A Secure Payment Scheme with Low Communication and Processing Overhead for Multihop Wireless Network

In this proposed work a trust-based routing protocol is developed to route messages through the highly trusted nodes to minimize the probability of dropping the messages. Thus improve the network performance in terms of throughput and packet delivery
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
   Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF): 1.711  International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research         434   e-ISSN: 2349-9745  p-ISSN: 2393-8161   A Secure Payment Scheme with Low Communication and Processing Overhead for Multihop Wireless Network M. Suresh 1 ,   Mrs. K.M.Padmapriya   2 1  Department of Computer Science, SSM college of Arts and science, 2  Department of Computer Science, SSM college of Arts and science, Komarapalayam Abstract - In this proposed work a trust-based routing protocol is developed to route messages through the highly trusted nodes to minimize the probability of dropping the messages. Thus improve the network performance in terms of throughput and packet delivery ratio. The proposed design contains a novel secure reactive routing protocol for Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs), called TRIUMF (Trust-Based Routing Protocol with controlled degree of Selfishness for Securing MANET against Packet Dropping Attack). In the proposed protocol trust among nodes is represented by trust value, which consists of cooperation score, direct trust and indirect trust. The proposed trust routing allows controlled degree of selfishness to give an incentive to the selfish nodes to declare its selfishness behavior to its neighbor nodes, which reduce the searching time of misbehaving nodes to search for the malicious nodes only. In the proposed routing protocol two node-disjoint routes between the source and destination nodes are selected based on their path trust values, one marked as primary and the other as secondary. In this work both DLL-ACK and end- to-end TCP-ACK as monitoring tools to monitor the behavior of routing path nodes: if the data packet successfully transmitted, then the path nodes trust value are updated positively; otherwise, if a malicious behavior is detected then the path searching tool starts to identify the malicious nodes and isolate them from the routing path and the network. Finally this scheme reduces the searching time of malicious nodes, and the routing protocol avoids the isolated misbehaving node from sharing in all future routes, which improves the overall network throughput. Keywords - MANET, TRIUMF, Secure, Packet Dropping Attack, Throughput.  I.   INTRODUCTION Wireless networks can be divided into two areas in much the same way that traditional wired networks are: Local Area Networks (LANs) and Wide Area Networks (WANs). As with wired networks, wireless LANs have a higher data rate and are confined to small areas, either a building or campus. Wireless WANs can cover anything from a city to a continent. In the past wireless network manufacturers have relied on the complexity of the technology to provide security. This assumption was essentially sound when one considered that the technology was srcinally developed by the military. In practice this approach works to a degree, because with radio, for example traditional methods of intercepting radio transmissions cannot detect a spread spectrum signal. This model breaks down though when the same vendor’s equipment is used by unauthorized people to access the LAN. To overcome this flaw some manufacturers use encryption to encode transmissions and so make the signal indecipherable if intercepted. The analyatical and simulation results demonstrate that RACE can significantly reduce the communication and processing overhead comparing to the existing receipt-based payment schemes with acceptable payment clearance delay and Evidences’ storage area, which is necessary for the effective implementation of the scheme. Moreover, RACE can secure the payment, and identify the cheating nodes                !" # $%&           435 precisely and rapidly without false accusations or missed detections. In RACE, the AC can process the payment reports to know the number of relayed/dropped messages by each node. The problem of payment schemes may be classified into tamper-proof-device (TPD)-based and receipt-based schemes. In TPD-based payment schemes, a TPD is put in in every node to store and manage its credit account and secure its operation. For receipt-based payment schemes associate offline central unit referred to as the accounting center stores and manages the nodes’ credit accounts. The nodes usually submit plain proofs for relaying packets, called receipts, to the AC to update their credit accounts. In Nuglets the self-generated and forwarded packets by a node ar passed to the TPD to decrease and increase the node’s open account, severally. Packet purse and packet trade models are projected. For the packet purse model, the supply node’s open account is charged the full payment before causation a packet, and each intermediate node acquires the payment for relaying the packet. For the packet trade model, every intermediate node runs associate auction to sell the packets to consecutive node within the route, and therefore the destination node pays the whole price of relaying the packets. In SIP once receiving a knowledge packet, the destination node sends a Receipt packet to the supply node to issue a bequest packet to increment the credit accounts of the intermediate nodes. II.   METHODOLOGY The cheating reports to identify the cheating nodes and correct the financial data. Our objective of securing the payment is preventing the attackers (singular of collusive) from stealing credits or paying less, i.e., the attackers should not benefit from their misbehaviors. We should also guarantee that each node will earn the correct payment even if the other nodes in the route collude to steal credits. The proposed work is depicted in figure 1.  Figure. 1. System Design Node deployment   Neighbor Path selection   Clustering and routing End process   Analysis Check energy level   Access control mechanism                  !" # $%&           436 A.   