Attacks and Routing Protocols in MANET: A Review

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 12 | Dec-2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 735
ATTACKS AND ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET: A REVIEW
Neha Sharma1, Dr. Harpal Singh2
1 Student , 2 Professor, CGC Landran
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: An analysis on mobile ad hoc network has been
provided in this paper which is considered as a temporary
network with the nodes moving freely from one position to
other position without the need of an administrator. All the
nodes communicate with each other through radio link and
follow different topologies and protocolsfortransmittingthe
data packet within the network. Description of MANET with
its characteristics has been provided along withitstypes.For
finding the route within the network having no congestion,
different types of routing protocols are defined. The routing
protocols are basically divided into reactive, proactive and
hybrid protocols. The examples for the same are also drawn
following their comparison on the basis of characteristics
and parameters. In MANET routing protocols, occurrence of
different attacks exists that are considered as a problem
while sending the information. In this review, attacks,
namely, black hole attack, gray hole attack and DoS (Denial
of Service) are mentioned with an appropriate example.
Keywords: Mobile ad hoc network, Routing protocols,
black hole attack, DoS attack, gray hole attack
1. Introduction
MANET is a network comprises of a large number of
wireless nodes without any need of centralized
administrator. The structure of MANET changes
continuously as the nodes are free to move and make self
organized network [1]. All the nodes utilize the same
wireless channel. The node in the network usually actslike
a router as well as a host and transfers the data from
source to destination. The architecture of Ad hoc network
is shown in figure 1. Nodes in MANET communicate at
radio frequency ranges from 30 MHz to 5 GHz. Due to the
increasing use of laptop and wireless networks, MANET
has become a hot topic for research.
Fig.1Architecture of Ad-hoc network
Ad hoc network comprises of various devices such as
Access point, router, nodes, and router. The handover of
data from one to another node is purely different from
handover on mobile networks, because in ad hoc network
the control information needs to be minimized [2].
1.1 Types of MANET
MANET is mainly classified into three types including:
 InVANET- It is known as intelligent vehicular ad
hoc networks and is used to detect vehicle
accidents by using artificial intelligence.
 VANET- It is known as Vehicular ad hoc network
and used for communicating with vehicles.
 IMANET- named as Internet based mobile ad hoc
network used to communicate with fixed as well
as mobile nodes
The main characteristic of the MANET is to retain
bandwidth and battery power. The researcher’s main aim
is to design a network in which nodesconsumeslesspower
and used small bandwidth [3].
1.2 Routing protocols in MANET
Routing protocols are used in the network to set some
rules that must be followed by every node in the network
for the transmission of data packet. In MANET, numbersof
routing protocols are used and the selection of accurate
protocol is dependent upon the situation. There are three
types of routing protocols as defined below:
Fig.2 Classification of routing protocols

