I need 3000 words in IEEE research paper in QoS-sensitive cellular networks

EEE research paper on "Comparison of bandwidth reservation and admission control techniques in QoS-sensitive cellular networks"

The following is my requirement 

"Comparison of bandwidth reservation and admission control techniques in QoS-sensitive cellular networks"

There's no limit on the words. But the paper must be in 8.5x11 inch format, 10 font-size, times new roman font, two-column, 8 pages, left, right, top, bottom margin 1 inch

...........................................................................................................................................................................................

Attachment 1:

Techniques for detecting and preventing the interference of malicious nodes in MANETs

Abstract 

MANETs have been the most successful and fastest growing technology due to their nature of being self-maintained and self-configured. The network topology of MANETs, wired or wireless, is bound to change rapidly by means of any routing attacks on the network. Thus, providing network security to this infrastructure-less network is a major issue. There are several routing protocols for ad-hoc networks that cope well with its dynamically changing topology, but they are not designed to defend against a malicious attacker. Such nodes have opportunity to modify or discard routing information or even display fake routes to attract user data that leads the data to go through themselves. Hence, providing network security, not only to the new nodes entering the ad hoc network but also to the existing ones in the network, is a critical problem. This paper deals with detection of malicious nodes in a MANET and preventing their interference in the network.

1. Introduction

In general, a mobile ad hoc network, commonly known as a MANET can be thought of a group of independent and mobile nodes (or routers) that are capable of communicating through a wireless channel. Nodes can communicate with each other in two ways, (1) directly – each of the nodes should lie within the sensing range (2) indirectly – each node can communicate through intermediate nodes when they’re not within the range. These intermediate nodes act as routers within the network. MANETs are continuously self-configuring network (meaning that they do not have a fixed structure) of wirelessly connected mobile devices which does not have an infra-structure of itself. Each device in a MANET is free to move independently in any direction. While doing so, the device will change its link to other devices frequently. MANETs are a kind of wireless ad hoc network that have a routable networking environment on top of a link layer ad hoc network. These networks may contain one or multiple and different transceivers between nodes. Since MANETs are auto-configured, predictable and reliable behavior is expected from the nodes within the network and from the ones that timely enter the network. Unfortunately, this does not occur always as malicious nodes can pose a potential threat to the network by interfering with the messages, impersonation of the nodes, DOS attacks, spoofing or eavesdropping among other nodes.

Mobile Ad hoc Network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes that are capable of communicate with every other node without any fixed infrastructure. It does not have any centralized administration and it is deployed in applications such as search and rescue, battle fields and disaster recovery. Mobile nodes can act as both transmitter and receiver to forward data packets between them through routing protocols such as proactive (Eg: Destination Sequence Distance Vector), Reactive (Eg: Dynamic Source Routing, Ad hoc On Demand Vector) and Hybrid (Eg: Zone Routing Protocol) routing protocols.

The Characteristics of MANET are:

• Dynamic topologies

• Bandwidth-constrained links

• Energy constrained operation

• Limited physical security.

Security problem in MANETs from the security design perspective is the lack of a clear line of defense. Most of the security solutions proposed in Manets cover preventive and reactive solution Preventive and reactive mechanism only specialized to one network layer, protocol or attack. In order to achieve optimum security protection, additional level of defense should be placed when designing security framework, which is intrusion tolerance (IT). Intrusion tolerance plays a role to complement security hole in Manets. Its goal is to make systems tolerant to attacks and intruders, which are to afford some essential network services in the presence of malicious attacks. Furthermore, the combination of these three lines of defense will achieve survivability requirements in Manets(3)

Many security researches in Manets only combine with prevention and reaction mechanism. This approach is known as cross layer approach. In this approach, prevention mechanism work to avoid any type of attacks such as firewall and cryptographic system [4], and reaction mechanism will act to mitigate the intrusion via Intrusion Detection System (IDS). Although the prevention mechanism will be the fit to defense the attacks, however, some attack may be succeeded entering the network. Thus, the reaction mechanism will begin to work by detecting and stopping the attack. This approach would not guarantee the network operation in the presence of attacks. It needs a mechanism of intrusion tolerance to afford some essential network services in the presence of attacks. Intrusion tolerance will provide the survivability of the network [5].

 Intrusion tolerance can be achieved through a firewall mechanism, a technique for detecting and recovering intruders induced path failures, a trust relationship between nodes an IP-sec authentication-based packet authentication and wireless router modules.

