average end-to-end delay, average jitter, throughput, number of
frames tunneled, number of frames intercepted, number of
frames dropped, number of frames replayed etc. the results
shows that AODV is perfect protocol for the small network. Due
to the routing overhead of AODV the performance will decrease
in large network. But As the length of colluding link increases,
the performance for DSR degrades compared to AODV.
The proposed methodology is based on the route request
(RREQ). To find the wormhole in the network the author has
suggested finding the possible routes by using the RREQ. There
are three basic steps has used in this approach. These are routes
redundancy, routes aggregation and calculating round-trip time
(RTT) of all listed routes. The proposed results have compared
with the AODV protocol and the previous approaches for the
time based calculation. The parameter of packets dropping has
decreased in this approach.
4. PROPOSED SOLUTION
This paper presents a hybrid approach that select an wormhole
free path from source to destination. Proposed scheme work over
the selection criteria of path reply from neighbor node, actually
whenever any node S wants transmit a packet to D then its
required a path for message transmission where routing
algorithm (AODV) suggest a path for transmission such as node
S broadcast a route request packet to all its neighbor or radio
node for route towards destination D .All the neighbor node
follow up the request forwards and replay an route replay packet
to source node, then source node select shortest and less traffic
path for transmission but because of that greediness some time
source node select wormhole effected path for transmission.
Proposed protocol hybrid approach enhances the performance of
AODV by adding one more rule over selection criteria ie select
wormhole free route.
Proposed protocol use location, hop count and neighbors node
concept for wormhole detection in the routing path suggested by
AODV. In proposed methodology every hops over the route
responsible to find out, is there any worm hole between its next
hop to its next to next hop over the route. For detection every
hop evaluate an alternate route for their next to next hop over the
route and if number of hop count in any of alternate route is
greater than MHC(maximum hop count value) than that node
reply wormhole detection signal between its next hop and its
next to next hop and discard that path .
= Route suggested by AODV from source to
destination
Where, =Source node
=Destination node
= Max TTL time/node in route R.
(Intermediate node)
= Nbj is the neighbor node of node ni
Algo
Step 1:- Source node(s) call AODV protocol for route request
towards destination D.
Step:2- AODV reply route reply packet with following message
Step3:-
For (i=0; i n-1; i++)
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
3
For (j=0; j m; j++)
TTL(
)
If (TTL (
)MHC)
Wormhole deduction message display and route discarded.
In proposed methodology the main consternation over the MHC
value because all decision will carry out on the basis of that
value. MHC means maximum number of hop count with any
alternate route between any nodes to its neighbor of neighbor
nodes ie any nodes to its second stage node. Where as if an
routing protocol return an path S,A,B,G,H,D ie s is source and d
is destination then node B must be neighbor of neighbor node of
S via A and so on. But if B is not next to next node then
alternate path defiantly return hop value greater than MHC
value.
For calculating MHC each and every node of network find the
largest number of hop count required for its next to next node
with any alternate route over the network. And consider average
of its as MHC value
Algorithm for MHC
HC=Hop count
N = total number of node in network
X = number of neighbor node
MHC=Maximum hop count
Algorithm
For (I=1; I<=N ; I++)
{
For (J=1; J<=X ; J++)
{
Step 1. Si send an route request message to all its neighbor
node for its next to next node NNjSi
Step 2. All the neighbor node reply the Route through route
Reply packet to Si in term of number of hop count
‘Y’
Step 3. if (Y>HC)
HC=Y
}
MHC= MHC+ HC
}
MHC = MHC/N
5. SIMULATION AND RESULT
ANALYSIS
In order to authenticate the proposed methodology for wormhole
detection verity of simulation experiments have been performed
by using NS-2
For performance validation of proposed technique take different
numbers of nodes in each scenario and consider a wormhole
tunnels between any two nodes of that scenario for the
simulation test. For experimental verification proposed
technique run over three different scenarios with 140,160,180
and 200 node densities with same assumptions. As show in
figure 1 false negative rate ie rate of wormhole detection is
depend network density whereas MHC that is considered as
keyhole for wormhole detection also depends on the network
density.
Time Taken to Detect the Wormhole
Wormhole detection is perform by any node in between their
next node and next to next node,whether this section describe
time required to generate wormhole detection signal by any node
successfully.
Figure 2: Time taken to detect wormhole
As show in figure 2 times required to detect wormhole by hybrid
approach is significantly very less as compare to E2SIW. The
average time taken to detect a wormhole by the E2SIW is 790
mili second, whereas it is 560 mili second in the case of hybrid
approach.
Battery Power Consumption
E2SIW use GPS system for gathering the location of node ie
used 1 joule of energy per node to gather it location whereas
there is not any requirement of GPS system in hybrid approach.
One joule energy is 33% of energy used per node in E2SIW so
proposed hybrid approach degrades the energy requirement by
33%.
Network Overhead
With consider the algorithm 2 for MHC proposed technique is
compared with the existing E2SIW in many different factors like
network overhead and number for control packet responsible for
route hunting and handshaking over different node of network.
Proposed technique decrease the possibility of packet
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
4
retransmission so ultimately decrease the routing overhead as
show in figure 4. Along with that proposed technique used
number of control packet for wormhole verification over each
node so proposed technique having larger number of control
packet as compare to AODV.
Figure 3: Comparison between Proposed hybrid approach
and E2SIW over Handshaking
The above observation shows that the detection technique works
efficiently but having some overhead, control packet is also
increases in the graph, but the benefit of this technique is that it
detects the wormhole, and will serve as an advantage when
added to the existing AODV protocol.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper a hybrid methodology for detecting and avoiding
wormhole affected path in mobile ad hoc network is presented.
This method encapsulate advantage of two different predefine
method in order to overcome their limitation. The performance
of proposed technique is depending upon network density,
having lower response time with lower power consumption.
In order to detect wormhole proposed technique use larger
number of control packet in future we will try negotiates that
effect.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to say thanks to my guide prof Deepak Singh Tomar
and prof Neelam Pathak who gives their knowledge and time in
order to complete this paper. This paper will never complete
without the support facility member CSE department TIT
Bhopal.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Maulik, R. ; Chaki, N., "A comprehensive review on
wormhole attacks in MANET" IEEE 2010, Page 233-238.
[2] Jian Yin, Sanjay Madria, "A hierarchical secure routing
protocol against black hole attack in sensor networks",
IEEE SUTC, 2006.
[3] Xiangyang Li “Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks:
Theory and Applications” Cambridge University Press 978-
0-521-86523-4
[4] Sebastian Terence J , "Secure Route Discovery against
Wormhole Attack in Sensor Networks using Mobile
Agents", IEEE 2011, pp 110-115.
[5] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, “Ad hoc On-Demand
Distance Vector (AODV) Routing,” The Internet Society
2003.
[6] Sang-min Lee, Keecheon Kim “An Effective Path
Recovery Mechanism for AODV Using Candidate Node”
springerlink, vol. 4331/2006, 2006.
[7] Mahajan, V. ; Natu, M. ; Sethi, A. , "Analysis of wormhole
intrusion attacks in MANETS", IEEE 2008, Page 1-7.
[8] Keer, S. ; Suryavanshi, A., "To prevent wormhole attacks
using wireless protocol in MANET" IEEE 2010, Page 159-
163.
[9] K. Sanzgiri, B. Dahill, B. N. Levine, C. Shields, and E. M.
Belding- Royer, “A secure routing protocol for ad hoc
networks,” in Proc. of IEEE ICNP, 2002.
[10] Dang Quan Nguyen ; Lamont, L., "A Simple and Efficient
Detection of Wormhole Attacks", IEEE 2008, Page 1-5.
[11] Katrin Hoeper, Guang Gong, “Pre-Authentication and
Authentication Models in Ad Hoc Networks,” Signals and
Communication Technology, pp. 65-82, 2007.
[12] Kanika Lakhani, Himani bathla, Rajesh Yadav “A
Simulation Model to Secure the Routing Protocol AODV
against Black-Hole Attack in MANET” IJCSNS
International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Security, vol. 10 No.5, May 2010.
IJCATM : www.ijcaonline.org