i. Proactive routing protocol
These protocols are also known as Table driven routing
protocols because they maintain theroutinginformationin
the tabular form. All the nodes in the networks maintain
the routing information for every single node. Routing
information in the table is updated automaticallyasperthe
network topology. The proactive protocolsarenotusedfor
the large network as it requires the routing information of
each and every node in the network which requires more
bandwidth. Examples of proactive routing protocol are
DSDV, OLSR, and HSR [4].
a. DSDV (Destination sequenced distance vector
routing)
DSDV is modified from the traditional RIP (Routing
Information Protocol) for ad hoc networks routing. Every
mobile node in the network keeps a routing table for all
probable destinations in the network and the number of
hops for every destination node. Every entry is taken with
a sequence number and the number given by the
destination node. The updates of routing table are
periodically transferred throughout the network for
maintaining the table consistency. A lot of route updates,
network traffic may employ into packets, namely, “Full
Dump” and “Incremental routing”.
b. OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing)
It is a protocol drawn for MANET and VANET, that utilizes
hello and TC (topology control) messages for discovering
and later disseminating link state information for mobile
ad-hoc network. The individual nodes utilize the topology
information for computing the subsequent hop
destinations for each node in the network by utilizing
shortest hop forwarding paths.
c. HSR (Hierarchical state routing)
The main feature of HSR is logical partitioning of mobile
nodes and multilevel clustering. The network is
categorized in clusters and a cluster-head is considered as
a cluster dependent algorithm. The cluster-heads later
maintain it as clusters. The physical cluster nodes transfer
the link information towards each other. The cluster head
outline the cluster's information and transfers it to
neighboring cluster-heads through gateway.
ii. Reactive routing protocol
These protocols are also known as on demand routing
protocols. In this protocol, the routing table is not
maintained for each and every node in the network. The
route is maintained only for communicating or active
nodes. Whenever a node wants to transmit data packet
from one node to other node, its route is determined in
route table using on demand approach and connection is
established between them. The route is determined by
passing route request packetsin the whole network.AODV
and DSR are the examplesof reactive routing protocols[5].
a. AODV (Ad Hoc On-Demand Vector)
AODV maintains the request via route request plus route
request Query. The varied types of control messages
intended for route maintenance in AODV are: RREQ, RREP
and RRER.
b. DSR (Dynamic Source Routing)
This protocol utilizes the source routing rather on
depending on routing table at every subsequent device. It
takes every address by means of source towards
destination when route discovery takes place.Foravoiding
the long paths or huge addresses, DSR permits the packet
to be passed via hop-by-hop.
iii. Hybrid routing protocol
It is a combination of both the above mentioned proactive
and reactive routing protocols. Example of hybrid routing
protocol are ZRP, AMDMM, and SALMA etc.
a. AMDMM (Audit Misbehavior Detection and
Monitoring Method)
This protocol is used to provide a secure environment in
MANET. The main work of this protocol is to detect a
maliciousnode within the network andsecondly,lookafter
the nodesthat are continuously dropping the data packets.
It basically monitors each and every node and accordingly
decides that which node is malicious so that the network
performance can be increased. It mainly works in three
phases, namely, reputation process, auditing process, and
route discovery process.
b. ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol)
ZRP protocol is used to reduce the control overhead of
proactive routing protocolsand latency occur duetoroute.
The secure communication can take place between the
nodes that are close to each other. ZRP is used to provide a
framework to other protocols.
c. SALMA (State Aware Link Maintenance
Approach)
This protocol is a combination of both proactive and
reactive routing protocol and it helps to decrease the load
on the network. By using this protocol, the nodes are
divided into three types(1) Aware and activenodesknown
as black node, (2) aware but not performing data transfer
except data forwarding which are called gray nodes, and
(3) white nodeswhich are idle and do not keep anyrouting
information. Buffer is used to determine the type of node.
This buffer stores a numerical value in order to identifythe
state and operation of the active node. The value of keep-

awake buffer was triggered by the counter known as keep
awake counter. A white node is denoted by 0 (zero) and it
is stored into the keep-awake buffer. A gray andblacknode
is recognized by the odd or even numbers in the buffer.
The comparison between these three routing protocols is
provided below in table 1. The comparisonhasbeendrawn
on the basis of number of characteristics, namely, Routing
structure, routing overhead, scalability, mobility, routing
information, bandwidth, power and storage.
Table.1 Comparison of routing protocols
Characteristics Proactive Reactive Hybrid
Routing structure Hierarchical and flat Flat Hierarchical
Route type Table driven On demand
Both table driven and on
demand
Routing overhead High Low Medium
Scalability Low
Not used for large
network Used for large area
Routing information Available always Available when needed Integration of both
Mobility Updated periodically Maintain route Combined both
Storage Require large space Require low space Require medium space
Bandwidth Need large bandwidth Need small bandwidth
Need medium
bandwidth
Power Require high power Require less power
Require medium
power
Below table 2 is showing the comparison of DSDV, AODV
and ZRP routing protocols. The comparison has been
drawn on the basis of parameters, namely,routingprotocol
type, route selection, routing structure. The advantages
and disadvantages are also shown for AODV, DSDV and
ZRP.
Table 2 Comparison of AODV, DSDV and ZRP routing protocol
Parameters/Advantages
/Disadvantages
AODV DSDV ZRP
Routing protocol Type Reactive Proactive Hybrid
Routing structure On-demand Table driven Combination of both
Route selection Short and updated path Link state Link reversal
Route maintenance Route table Route table Link table
Advantages 1. 1. Adaptive to high dynamic
topology
2. 2. Loop free
3. 3. Large bandwidth due to less
overheads
1. Loop free
2. Shortest route to all
designations is selected.
1. Performed in properly
configured area in which
both reactive and routing
protocols are performed.
Disadvantages 1. More delay
2. More time to make the
routing table
1. High overhead
2. Multiple routing is not
possible.
1. Route to sink node is
suboptimal
2. Require more memory
space
3. Attacks on MANET protocol
A number of attacks like black hole attack, wormhole
attack, sink hole attack, and gray hole attack occurs in
MANET routing protocol. The explanation for the same is
defined below.
i. Black hole attack
Black hole attack is the serious problem for the MANET, in
which a malicious node sends wrong routing information,
defining that it suggests the shortest path to the sink node
with the packets it wants to interrupt and then grip them
without promoting to the destination. For example, in
AODV, the malicious node can send fake route reply
(RREP) packets. Due to which all the traffic is conveyed
through the malicious node and thus, the malicious node
can misuse or reject the traffic [6].