2. Related Work and Literature review

In MANETs, nodes are depending on other node(s) to route or forward a packet to its destination. The nodes are accessible to both legitimate and malicious nodes. As a result, there is no clear line of defense in MANETs from the security design perspective. In general, security mechanism follows two defense lines: one preventive and another reactive. The prevention is mainly achieved by secure routing protocols that prevent the attacker from installing incorrect routing updates at other nodes. These protocols are typically based on previous routing protocol such as AODV [3] and Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV) [4] which applies different cryptography techniques to authenticate the routing messages. At this point, authentication plays a role to identify the legitimate nodes. On the other hand, reactive is to act on demand to mitigate intrusion, as intrusion detection systems (IDS). Nevertheless, preventive and solution are not efficient to handle all attacks and intrusion. Thus, the third defense line which is tolerance should be included in designing new security framework. These three lines of defense need to be incorporated to fully survive the networks in Manets [ 6].

In literature, a number of approaches to provide security via cross layer security protocol have been proposed. Geetha Priya have proposed cross layer-based intrusion detection systems to identify malicious node(s). Their framework covers link and network layers for reaction mechanism to detect the intrusion. It provides multiple level of detection across different layer of protocol stacks. However, this approach only covers up to two level of defense. Intrusion tolerant is important whenever nodes need to back up in services in the presence of malicious attacks.

Lei Guang and Chadi Assi also proposed cross layer security design between routing and MAC layer. The approach is to mitigate certain interlayer attacks. These two-layer attacks work together to facilitate detection and reaction against node MAC misbehavior in Manets. At the end the trust list based on the detection information obtained at MAC layer were build. Their work also tackles up to two layers of defense.

3. Security goals in MANETs

Security requirements in MANET that can prevent the occurrence of any attacks in MANETs are:

3.1. Availability

Ensures that network security services are available to the required parties when required.

3.2. Confidentiality

Ensures that the intended receivers can only access transmitted data. It is always provided by encryption.

3.3. Authenticity

Both sender and receiver of data need to be sure of each other’s identity.

3.4. Integrity

Ensures that data has not been altered during transmission.

3.5 Non-Repudiation  

Ensures that parties can prove the transmission or reception of information by another party, i.e. a party cannot falsely deny having received or sent certain data.

4. Types of Attacks

4.1. Internal Attacks

Internal attacks occur on nodes in network and link layer interface. This attack creates wrong routing information to other nodes. It is done by malicious nodes and difficult to identify compared to external attacks.
4.2. External Attacks  

External attacks cause congestion in network. It leads to communication and additional overhead in network. Denial of Service (DoS) is a type of external attack.

4.3. Passive Attacks

In Passive attack, transmitted data does not get altered in the network. But, it accumulates routing information by perform “unauthorized” listening to the network and affects network traffic.

4.4. Active Attacks

In Active attack, flow of message between nodes is prevented. It is done by either internal or external sources. Active internal attacks are caused by malicious or compromised nodes in internal network. DoS, Congestion traffic are example of active attacks. An active attack is classified as follows:

4.4.1. Dropping Attacks

Dropping attacks is caused by selfish nodes or compromised nodes in the network, by dropping all data packets. It prevents end to end communication between nodes.

4.4.2. Modification Attacks

It modifies all data packets in network and disrupts entire communication between them. Malicious nodes advertise itself having shortest route to reach destination, by modifying route information and data packets.

4.4.3. Fabrication Attacks  

In Fabrication attack, fake route messages are sent to nearby nodes in response to legitimate route request messages.

4.4.4. Timing Attacks

Attackers attack neighbor nodes by advertise itself a closer node to actual node.

5. Attacks in Network Layer

In an adhoc network, the routing mechanism has three layers namely Network, Physical and MAC layers. Modifying some parameters of routing messages and selective forwarding attacks are attacks in network layer. They are denoted as Gray hole attack and Black hole attack [8].

5.1. Gray hole attack

Gray hole is a node that can switch from behaving correctly to behaving like a black hole i.e., it is truly an attacker, but it will act as a normal node. So we can’t identify easily the attacker since it behaves as a normal node. Every node maintains a routing table that stores the next hop node information which is a route packet to destination node.

