A Lightweight Algorithm for Detecting Sybil Attack in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks using Sink Nodes

International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research
Volume 5– Issue 7, 433 - 438, 2016, ISSN:- 2319–8656
www.ijcat.com 433
A Lightweight Algorithm for Detecting Sybil Attack in
Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks using Sink Nodes
Abdolreza Andalib
Department Of Computer Software, Qeshm
International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran
Farahnaz Andalib
Department Of Computer Software, Kermanshah
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran
Mojtaba Jamshidi
Department Of Computer Software, Qazvin
Davod Momeni
Department Of Computer Software, Kermanshah
Abstract: Considering the application of wireless sensor networks in critical area, such as battlefields, establishing security in these
networks is of utmost importance. One of the most serious and dangerous attack against these networks is Sybil attack. In this attack, a
malicious hostile node creates multiple fake identities simultaneously. This misleads legitimate nodes and, by mistake, they assume
each of these identifiers as real separate nodes. In this attack, malicious hostile node attracts so heavy traffic that can dramatically
disrupt routing protocols which has devastating effects on the network functions such as data integration, voting, and resource
allocation. The current research proposes a new lightweight algorithm for detecting Sybil attack in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks
using sink nodes. The proposed algorithm is implemented to be assessed in terms of detection and error rates efficiency in a series of
experiments. Comparison of the experiment results with the results of other available algorithms revealed optimal performance of the
proposed algorithm.
Keywords: Wireless Sensor Networks, Sybil attack, Lightweight algorithm, Sink nodes
1. INTRODUCTION
A wireless sensor network consists of hundreds to thousands
small and inexpensive sensor nodes that work together to
provide the possibility of monitoring the environment and
collecting information. In such networks, usually, there are
one to several sink nodes that collect all network data and send
commands to one, several or all network nodes. In other
words, after capturing (or sensing) information from the
environment, sensor nodes send them, step by step, to sink
node(s). Being inexpensive and small, sensor nodes have
limitations in terms of energy, memory, and computing
capability. Because of these limitations, complex encryption
and security algorithms of other networks (such as local
networks) cannot be applied and set up on the “resource
limited” sensor nodes. However, sink nodes do not have such
limitations and are usually informed about general network
data including encryption keys, number of nodes, nodes
identities, etc. [1].
Sybil attack is one of the major attacks that affect the routing
layer. In this attack, as indicated in figure 1, a malicious
hostile node, after being distributed in the operating network
environment, creates multiple fake identities simultaneously,
called Sybil nodes (herein after called “Sybil nodes”). In
figure 1, each normal node has only one identity while each
malicious node creates 6 identities (IDs 5-10). This misleads
neighboring legitimate nodes and they assume each of these
Sybil nodes is a real separate node, Whereas, all the Sybil
nodes are just and only a real (malicious hostile) node.
Therefore, the hostile node attracts so heavy traffic and
disrupts routing protocols to a large extent which has
devastating effects on the network functions such as data
integration, voting, and resource allocation [2][3][4].
Figure 1 – An example of Sybil attack set-up
So far, various strategies are developed to counteract with
Sybil attack in fixed sensor networks. In [5], for instance, an
algorithm is proposed, based on radio resource testing, to
detect Sybil nodes in which each node assigns a different
channel to each of its neighbors to broadcast some message
on. However, this method is not efficient considering the
limitations of sensor nodes (assigning a separate channel to
each neighbor). Also, strategies based on identity verification,
such as those proposed in [5] and [6], firstly require a huge
memory space and secondly get involved in processing
complex checking algorithms in order to store essential
identity verification data (including shared encryption keys,
identity certificates, etc.). In addition, strategies based on
Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) [7], as the one
developed in [8], cannot be proper solutions, as well, since the
radio signal is susceptible to be interfered by the environment,
on one hand, and the malicious node can fail the algorithm by
adjusting its sending power, on the other hand. So, using these
strategies for detecting Sybil nodes of mobile sensor networks

www.ijcat.com 434
will not be effective. Because, in the first place, these
strategies impose heavy costs (computing, communication and
memory) on resource-limited sensor nodes. Second, due to
nodes mobility in mobile sensor networks, the above
mentioned algorithms either have errors or fail in the process
of detecting Sybil nodes.
In this paper, a new lightweight algorithm for detecting Sybil
attack in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks is proposed. The
main underlying idea of the proposed algorithm is exchanging
a random number between sink and sensor nodes.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: section 2
reviews the literature. Section 3 explains system hypotheses
and the attack model. Section 4 elaborates on the proposed
algorithm and section 5 gives the performance evaluation and
simulation results. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Sybil attack was introduced in [4], for the first time, for peer-
to-peer networks. Researchers in [5] analyzed the attack in
wireless sensor networks, for the first time, and developed
several defense mechanisms including radio resource testing,
key validation for random key predistribution, position
verification, identifier registration, and remote code
verification or code attestation. In radio resource testing, each
node assigns a separate channel to its neighbors to broadcast
on. In identifier registration approach, a trusted central
authority poll the network to identify Sybil nodes. In [7] an
algorithm is proposed based on Received Signal Strength
Indicator (RSSI) to estimate the location of nodes in the
network. In [8] the locating mechanism proposed in [7] is used
for detecting Sybil nodes. The algorithm uses four location-
aware (routing) nodes that are capable of hearing the packages
from all network areas to detect Sybil nodes. When a node
sends a package, routing nodes cooperate to estimate its
location. It is enough to identify the target nodes because all
Sybil nodes are located in a same area. The method which is
developed in [9] for detecting Sybil nodes needs no hardware
or information about signal strength yet it solely uses data
regarding the number of neighbors to identify malicious node
and fake (Sybil) identities. The algorithm functions in a
distributed manner based on no central point such as base
stations or specific nodes (location-aware). Also, [10]
proposed an algorithm based on Received Signal Strength
Indicator (RSSI) mechanism to detect Sybil attacks in sensor
networks that use Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
(LEACH) protocol for clustering. [11] Proposed another
algorithm based on RSSI technique to detect Sybil nodes when
the nodes are adjusting the broadcasting power. In [12] a new
algorithm is proposed based on identifying Angle of Arrival
(AOA) mechanism called Trust Evaluation Based on AOA
(TEBA). Considering that a Sybil nodes can create multiple
identities with only one real location, anchor nodes detects
Sybil identities that their signal phase difference is less that
trust threshold (calculated by assessing trust angle of
neighboring sensor nodes). In [13] a method is developed to
counteract with Sybil attack which collects route information
by collective intelligence algorithm during network activity
and detects Sybil node by its energy changes in the meantime.
Also, in [14], another RSSI-based algorithm is proposed for
detecting Sybil nodes in LEACH routing protocol. IN [16], a
new algorithm is proposed based upon customer puzzles and
learning automata to deal with Sybil attacks in wireless sensor
networks. Added to these, in [17] and [18], other algorithms
are proposed that uses guard nodes in detecting Sybil nodes in
mobile sensor networks.
3. SYSTEM HYPOTHESES AND THE
ATTACK MODEL
A sensor network contains n sensor nodes and m sink nodes
that are randomly distributed in a two-dimensional area. All
sensor nodes are mobile and, according to mobile models
(such as Random waypoint), move in the operating
environment during the network lifetime. Sink nodes may be
mobile or fixed, as well. Each node has one identity and is
unaware of its own location. Nodes communicate via wireless
radio channels and use Omni-directional distribution
approach. Radio range of all nodes (sensor and sink) are the
same and equal to r. It is also assumed that sensor nodes
cannot resist against interference and enemies can access their
confidential information in case of capturing them so as to
reprogram them. But, sink nodes are equipped with tamper-
resistant hardware and enemies cannot decode and reprogram
them.
Here, an attack model is considered, based upon
classifications given in [5], i.e. “direct, simultaneous, and
stolen identities” Sybil attack. That is, the enemy captures
multiple valid identities (e.g. S1~S10) in the network, first.
Then, program a malicious node so that it creates S1 to S10
(Sybil nodes) identities simultaneously after being deployed in
the network operating environment. In addition, legitimate
nodes communicate with Sybil nodes “directly” (not through
another node). It should be noted that enemy creates malicious
either by itself or by capturing and reprogramming legitimate
nodes in the network. Like normal sensor nodes, malicious
nodes can move in the operation environment. Considering the
attack model, it is assumed that our network has an identity
assignment mechanism [19]. In the identity assignment
mechanism, the enemy is not capable of creating fake
identities; therefore, it has to capture legitimate nodes of the
network to set up a Sybil attack. It is also assumed that each
node has to send a “Hello” or “route request” message, by
arriving at a new location in the network. In fact, this is a
requirement for mobile sensor networks so each node can
identify its neighbors instantly, set up a security key with them
(if necessary), communicate, create its own routing table, etc.
[20]. It is obvious that, in this case, each malicious node must
send a “hello”, “route request”, etc. message per each of its
Sybil identities, after arriving at a new location in the network
(simultaneous Sybil attack [5]). Our proposed algorithm
detects Sybil nodes by such kinds of communicated messages.
4. THE PROPOSED ALGORITHM
The main underlying idea of the proposed algorithm is to
produce random numbers and exchanging them between sink
and sensor nodes so as to detect the Sybil nodes. Generally,
the proposed algorithm contains two simple phases that are
explained below.
4.1 Configuration
This phase runs before distribution of nodes in the operating
environment of the network. According to mechanism given in
[19], a single identity is assigned to each sensor node, in the
first place. Then, a table, as the one indicated in figure 2a, is
loaded on each sensor node and another table, as the one
indicates in figure 2b, is loaded on each sink node; the tables

www.ijcat.com 435
are called history. For every sink nodes and sensor nodes, an
identity is registered in SinkID and NodeID column of the
tables. The number column belongs to random numbers; the
initial value of this field for all sensor and sink nodes is null.
In the next place, all nodes have to be distributed in the
network environment, randomly.
(b) (a)
NodeID number SinkID number
N1 SK1
N2 SK2
. . . ...
Nn SKm
Figure 2 – The structure of history tables in sensor nodes
(a) and sink nodes (b) memory
4.2 Test
After being distributed in the environment, the sensor nodes
began sending “Hello” (to identify the neighbors), routing,
data, and … messages. After a period (t), the nodes start
moving in the environment and when they arrive at a new
point, they start sending the messages (i.e. ‘Hello, routing,
data messages), again. Thus, each node can detect its existing
neighbors, during different periods of network lifetime, by
considering these types of broadcasted messages. Testing
phase of the proposed algorithm also runs during alternative
periods (t) of network lifetime. The testing phase runs as
follows: whenever there is a sensor node (Ni) in the vicinity of
a sink node (SKj), the sink node generates a random number
(p) and stores it in the number column of its history table if it
learns that there is an empty field in the number column of Ni.
Then, it sends the random number (p) to Ni, along with a
message containing  pSK j , .
Ni updates its history as
it receives the message; in other words, it registers p in the
number field of SKj. But, if the number field of Ni in SKj
history has already been filled with a random number, like p’,
(i.e. the sink node (SKj) has sent a random number (p’) to Ni
before) the sink node (SKj) requests the random number from
Ni. Accordingly, Ni sends the random number that exists in its
history, like p”, to the sink node. If p” be equal to p’, the sink
node considers Ni as a legitimate node; otherwise, it regards Ni
as a malicious Sybil node.
Now, consider a scenario in which, SKj sends p’ to a sensor
node (Ni) during t1. Also, assume that an enemy steals
legitimate identities (Ni~k) from the network and a malicious
node is programmed itself to distribute the stolen Sybil
identities, i.e. Ni~k, after being scattered in the network
environment. If during tl>t1 periods, there is a Sybil node (Ni)
in the vicinity of a sink node (SKj), it request the Sybil node
(Ni) to return the random number because there is no empty
member field for Ni in history of the sink node (SKj) (it is
filled with p’). But if the Sybil node (Ni) generates a random
number, since it has no random number available in history
for the sink node, it can register the number in its history and
return it to the sink node. Hope that the random number be the
same number that the sink node (SKj) has requested (i.e. p’).
If so, the Sybil node (Ni) cannot be detected. If not, the sink
node marks Ni as a malicious node. In this case, Sybil node’s
success depends on complexity of the random number. To
avoid suspicion to these random numbers by the malicious
nodes, a 32- or 64-bit number field can be used.