NETWORK FORMATION Inter organizational networks emerge as a result of the interdependencies between organizations that ensure organizations to interact with each other and lead in time to network structures. Where hierarchical arrangements can be purposely planned, networks are reactionary since they emerge out of contextual events that initiate the formation of a collaborative network. Although network emergence is well studied, the process in which networks come into being and evolve through time is not as well known. Mainly due to the difficulties in terms of data collection and analysis. This is especially the case for public sector networks since network evolution studies are predominantly focused on the private sector. Some authors suggest that networks evolve through a cyclical approach. Ansell and Gash (2007) propose five iterative phases that are important in all cooperative phases: 1) face-to-phase dialogue, 2) trust building, 3) commitment to the process, 4) shared understanding, and 5) intermediate outcome. Another model is developed by Ring and Van de Venn (1994) who state that cooperative inter-organizational relations go through three repetitive phases: 1) negotiation phase in which organizations negotiate about joint action, 2) a commitment phase in which organizations reach an agreement and commit to future action in the relationship, and 3) an execution phase where joint action is actually performed. These three stages overlap and are repetitive throughout the inter-organizational relationship (Ring & Van de Venn, 1994). Both cyclical models attempt to explain the processes within an operating network, but they do not consider the evolutionary process organizational networks go through from their emergence till their termination. B.   ANCHOR NODE SELECTION Choosing anchor points is a crucial step of the data gathering process since it determines the efficiency of energy transferring and the latency of data gathering. A trivial scheme is to simply visit all the sensor nodes, gather data through single-hop transmission and use the SenCar to forward data back to the static sink through long range communications. However, this scheme would trigger several new problems in our data collection and wireless recharge scheme. First, using single-hop data collection can only collect data from a very small number of nodes per interval. Only the nodes reside at the anchor points are able to transmit data while data generated at other nodes is not collected. Therefore, the fairness of data collection among all the nodes is greatly undermined in single hop data collection. In contrast, if multi-hop transmission is used, we can collect data from the larger neighborhood of anchor points thereby improving the fairness of data collection. Second, the average packet latency will be increased with single hop communication. Since if nodes are not visited by the SenCar, their data packets would be buffered until these nodes are selected as anchor points. It would result in longer average data collection latency and is not scalable for large networks. In contrast, in our proposed solution, the SenCar only visits a subset of selected sensor nodes (anchor points) and collects data through multi-hop transmissions, which can enhance data collection fairness, reduce data collection latency, and avoid stopping at unnecessary sensor locations for battery recharge. The anchor node selection procedure is shown in figure 2.                !" # $%&           437  Figure.2. Anchor Node Selection Methodology C.   PATH SELECTION We introduce mechanisms for path selection when the energy of the sensors in srcinal primary path has dropped below a certain level. This allows us to distribute energy consumption more evenly among the sensor nodes in the network. Number of hope counts is also identified by using this method. The Energy Efficiency of the individual node is increased by this path selection method.  Figure 3. Path Selection Methodology Anchor Point Selection Data Gathering Single Hop Transmission Data Collection Latency Path Selection Energy Consumption Energy Efficiency maintenance Path Selection method Primary Path Drop Notifications                !" # $%&           438 D.   TRUST BASED SECURE ROUTING PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION TMR provides a method of message security using trust based multipath routing. In this approach, less trusted nodes are given lesser number of self-encrypted parts of a message, thereby making it difficult for malicious nodes to gain access to the minimum information required to break through the encryption strategy. Using trust levels, it makes multipath routing flexible enough to be usable in networks with “vital” nodes and absence of necessary redundancy. In addition, using trust levels, it avoids the non-trusted nodes in the routes that may use brute force attacks and may decrypt messages if enough parts of the message are available to them. Secure connection has been established between source nodes to destination node. The TMR algorithm will find out the multiple routes from source to destination using DSR algorithm. After finding multiple routes, all the routes are sorted based on the trust level. Then it will choose the best route which is having maximum trust level. In this method the message is split into parts. Then it routes the encrypted parts through best single route.  Figure 4. Secure Routing Implementation DSR Algorithm When node S wants to send a packet to node D, but does not know a route to D, node S initiates a route discovery.    Source node S floods Route Request (RREQ)    Each RREQ, has sender’s address, destination’s address, and a unique Request ID determined by the sender    Each node appends own identifier when forwarding RREQ Getting the data across a network is only part of the problem for a protocol. The data received has to be evaluated in the context of the progress of the conversation, so a protocol has to specify rules describing the context. These kinds of rules are said to express the syntax of the communications. Other rules determine whether the data is meaningful for the context in which the exchange takes place. These kinds of rules are said to express the semantics of the communications. III.   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION • Packet Delivery ratio • Residual Energy • Delivery Latency Trust based multi-path routing Encryption Strategy TMR Algorithm and DSR Algorithm implementation
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks