Paper id 71201999

International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.7, No.1, January 2019
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org
475
Detection of Black Hole Attack in DSR Routing
Protocol by modified cooperative bait detection scheme
R.Saranya1
, Dr.R.S.Rajesh2
1,2
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India.
Email: saranya.shantha@gmail.com1
, rs_rajesh1@yahoo.co.in2
Abstract- The main purpose of this paper is to provide security algorithms against Malicious Node Attack in
Mobile Adhoc Network. The node must cooperate with each other to meet the need in the ad-hoc mobile network
(MANETs) which provide communication between nodes. The arrival of abnormal nodes (harmful nodes) can
cause serious security problems. To resolve this issue, this paper provides a new security network algorithm. The
proposed approach consists of three steps: 1) Initial Setup Step; 2) Attack Identification Step using Reverse
Tracing, and 3) reactive protection step. The first step detects the existence of potential nodes along the way. The
second step finds non-harmful nodes and nodes that are dangerous in the transfer path. Finally, the last step
locates a malicious location based on the energy price. To analyze the effectiveness of the suggested method uses
the Detection accuracy Misclassification rate, Detection time, Packet Delivery Ratio, Routing Overhead, End-to-
End Delay, Throughput, and Packet Loss. Experimental results show that the proposed method offers the best
results from the existing approach.
Keywords- Mobile ad hoc network (MANET); malicious node; black hole attack; Cooperative bait detection
scheme (CBDS); Packet Modification
1. INTRODUCTION
Mobile ad hoc networks (MANET) is one of the
important networks in wireless communication. The
main and serious problem of the wireless network is
security. MANET is a decentralized network.
MANET's main feature is topology and message
publishing created by the node itself. MANET use
different positions and can be installed via the air.
MANET's use is a separate high-end mobile network.
MANETs are exclusive among inaccessible
communication networks, as experimental from the
crucial application areas. On the other hand, the
exclusive characteristics required by MANET
applications require distinctive solutions and separate
MANETs from other predictable networks. There are
different challenges may take for an account while
designing a MANET.
It is well known that node detection of hackers in
MANET is difficult because nodes are all mobile.
Traffic may be affected by a joint attack provided by a
node in a mobile network (MANET). Malicious nodes
are defined as nodes that want to exclude services to
other nodes on the network. This type of node offers
many security issues such as gray hole and black hole
attacks in collaboration. The attack is a network
operator in which hackers attempt to change the target
data or data on the path to the target.
For an attack in a gray hole, this node is not
recognized for the first time because it is endangered,
but only afterward protect its presence in a network of
security solutions based on trust. Then, rejection data
entry of data when the packet passes through it. In this
article, identifying common black holes using the
Dynamic Navigation Integration (DSR) technique is
focused.
DSR has two main steps. The first step is path
detection and the second step is path preservation. In
order to run the path and to find the node on the route,
the RREQ packet is transmitted in the network. From
the total number of nodes, the only partial node
contains information about the path and pass this
information to the destination for taking action with
RREP which should be transmitted to the source node.
The time when RREQ is transferred to the node which
added its address data to the RREQ route is recorded.
After receiving RREQ, the address of each point
between the roads can be obtained. The target node is
based on collecting data between packets and send the
RREP response to the source node along with all path
information in the path. The DSR does not have a
detective method, except the source node be able to
obtain the entire path data. In this work, these aspects
have been utilized. The nanomaterial node

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
476
demonstrates the possibility of a new route, regardless
of the roadmap. In this case, the attack unit will
respond to the road proposal, thus passing the packet
and holding it. For flood-based protocols, abuse
responses will be received from the request module
before receiving a response from the actual node. In
this way, the path of malice and falsehood is being
created. When this is set, it depends on the node
whether the packet is forwarded or forwarded to an
unknown address. Generally, harmful nodes are
inserted into the router.
The following section summarizes previous related
work.
2. RELATED WORK
Tsou et al. [13] have provided a mechanism for
finding dangerous nodes that have launched
black/gray/ black attack attacks and CBDS (CBD)
attacks. It includes active defense architecture and
reaction and collaboration with neighboring nodes. By
addressing the vulnerability of the neighboring nodes
due to the manipulation of bait, he lures bad intentions
to encounter RREP and finds programs evaluating
malicious nodes for traceability and thus preventing
their attacks. Deng et al [7] planned an answer to the
part drawback for an ad-hoc on-demand routing
protocol. One limitation of the planned methodology
is that it supports an assumption where malicious
nodes would not work as a bunch, though this might
happen throughout a true situation and presently
gazing this drawback of team attacks. Xue and
Nahrstedt et al [22] planned a replacement routing
service named best-effort fault-tolerant routing
(BFTR) the look goal of BFTR is to produce packet
routing service with high delivery quantitative relation
and low overhead in presence of misbehaving nodes.