In another scenario, assume that a sink node (SKj) sends a
random number (p’) to a Sybil node (Ni) during t1 period (i.e.
the first time that the sink node (SKj) identifies a Ni node in its
vicinity). Now, if during tl>t1 periods, the sink node (SKj)
identifies a Ni node in its vicinity, it request the Sybil node
(Ni) to return the random number because it has no empty
member field for Ni in its history. Since, the Ni node, that is
now (during tl) in the vicinity of SKj, is a legitimate node (not
a Sybil node (Ni)) and has no random number in its history for
the sink node (SKj), it sends a warning message to the sink
node. Upon receiving the alarm, the sink node understands
that Ni is captured by enemy. Therefore, it considers Ni as a
Sybil node. It should be noted that each sink node generates
and sends the random number to Ni just and only once;
however, it may request the Ni (when the node is in its
vicinity) to return the random number several times during the
network lifetime.
5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND
SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section, we first evaluate the proposed algorithm
memory, communication, and processing overheads, then
present the simulation results.
5.1 Performance Evaluation
Memory Overheads: in the proposed algorithm, each sensor
node requires a memory space with O (m) function and each
sink node requires a memory space with O (n) function to
store data in history. Since sink nodes are not resource-limited,
memory overheads with O (n) function can be imposed on
these nodes. Yet, given that the number of sink nodes in most
of the sensor networks are generally are too small (less than
10), sensor nodes of the memory overheads tolerate very little
memory.
Communication overheads: Assuming that each node has d
neighbors, on average, each sink node “sends” or “requests” d
random numbers during each time period. Also, each sensor
node, sends at least 0 and at most m message for the sink
nodes in each time period, during the test phase. Because it
may have no sink node or many sink nodes in its vicinity.
Therefore, connection overheads of sensor nodes and sink
nodes are of O (m) and O (d) type, respectively.
Processing Overheads: in each time period, during the test
phase, each sink node has to update its history (which is of O
(d x n) time order) per all its existing neighbors and each
sensor node requires at most O (m2
) processing time to update
its history (by assuming a linear search), as well. Because in
any of the time periods during the test phase there may appear
m sink nodes in the vicinity.
5.2 Simulation Results
After running the proposed algorithm, its performance is
evaluated through a series of tests. The main criterion in the
evaluation is detection rate; i.e. the amount of Sybil nodes
detected by a security algorithm. What is more, the proposed

www.ijcat.com 436
algorithm performance is compared with those given in [8-
10,13,14,16], in terms of average detection rate and average
rate of error.
In simulation, it is assumed that the network includes n sensor
nodes and m sink nodes which are randomly distributed in 100
x 100 m2
area. The function area has W=5 malicious hostile
nodes (Sybil attack runners) and each malicious node creates S
Sybil identity. So, (W x S) Sybil nodes are available in the
network. All the nodes (normal and malicious) has equal radio
range (r=10). In addition, the mobility model of [21] is
employed for the nodes movement in the function area. In
order to be sure of the results validity, each test is repeated
100 times and the final result is the average of these 100 tests.
Experiment 1: parameters considered in this experiment are
n=30, S=20, and m=1, 2, 3. Detection rate of the proposed
algorithm is evaluated in time periods 25 to 200 during the test
phase. Figure 3 indicates the experiment results. The results
indicate that increasing time periods of the test phase increases
the Sybil nodes detection rate. For example, when the number
of sink node equals to m=1, detection rates of time period 25,
100, and 200 are about 27%, 88%, and 100%, respectively.
The reason is clear; assume that enemy has captured Ni and its
malicious node creates a Sybil node with Ni identity, after
being distributed in the network. In this case, a sink node can
detect Sybil Ni only if it faces with both legitimate Ni and
malicious hostile node (in its vicinity) during the test phase
(not necessarily in a certain time period). Accordingly, by
increasing the number of phase test periods, it is more
probable that the sink node faces with both Ni and the
malicious node.
Also, since, in the proposed algorithm, sink nodes detects
Sybil nodes in a fully independent way, its detection rate
increases by increasing the number sink nodes (m). Figure 3
clearly indicates the test results.
Detectionrate(%)
The number of test phase periods
Figure 3 – Detection rate of the proposed
algorithm per different parameter (m) values and
different test phase periods
Experiment 2: This experiment is to evaluate the effect of
Sybil identities number, distributed by malicious nodes (S), on
the proposed algorithm performance. Parameters considered in
this experiment are n=300 and m=1. Detection rate of the
proposed algorithm is evaluated for Ss 4 to 20 (by increasing 4
units per step). Figure 4 indicates the experiment results for
time periods 25 to 200 during the test phase. The experiment
results prove that changes of S have no significant effect on
detection rate of the proposed algorithm because what matters
the most in this algorithm is the presence of malicious and
legitimate nodes, the identities of which is captured by the
enemy, in the vicinity of sink nodes during the test phase. But,
considering the Sybil attack model assumed here (i.e.