Fig.3 Black hole attack
As shown in the figure above, at node four in the network
black hole attack occurs. Here, S is the source node andDis
the destination node. When source node wantsto transmit
data packet, it will send the request which is indicated by
blue arrow. When destination node receives the request
then in response to this, request destination node send a
reply message which is shown by yellow arrow. When the
node with black hole attack receives the request message
then it will also send a fake reply which is indicated by red
arrow [7].
ii. Gray hole attack
A gray-hole attack is an expansion of black-hole attack
which is used to fraud the source node and networking
system by partial forwarding. The attackers behave as a
true node and try to take part in the full transmission and
reception of data packet process. When gray hole attack
occurs in the network it will update the routing table
falsely and tell the source node that gray hole malicious
node is the shortest path to transmit the data. Thus, source
node considers it as next hop node and transmits data to
the malicious node. Malicious node catches all the
incoming packets but drops on arbitrary basis. The
detection and prevention of node become difficult as the
drop of the packet may be due to overloading, congestion
etc. [8].
Fig.4 Gray hole attack
iii. DoS (Denial of Service) attack
In this type of attack, an attacker transmits a large number
of packets to the server to slow down the speed of server.
Thus, the resources are not available to the users and
hence, the genuine user cannot access the facility. As
shown in the figure below, PC 1 send request to all PC’s
named as 2, 3, 4, 5and 6. When these PC’s gets the request
than it is being forwarded to the server. It isconcludedthat
server has a number of requests at the same time due to
this process the user can not access the resources [9].
Fig.5 DOS Attack
4. Related work
Z. Li and Y. Wu [10, 2017] proposed a method that used
Optimized link state routing (OLSR) protocol. The
proposed scheme has been used for increasing the
reliability of the node and the simulation results proved
that the proposed method hasgreater accuracy along with
fewer overheads. Y. H. Chen et al. [11, 2017] proposed a
multicast routing protocol that has been used for reducing
the total bandwidth consumption. Y. Fang, et al. [12, 2017]
proposed a method that has been considered both buffer
size and packet lifetime. The problem of end to end delay
hasbeen overcome by using a practical MANET.C. Wu etal.
[13, 2017] presented an approach for MANET, where
nodesare individual and strategic users. A single routehas
been used for securing the data, forwarding the packets.
Chin et al. [14, 2002] implemented a network by using
different protocols named as MAD-HOC, AODV and DSDV.
All the simulations have been carried out inNS-2simulator
tool. A number of problems like packet loss, handling
unreliable, and neighbor discovery and filtering sub layers
have been resolved. S. Abbas et al. [15, 2013] proposed an
approach to identified Sybil attackers. Authors had not
used any extra hardware device such as directional
antennae or a GPS system. Better accuracy has been
obtained in the presence of Sybil attack. P. S. Hiremathetal
[16, 2016] proposed asystem that has been used to detect
and prevent the black hole attack. For detection and
prevention, Fuzzy logic interface method has been used.
AODV routing protocol has been used and the code has
been run on NS- 2 simulator tool. K. A. A. Kumar [17, 2016]
proposed an algorithm named as FPGA mused for