Rather than distinguishing a path is nice or unhealthy,
BFTR evaluates the routing challenges of a path by its
end-to-end performance (e.g. packet delivery
quantitative relation and delay). BFTR dynamically
routes the packets via the foremost possible path.
BFTR provides an economical and uniform resolution
for a broad variety of node misbehaviors with only a
few security assumptions. The BFTR formula is
evaluated through each analysis and intensive
simulations. The results show that BFTR greatly
improves the ad-hoc routing performance in the
presence of misbehaving nodes. Baadache and
Belmehdi et al. [3] predicted that when the area was
attacked by a mechanical mechanism, it was sure to
check the gloomy packet intersection. Anticipated
responses avoid attacks by regions and areas of
cooperation. An analytical indicator was noted in the
simulation to illustrate the effectiveness of the
suggested responses.
Liu et al [10] introduce a 2AK o chain that
examines the weaknesses of MANET. In this method,
two node neighbor distance data are transmitted on the
contrary way of the track to show that the data
package is successful. This project belongs to an
active project and therefore creates additional paths,
regardless of the presence of harmful nodes. S.
Ramaswamy, H. Fu, Sreekantaradhya, J. Dixon and K.
Nygardet al. [17] CBDS in the Hybrid Defense design.
How to find hackers Introducing a joint attack and
black hole attack is called CBDS (Collaborative
Threat). It unites active architecture and reactions and
works with any random nodes. Through the bad
address of the neighboring node due to the address of
the bait and the detection of harmful nodes through the
tracker, thus preventing the attack. K.Vishnu and
A.J.Paul et al [11] found the black/gray hole in the
mobile network. Pull down to expand, so it requires
the nearest BMP. RREP responses are distributed to
all BIPs and destinations without end. If the power
node receives a response from the direction of the
direction, it shows that there is no part of the route.
When the node receives a BIP response that indicates
that Blackhole attacks then is in the path. Finally,
transportation found parts of the road. When you find
a private attack, the power node sends blind
knowledge to the destination. No nodes found nearby.
Here, the algorithm finds the status on the package. In
the Gregorian calendar month, there are Wang Wang,
Bang Phavi, and Emmanuel, and others. [21] To stop
spontaneous network attacks. Hash works significantly
on the basis of the mechanism used to locate small
drops in the network. It stores information about
transmitted and transmitted information. At W. Kozma
and L. Lazos et al. [19], REAct has been announced.
The study considers the question of faulty cluster
detection that rejects the packet without directing it to
its destination. To top off, the strategy is listed as
REACT. REAct detects harmful nodes through a
number of random audit mechanisms in the event of a
decrease in performance. A service node and
destination will be ready to perform a dangerous node
with the REAct mechanism. This indicator is made up
of a filter for abnormalities and minimizes top-line
communication to detect harmful nodes.

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
477
Mamatha et al. [6] explore the behavior of
degradation due to the existence of this dangerous
(bad attitude) at Manet. They are designed and
evaluated in a specified way (AODV + ACK + PFC)
to observe and mitigate the results of professional
misconceptions. In the future, improvements can also
be achieved by evaluating various nodes and web
parameters. In addition, the topic can be expanded to
identify and prevent multiple attacks on layer layers to
allow methods to generate more force against attacks.
Rajaram et al. [2] Requested a security certificate
based on trusted confidentiality and authentication of
the packet both in the transmission and in the
MANET's connection layer. In the initial stage of the
protocol, they developed a trustworthy bait scheme to
detect and isolate dangerous nodes using layered
layers of data. It employs a trust value to facilitate
transmitted by preserving trust for each other. A node
is penalized or rewarded by reducing or increasing
trust. If the confidence value falls below the
corresponding node confidence level, it is flagged as
risky. The next phase of the protocol provides layer
protection using the Cipher Block Chaining (CBC-X)
authentication method and encryption method.
Anandukey et al [16] investigated the wrong
practice of the node and plan a completely new
approach to the detection and isolation of the node
configured badly. Planned approaches are often
combined with high-level protocols, protocols,
estimated DSRs and reliance packages for the
causation to receive victimization packets into
individualized accounts, how to package volumes,
triumphal problems Of bad nodes. Joint planning
methods that are less loaded on roads and many
advantages, such as smaller size packages required for
claiming. In the future, any authentication mechanisms
is accepted to make sure the ack square packages
really measure and together as a mechanism to punish
a malicious node. Single et al. [8] Proposed double-
track detection schemes for nodes detected. Suggested
schema features include high detection of nonsensical
nodes, minor irregularities, slight changes in the
application layer and easy-to-implement hardware
programs. Only after set the time and the number of
users. The project can be implemented at a very low
price. Manvi et al [18] investigated the deterioration in
productivity caused by such selfish (bad) nodes in
MANET. They have analyzed and evaluated a
technique called 2ACK to detect and mitigate the
effects of such bad behavior. They have embedded
some aspects of security with 2ACK to verify the
privacy of the message by checking the original hash
code with the GSC code generated in the destination.