5.2. Black hole Attack

It is a type of denial of service attack in which malicious node attract all packets by giving a shortest route to reach the destination and intercept all the data packets in that process. It leads to packet drop attack.

It affects end-to-end delay, throughput, network load, packet loss in the network and it degrade the network performance.

5.3. Worm Hole Attacks

In this type of attack, a malicious node pauses the network at any instant, receives packets at one point in the network and tunnels them to another point in the network, finally replaying them in the network from that instant.

6. Packet Drop Attack

A Packet may be dropped [6] due to following reasons such as:

6.1. Unsteadiness of Medium
Packet may be dropped due to corruption and broken links  

6.2. Geneuiness of node

Packet may be dropped due to overflow of transmission queue and lack of energy resources.

6.3. Selfishness of node

Packet may be dropped due to saving of its own energy resources.

6.4. Maliciousness of node

Packet is dropped due to malignant act of a node.

7. Security Issues and Challenges in MANETs

There exists a complex and sophisticated typology which has changed, ad hoc networks are prone to linking physically which makes them to be vulnerable to manipulation. These networks could be easily be manipulated by external hackers and intrudersInto the system. The hacker can access by linking a network resource such as a wireless links and levels of energy which will bar other users from the network. The MANET environment has to deal with the following issues;

7.1. Limited computational capabilities

Normally, hubs in adhoc systems are particularly free but are restricted in computational capacity and in this manner, may turn into a wellspring of powerlessness when they handle open key cryptography during ordinary activity.

7.2. Limited wireless transmission range

In wireless networks the radio band will be limited and hence data rates it can offer are much lesser than what a wired network can offer. This requires the routing protocols in wireless networks to use the bandwidth always in an optimal manner by keeping the overhead as low as possible [9].

7.3. Device Compatibility

In remote systems the radio band will be constrained and consequentlyinformation rates it can offer are a lot lesser than what a wired system can offer. This requires the steering conventions in remote systems to utilize the data transmission consistently in an ideal way by keeping the overhead as low as conceivable.

7.4. Battery constraints

This is one of the restricted assets that structure a significant requirement for the hubs in an adhoc organize. Gadgets utilized in these systems have limitations on the power source so as to look after versatility, estimate and weight of the gadget. By expanding the power and handling capacity makes the hubs massive and less portable.

7.5. Challenging key management

Dynamic topology and development of hubs in an Adhoc network organize make key administration troublesome if cryptography is utilized in the directing convention.

7.6. Packet losses due to transmission errors

Adhoc remote systems encounters higher bundle misfortune because of variables, for example, high piece mistake rate (BER) in the remote channel, expanded impacts because of the nearness of concealed terminals, nearness of impedance, area subordinate conflict, unidirectional joins, visit way breaks because of portability of hubs, and the natural blurring properties of the remote channel [9].

7.7. Bandwidth usage

Data transfer capacity accessibility influences availability [12] In MANETs, data transfer capacity is utilized for availability foundation and upkeep what's more, for information trade. On the off chance that the entirety of the accessible data transmission is spent by information correspondence/other association foundation exercises, more current associations may not be built up, or existing associations may not be restored when portable hubs migrate themselves.

7.8. Survivability

It is characterized by [10] as the ability to satisfy its crucial, an opportune way, within the sight of interruptions, assaults, mishaps and framework disappointments. Survivability is progressively worried about securing singular system hubs. Aside from legitimately deciding the lifetime of a MANET, survivability of hubs has gradually advanced as a helpful measurement for directing convention execution itself.

8. The Proposed Hybrid Model

The proposed arrangement model towards malevolent assaults and impedance will be the PPN SCHEME. The PPN conspire depends on AODV and it can productively maintain a strategic distance from pernicious hub assaults during way arrangement among source and goal. PPN conspire utilizes Adhoc On-request Distance Vector (AODV) [11] to frame way during way disclosure. In PPN conspire, each Cluster head hub keeps up the neighbor table which is utilized to keep data pretty much every one of the hubs In the way revelation of PPN plot, a halfway hub will endeavor to make a course that does not experience a hub whose answered data isn't right and PPN isn't completely distinct. In this way, vindictive hubs will be step by step stayed away from by other non-malevolent hubs in the system. Comparing PPN to AODV, the proposed PPN conspire has the accompanying contrasts in message arrangement and type.

A. RREQ PacketmREQ in PPN scheme is same as the AODV shown below

 
Figure 1. RREQ packet in PPN 

B. RREP Packet

In the proposed plan RREP has extra Node ID, Prime Pin Number and Cluster Head Node ID of NRREP fields appeared in Figure 2. Hub ID field is utilized to store ID of NRREP, Prime Product Number is utilized to store the prime result of the considerable number of hubs from goal to source in the way and bunch head hub ID of NRREP field contains the bunch head Node ID of the hub which begins the RREP.

 
Figure 2. RREP packet in PPN 

C. Neighbor Table

In PPN scheme each cluster head maintains a neighbor tablewhich is used to keep information about all the nodes as shown inTable 1. Neighbor table contains two fields Node ID and ClusterHead Node ID. Each node in the network has a specific primenumber which acts as Node Identity and this identity must not bechanged. Every node is associated with a Cluster Head into thenetwork. Each node’s ID and its Cluster Head ID are stored into the table [13].

 
Table 1. Neighbor Table 

The proposed model depends on solid (hubs through which source has steered information already and knows them to be reliable) to move information bundles. The calculation for the proposed instrument is delineated in Fig. 3 and Fig.4. In the changed convention, the source hub (SN) communicates a RREQ message to find a protected course to the goal hub [15]. The transitional hub (IN) that produces the RREP needs to give data with respect to its group head and result of all prime numbers from goal to source hub as Prime Pin Number (PPN). After getting the RREP message from IN, SN with the assistance of its bunch head (CH) will partition the PPN with the Node IDs put away in neighbor table at CH to see whether IN is its solid hub. In the event that SN finds that IN answered data is right and PPN is completely detachable, at that point IN is a solid hub for SN furthermore, SN begins steering information through IN. Something else, IN is temperamental what's more, in this manner SN calls the malevolent hub evacuation process and In this manner SN disregards some other RREP from the vindictive hub. In the noxious hub evacuation process separate CH include noxious hub to the malevolent rundown and communicate this rundown to the entire system. [14] All hubs of the system in the wake of getting the malevolent list finds the Node IDs of the vindictive hubs in their table and each hub flushes every one of the passages identified with these Node IDs from the individual tables.

 
Figure 3. Algorithm to detect malicious node attack in MANETs 

For instance, how about we consider assault situation. In assault situation all the believed hubs act well reliably all through. This is the easiest assault situation where pernicious hub doesn't have a place with any group. All things considered noxious hub may send the RREP with its own character in the Node ID field of the RREP, bunch head hub ID of Destination (parodied) and Prime Product Number. Vindictive hub answers with higher grouping number since they don't have the foggiest idea about the definite grouping number of the goal hub. Think about the system topology portrayed in Figure 5. Here hub 3 is the originator and hub 67 is the goal hub. Hub 3 communicate RREQ bundle to the neighbor hubs. Hub M is the pernicious hub and it reacts to originator hub 3 with RREP and sends its next jump hub, group head hub and Prime Product Number. Hub M RREP is chosen among different answers because of its Largest Sequence Number and Least Hop Count. As RREP is handled at starting Node, prime item term isn't completely detachable and Replied data is wrong. Source hub 3 proclaims Node M as malignant hub and calls the procedure evacuation of malignant hub.

D. Evacuation procedure of malignant hubs

1) Cluster Head Node 5 adds Malicious Node M to the noxious rundown. Presently, Node 5 communicates the malignant rundown to the entire system.

 
Figure 4. Algorithm to Remove Malicious Node 

 
Figure 5. Network Topology for PPN Scheme 

2) All hubs of the system in the wake of getting the pernicious rundown finds the Node M in their tables and every hub flushes all the passages identified with Node M from the individual tables.

9. Simulation and Results

For the purpose of testing the model to see if it works, MATLAB will be used for the simulation process. A sample of 50 nodes will be simulated. During the simulation the number of nodes that are malicious will be between 2 and 5. The graphs below (Figure 6 and Figure 7) show the standard AODV and AODV with an extension respectively. The horizontal axis of the graph shows number of nodes and vertical axis shows the Network Throughput [16].

Figure 6. Network Throughput for AODV for 5 nodes 

 
Figure 7. Network Throughput in 3 Nodes 

10. Conclusion 

The research has focused on various issues in MANETS in general approach but specifically on the malicious nodes. The paper has also looked at the various types of attacks in MANETs and a hybrid model/scheme has been proposed. The PPN model will be used to mitigate the issues associated with malicious nodes. The proposed PPN model will be capable of removing all the nodes suspected to have issues in MANET and identify an alternative path to avoid the malicious node. For the sake of future research, the model can be improved so as to improve the security of a network system and find better mechanisms to deal with threats.