“simultaneous” model), whenever the malicious node moves
to a new location in the network, it sends “Hello”, routing, etc.
messages, per each of its Sybil identities. So, the number of
distributed Sybil identities of the malicious node does not
matter; however, it is enough to be in the neighboring
environment of the both malicious and legitimate nodes, with
captures identity, only once, then the sink node can detect the
Sybil nodes.
Detectionrate(%)
Figure 4 – the effect of parameter (S) on detection rate
of the proposed algorithm
Experiment 3: This experiment is to evaluate the effect of
network nodes number (n) on the proposed algorithm
performance. Parameters considered in this experiment are
S=10 and m=1. Detection rate of the proposed algorithm is
evaluated for ns 100 to 500. Figure 5 indicates the experiment
results for time periods 25 to 200 during the test phase. The
experiment results prove that network nodes number (n) has
no significant effect on detection rate of the proposed
algorithm because, unlike other algorithms, such the one
developed in [9], the proposed algorithm is not based on
network density but on confrontation of malicious and
legitimate nodes, the identities of which is captured by the
enemy, in the vicinity of sink nodes. Therefore, increase or
decrease of the number of nodes in the network leaves no
effect on detection rate of the proposed algorithm.
Experiment 4: in this experiment, the proposed algorithm
performance is compared with others in terms of average
detection rate and average rate of error. Figure 6 and figure
7 indicate the average detection rate and average rate of error.
The average detection rate of the proposed algorithm, [8], and
[16] are almost 100% which is better than others. Also, it is
worth noting that, unlike other algorithms, the proposed
algorithm makes no error in detecting Sybil nodes. Whereas,
error rates of other algorithms in [8] and [16] are 6% and 5%,
respectively. It is because the other algorithms are based on
information collected from the neighborhood or on RSSI. So,
they may have error in detecting Sybil nodes. But, the
underlying idea of the proposed algorithm is confrontation of
malicious nodes with sink and legitimate nodes, the identities
of which is captured by the enemy.

www.ijcat.com 437
Detectionrate(%)
Figure 5 – The effect of parameter (S) on wrong
detection of the proposed algorithm
Averagedetectionrate(%)
Figure 6 – Comparison of the average
detection rate of the proposed algorithm
with other algorithms
Averaherateoferror(%)
Figure 7 - Comparison of the average error rate of
the proposed algorithm with other algorithms
6. CONCLUSION
The current research proposes a new lightweight algorithm for
detecting Sybil attack in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks
using sink nodes. The main underlying idea of the proposed
algorithm is generate random numbers by sink nodes and
exchange them between sink and sensor nodes to detect Sybil
nodes. The proposed algorithm is implemented to be assessed
in terms of detection and error rates efficiency in a series of
experiments. Comparison of the experiment results with the
results of other available algorithms revealed optimal
performance of the proposed algorithm.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Akyildiz Ian F. and Kasimoglu Ismail H., "Wireless sensor
and actor networks: research challenges", in: Proceedings
of the Ad Hoc Networks 2, pp. 351–367, 2004.
[2] Karlof C. And Wagner D, “Secure Routing in Wireless
Sensor Networks: Attacks and Countermeasures”, in:
Proceedings of the AdHoc Networks, pp. 299-302, year
2003.
[3] Padmavathi G. and shanmugapriya D, "A survey of
attacks, security mechanisms and Challenges in Wireless
sensor networks", in: Proceedings of the International
Journal of Computer Science And Information Security
(IJCSIS), Vol. 4, No. 1 & 2, August 2009.
[4] Douceur J. R., “The Sybil attack”, in: Proceedings of the
Douceur J. R., “The Sybil attack”, in: Proceedings of the
First International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems
(IPTPS '02), 2002.
[5] Newsome J., Shi E., Song D. and Perrig A., “The Sybil
attack in sensor networks: analysis and defenses”, in:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pp. 259–
268, April 2004.
[6] D. Liu, P. Ning, “Establishing pairwise keys in distributed
sensor networks”, in: Proceedings of the ACM
Conference on Computer and Communications Security,
pp. 52–61, October 2003.