One of the advantages of the 2ACK scheme is its
flexibility to control overhead costs. Pirzada et al [1]
Display a new trusted framework for identifying and
isolating nodes that generate sockets on the network
without having to implement crypto devices. With
extensive experiments, they have shown that their
projects work efficiently in the face of harmful nodes
and do not require unnecessary conditions in the
network's construction and operation. Ren et al [20]
protection topics with detection and response
mechanisms. Signs of detection include the frequency
of RTS / CTS packages, busy frequencies (signal
disturbances), and the transmission of various RTS /
DATA messages. The response theme is based on the
Acceleration labeling mechanism. Through a deeper
networking experiment of ns2, tend to show the
presence of a high level of delays and delays under
this type of attack.
N.Venkatadri et al [12] Adhoc's wireless network is a
type of wireless network with no fixed infrastructure.
Ad Hoc network devices can work on networks within
a specific range. Currently, most of the transactions
are done via a computer network so they are more
susceptible to physical security threats. One of the
major DOS attacks that destroy MANET's entire
performance is the Black Hole attack. In the case of
attack, the node black hole does not forward packets
forward but packaged. In this work, black hole attacks
were detected and deleted by the use of digital
signatures with two fish algorithms. Authors have
modified the transfer protocol on a request called a
TORA, and call it STORA. Our STORA works well
under normal conditions and in the black hole from
the original TORA. Pham Thi Ngoc Diep et al [14] the
tolerance network is designed to handle unconnected
connections and latency in the wireless network. Due
to limited connections, DTN is susceptible to black
hole holes and deceptive slots, where there is an
accidental key, all or part of a package of deliberate
intent. Although the existing proposals may find an
attack initiated by individuals, they cannot solve the
problem that is working together to defeat the defense
system. In this article, plan to handle both individual
and contractual agreements is proposed. Nodes are
required to change notes from previous meetings and
evaluate others based on their message transmission
ratios. A malicious node may not be found by a mixed
group to hide the proportion of the redirected aspect
ratio. In order to downgrade the package permanently

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
478
and raise the meter at the same time, the attacker must
create a high-frequency meeting record and a large
number of messages sent. This leads to the abnormal
behavior of fake meetings, which contradicts the
assertions and gives signs of collusion. Extensive
experiments indicate that our solution can work with a
variety of dropouts and a high number of highly
precise and low-level moderators. Harsh Pratap Singh,
et al [9] the special mobile network is a collection of
mobile nodes that temporarily creates a network and
has a few infrastructure networks. Because of self-
motivation or mobility in nature, nasal forces are
vulnerable to security threats that drive network
performance. This article discusses the review of
various types of coordinated attacks such as Blackhole
/ Blackjack attack, the most serious threat in the
mobile network. In more than one node, the nucleus
attacks more than one negotiation, which is why it is
difficult to identify. This article provides an overview
of several safety mechanisms to remove the black hole
/ black hole attacks from the network. Yanzhi Ren,
(2014) et al [4] The Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs)
are of paramount importance in providing essential
services, including emergency scenarios and battle
applications. However, DTNs are vulnerable to
malware attacks, which are malicious nodes, packet
records in the same location, and download them to
other shared nodes that keep them on the web. The
Wormhole attack is a serious threat to DTN's normal
network operations. In this article, various methods
developed to detect worms is covered. Most of them,
however, cannot work effectively in DTN. To detect
the presence of a worm attack, a mechanism to detect
the existence of a prohibited network topology is
offered. Using the road route and the Zebranet model
is approached through extensive experiments. Our
results show that the suggested method can detect
Worm attacks in DTNs effectively and efficiently.
KanuGeete et al [15] Wireless networks are multi-
hotspot networks and can be used as synonyms for
Adhoc networks. This is a network that has many links
to the ability to cope with web design. Security is a
challenge for wireless networks. The nature of the
configuration itself makes the wireless network
vulnerable to various attacks. Exploiting WMN may
result in damages to network performance. In this
article, some attacks occurring on different layers of
the TCP / IP model is discussed. Comparative survey
for specific attacks on the network layer is discussed.
Gray hole attacks are often difficult to detect and
recover. There are different detection techniques that
have advantages and disadvantages. Arul Kumaran et
al [5] propose a new strategy to detect black hole
attack based on energy auditing, packet veracity check
and trust node to improve the performance of AODV.