detection of black hole and warm hole attack in thesystem.
When attack occurs in the network the packet traveling
time has been changed.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we have described MANET (Mobile ad hoc
network). Firstly, the brief introduction along with the
basic idea of MANET has been provided. Then, types of
MANET along with routing protocols have been discussed
and comparison among routing protocols have been
provided. At last, different attack named as black hole
attack, DOS attack and gray hole attack are described in
detail. It is being concluded that mobile networking has
become an important and essential technique that
supports future computing methods.
References
[1] C. T. Calafate, M. P. Malumbres, J. Oliver, J. C. Cano
and P. Manzoni, “QoS Support in MANETs: a
Modular Architecture Based on the IEEE 802.11e
Technology,” in IEEE Transactions on Circuitsand
Systems for Video Technology, vol. 19, no. 5, pp.
678-692, May 2009.
[2] C. I. Katsigiannis, D. A. Kateros, E. A. Koutsoloukas,
N. D. Tselikas and I. S Venieris, “Architecture for
reliable service discovery and delivery in manets
based on power management employing slp
extensions,” in IEEE Wireless Communications,
vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 90-95, October 2006.
[3] H. Shen and L. Zhao, “ALERT: An Anonymous
Location-Based Efficient Routing Protocol in
MANETs,” in IEEE Transactions on Mobile
Computing, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1079-1093, June
2013.
[4] H. Xu, X. Wu, H. R. Sadjadpour and J. J. Garcia-
Luna-Aceves, “A unified analysis of routing
protocols in MANETs,” in IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 911-922,
March 2010.
[5] K. Viswanath, K. Obraczka and G.
Tsudik“Correction to “Exploring Mesh and Tree-
Based Multicast Routing Protocols for MANETs”,”
in IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 237-237, Feb. 2007.
[6] Sun, Bo, Yong Guan, Jian Chen, and Udo W. Pooch.
“Detecting black-hole attack in mobile ad hoc
networks,” pp. 490-495, 2003.
[7] Tseng, Fan-Hsun, Li-Der Chou, and Han- Chieh
Chao, “A survey of black hole attacks in wireless
mobile ad hoc networks,” Human-centric
Computing and Information Sciences, vol.1, pp. 4-
10, 2011.
[8] J. Sen, M. G. Chandra, S. G. Harihara, H Reddy and
P. Balamuralidhar, “A mechanism for detection of
gray hole attack in mobile Ad Hocnetworks,”2007
6th International Conference on Information,
Communications & Signal Processing, Singapore,
2007, pp. 1-5.
[9] Nadeem, Adnan, and Michael Howarth,
“Adaptive intrusion detection & prevention of
denial of service attacks in MANET’s Proceedings
of the2009 international conference on wireless
communication and mobile computing.
Connecting the world wirelessly. ACM, 2009.
[10] Z. Li and Y. Wu, “Smooth Mobility and
Link Reliability-Based Optimized Link State
Routing Scheme for MANETs,” in IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1529-
1532, July 2017.
[11] Y. H. Chen, E. H. K. Wu and G. H. Chen,
“Bandwidth-Satisfied Multicast by Multiple Trees
and Network Coding in Lossy MANETs,” in IEEE
Systems Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1116-1127,
June 2017.
[12] Y. Fang, Y. Zhou, X. Jiang and Y. Zhang,
“Practical Performance of MANETsUnderLimited
Buffer and Packet Lifetime,” in IEEE Systems
Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 995-1005, June 2017
[13] C. Wu, M. Gerla and M. van der Schaar,
“Social Norm Incentives for Network Coding
in Manets,” in IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking, vol. 25, no. 3,pp. 1761-1774, June
2017.
[14] Chin, K. W., Judge, J., Williams, A., &
Kermode, R., “ Implementation experience with
MANET routing protocols,” ACM SIGCOMM
Computer Communication Review, vol.32, pp.49-
59, 2002.
[15] S. Abbas, M. Merabti, D. Llewellyn-Jones
and K. Kifayat, “Lightweight SybilAttackDetection
in MANETs,” in IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 236-248, June 2013.
[16] P. S. Hiremath, Anuradha T and P.
Pattan“Adaptive fuzzy inference system for
detection and prevention of cooperative black
hole attack in MANETs,” 2016 International
Conference on Information Science (ICIS), Kochi,
2016, pp. 245-251
[17]K. A. A. Kumar, “Worm hole-black hole attack
detection and avoidance in Manet with random
PTT using FPGA,” 2016 International Conference
on Communication Systems and Networks
(ComNet), Thiruvananthapuram, 2016,pp.93-98.

Attacks and Routing Protocols in MANET: A Review

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to Attacks and Routing Protocols in MANET: A Review (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Attacks and Routing Protocols in MANET: A Review