[7] Zhong S., Li L., Liu Y. G. and Yang Y. R., "Privacy-
preserving location based services for mobile users in
Wireless Networks", In: Proceedings of the Technical
Report YALEU/DCS/TR-1297, Yale Computer Science,
2004.
[8] Demirbas M. and Song Y., "An RSSI-based scheme for
Sybil attack detection in wireless sensor networks", In:
Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society International
Symposium on World of Wireless, Mobile and
Multimedia Networks, pp. 570–574, 2006
[9] Ssu K. F, Wang W. T. and Chang W. C., “Detecting Sybil
attacks in wireless Sensor Networks using neighboring
information”, in: Proceedings of the Computer Networks
53, pp. 3042–3056, 2009.
[10] Chen S., Yang G. and Chen S., “A Security Routing
Mechanism against Sybil Attack for Wireless Sensor
Networks”, in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Communications and Mobile Computing,
2010.

www.ijcat.com 438
[11] Misra S. and Myneni S., “On Identifying Power Control
Performing Sybil Nodes in Wireless Sensor Networks
Using RSSI”, in: Proceedings of the IEEE
Communications Society, 2010.
http://www.csee.usf.edu/~labrador/Share/Globecom/DA
TA/03-384-04.PDF
[12] ZHANG Y., FAN K.-.F., ZHANG S.-B. and MO W.,
”AOA based trust evaluation sheme for Sybil attack
detection in WSN”, in: Proceedings of the journal on
Application Research of Computers, 2010.
[13] Muraleedharan R., Ye X. and Osadciw L.A., “Prediction
of Sybil Attack on WSN Using Bayesian Network and
Swarm Intelligence”, in: Proceedings of the Wireless
Sensing and Processing, Orlando, FL, USA, March 2008.
[14] Jangra A., Swati, Priyanka, “Securing LEACH Protocol
from Sybil Attack using Jakes Channel Scheme (JCS)”,
in: Proceedings of the International Conferences on
Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions(ICTer2011),
2011.
[15] Jiangtao W., Geng Y., Yuan S. and Shengeshou C.,
“Defending Against Sybil Attacks Based on Received
Signal Strength in Wireless Sensor Networks”, in:
Proceedings of the journal of elctronics, Vol. 17,No. 4,
Oct. 2008.
[16] Jamshidi, M., Esnaashari, M. and Meybodi, M. R., "An
Algorithm for Defending Sybil Attacks based on Client
Puzzles and Learning Automata for Wireless Sensor
Networks", in: Proceeding of 18th National Conference
of Computer Society of Iran , Sharif University, Tehran,
Iran, March 14-16, 2013.
[17] Jamshidi, M., Esnaashari, Nasri A., Hanani A. and
Meybodi, M. R., "Detecting Sybil Nodes in Mobile
Wireless Sensor Networks using Observer Nodes”, in:
Proceeding of 10th International ISC Conference On
Information Security &Cryptologhy, Computer Society
of Iran , yazd University, yazd, Iran, August 29-30, 2013.
[18] Rezai A., Jamshidi M. and AkbariTorkestani J., "A
lightweight and robust algorithms to detect Mobile Sybil
Nodes in Moblie Wireless Sensor Networks using
Information about the mobility of nodes”, in: Proceeding
of 10th International ISC Conference On Information
Security &Cryptologhy, Computer Society of Iran , yazd
University, yazd, Iran, August 29-30, 2013.
[19] Butler K. and et al., “Leveraging Identity-Based
Cryptography for Node ID Assignment in Structured P2P
Systems”, in: Proceedings of the IEEE transaction on
parallel and distributed systems, Vol. 20, 2009.
[20] Piro C., Shields C. and Levine B. N. , ”Detecting the
Sybil Attack in Mobile Ad hoc Networks”, in:
Proceedings of the Securecomm and Workshops, pp 1-
11, 2006.
[21] Yu C. M., Lu C. S. , and Kuo S. Y., “Mobile Sensor
Network Resilient Against Node Replication Attacks” In:
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Sensor, Mesh
and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks (SECON),
June 2008.

A Lightweight Algorithm for Detecting Sybil Attack in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks using Sink Nodes

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to A Lightweight Algorithm for Detecting Sybil Attack in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks using Sink Nodes (20)

More from Editor IJCATR (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Lightweight Algorithm for Detecting Sybil Attack in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks using Sink Nodes