11. References 

[1] J.-P. Hubaux, T. Gross, J.-Y. L. Boudec, and M. Vetterli, “Toward self-organized mobile adhoc networks – the terminodes project,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 118–124, 2000.

[2] G. S. Mamatha and Dr. S. C. Sharma “Analyzing the MANET Variations, Challenges, Capacity and Protocol Issues” International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Survey (IJCSES) Vol.1, No.1, August 2010.

[3] M. Al-Shurman, S.-M. Yoo, and S. Park, “Black hole attack in mobile adhoc networks," in Proceedings of the 42nd annual South east regional conference. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 96-97, 2004.

[4] Piyush Agrawal and R. K. Ghosh “Cooperative Black and Gray Hole Attacks in Mobile Adhoc Networks” Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur - 208 016, INDIA.

[5] Rutvij H. Jhaveri, Sankita J. Patel and Devesh C. Jinwala “A Novel Approach for GrayHole and Black Hole Attacks in Mobile Adhoc Networks” Second International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies, 2012.

[6] M. Al-Shurman, S.-M. Yoo, and S. Park, “Black hole attack in mobile adhoc networks," in Proceedings of the 42nd annual South east regional conference. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 96-97, 2004.

[7] L. Zhou and Z. Haas, “Securing Adhoc Networks”, IEEE Networks Special Issue on Network Security, pages 24-30, November/December1999.

[8] C. Siva Ram Murthy and B. S. Manoj, “Adhoc Wireless Networks, Architectures and Protocols”, Second Edition, Low price Edition, Pearson Education, 2007.

[9] G. S. Mamatha and Dr. S. C. Sharma “Analyzing the MANET Variations, Challenges, Capacity and Protocol Issues” International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Survey (IJCSES) Vol.1, No.1, August 2010.

[10] Dong Seong Kim, Khaja Mohammad Shazzad, and Jong Sou Park., “Aframework of survivability model for wireless sensor network” IEEE Proceedings of the First International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, February 2006.

[11] Yih-Chun Hu, Adrian Perrig, David B. Johnson “Rushing Attacks and Defense in Wireless Adhoc Network Routing Protocols”, San Diego, California, USA September 19, 2003.

[12] L. Tamilselvan, and V. Sankaranarayanan, “Prevention of Cooperative black hole attack in manet”, Journal of Networks, Vol. 3 (5), pp.13-20,2008.

[13] Amos J Paul; Vishnu, K., “Detection and Removal of Cooperative Black/Gray hole attack in Mobile Adhoc Networks” International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 - 8887) Volume 1 – No. 22,2010.

[14] Issa Khalil, Saurabh Bagchi, Ness B. Shroff” LITEWORP: A Lightweight Counter-measure for the Wormhole Attack in Multihop wireless Networks” Proceedings of the 2 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN’05).

[15] Jaydip Sen, SripadKoilakonda, Arijit Ukil, “A Mechanism for Detection of Cooperative Black Hole Attack in Mobile Adhoc Networks” IEEE Second International Conference on IntelligentSystems, Modeling and Simulation, 2011.

[16] Saurabh Gupta, Subrat Kar, S Dharmaraja, “BAAP: Black hole Attack Avoidance Protocol for Wireless Network” IEEE proceedings of theInternational Conference on Computer & Communication Technology (ICCCT), 2011.

[17] Jain, A.K.; Tokekar, V., “Mitigating the effects ofBlack hole attacks on AODV routing protocol inmobile ad hoc networks”, Pervasive Computing (ICPC), 2015 International Conference Year: 2015, Pages:1-6, DOI:10.1109/PERVASIVE.2015.7087174IEEE Conference Publications

[18] Jain, Ashish Kumar; Verma, Ravindra, “Trust Based Solution for Wormhole Attacks in Mobile Ad hocNetworks” Global Journal for Multidisciplinary studies (ISSNo 23480459), 30th Nov, 2015

[19] Jain, Ashish Kumar; Tokekar, Vrinda; Singh, Upendra, “Detection and Avoidance of Integrated Attacks on MANET using Trusted Hyperbolic AODV Routing”.