3. PROPOSED WORK
The proposed method is based on DSR. Therefore,
detection of all nodes along the path is possible by
sending RREP information in the network. It is
possible that the new nodes do not identify the average
nodes with path information, responding to RREP or
bad nodes by creating RREP. This scenario can cause
the outcome of the node to send packets on the
shortest path chosen by the node that could cause
black hole attacks. To overcome this problem,
HELLO was included in CBDS to help each node
recognize neighbor nodes. This feature can send an
email address to trigger a malicious key and reverse
the CBDS video reverse trick to find a malicious URL.
The RREQ library packages, similar to the original
RREQ package, except their receiving addresses, are
obscene. The proposed approach consists of three
steps: 1) Initial setup step; 2) attack identification step
using reverse tracing, and 3) reactive protection step.
These three steps are discussed in the most detailed
way below.
3.1. Initial Setup Step
The purpose of this step is to emulate the malicious
way which sends fake RREP for the RREQ packet. To
achieve this, the next approach is established to create
goal RREQ packet. The output node selects the
stochastic i node. The node in the one-hop
neighborhood and collaborate with the node, taking its
address for the address of the RREQ. Since any trick
is done stochastic and neighboring nodes will change
if nodes move the bait will not be changed. The
bubble function is activated when sending the RREQ_
bait before finding the original route. First, if the node
does not start a black hole attack after the source
network sends RREQ_, adds to the node's node, it will
have an RREP response to the other node. This shows
that harmful nodes are on the way.
3.2. Attack Identification Step using Reverse
Tracing
Tracker is used for detecting harmful node behavior
responding to RREQ_ paths. If a malicious node is
accidentally receiving RREQ it will respond with fake
RREP. Therefore, the reverse transaction process will
be performed for the node getting RREP to reveal

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
479
suspicious data about the route and the trusted transit
area on the road. It supposed to be stressed that CBDS
can identify additional dangerous nodes and in which
time these nodes have transmitted RREPs. To show
that the malicious node is in the S sequences, the
initial node will transmit the hello package to the path
and forward the message to the second node of the last
node in the T series. By checking transmit and
returned back signals up to final node in T series,
decision made on each nodes. The next node saves the
black hole list and broadcasts network notifications to
warn every node on the node. If the last node drops
packets instead of forwarding, the original node will
keep it in the blacklist.
3.3. Reactive Protection Phase
3.3.1 Malicious Node Detection using Energy
Value
After initial protection, the DSR path discovery
method has been stimulated. The particular time where
the path is recognized in addition to the energy value
is discovered which is important for the system boot
level, then the discovery will be re-enabled to find
untrusted support and real-time response. The energy
value is calculated for all nodes including both normal
node and attacker nodes. Then these energy value is
compared with an energy threshold value. Threshold is
different in [30%, 70%]. The initial level is 90%.
Dynamic Threshold Algorithm that executes the time
when power-sharing is broadcasted to a similarly low
level. If the limit value is reduced, this indicates that
the malicious nodes stay in the network. In such a
situation, the lowest level should be corrected. Or else,
the limit value will be reduced.
4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
To analysis the performance the proposed
following performance metrics are used. Average
Delay, Degree of Aggregation, Packet Loss, Network
Lifetime and Energy Consumption.
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed system is implemented using
Network Simulator (NS2). In the simulation
experiments, several parameters are used. They are
listed in the table given as follows.
Table 1. The planning and control components.
No of Nodes 50
Area Size 1000m x 1000m
Target Size [500,500] x [500,500]
Simulation
Duration
150 seconds
Queue Limit 20
Packet Size 552 Bytes
Packet Interval 2
Communication
Range
30 m
Buffer Size 20 packets
5.1. Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR)
Packet Delivery Ratio defines the total number of
delivered packets from the available packets. This is
one of the performance metrics. This metric is used to
analyze the performance of this proposed method. It is
calculated by using the below formula
SP= (1)
5.2. Average Throughput (AT)
Average throughput is described as the average
ratio of successful message delivery through a
communication channel. This is one of the
performance metrics. This metric is used to analyze
the performance of this proposed method. It is
calculated by using the following formula
AT=
Fig.6. shows that the proposed method gives higher
performance than AODV and Fuzzy Logic. The value
of the average throughput of other system and the
proposed system is given in Table 3.
5.3. Trust Value Computation
The difference in the number of sent packets
and received packets can be noticed easily. That
difference might be caused by the loss of packets,
inserted packets or multiplied packets. The probability
of packets being lost, inserted and multiplied can be
computed by the following equation:
(3)
Where is obtained by Number of Received packets
– Number of Sent Packets. Fig.7. shows that the
proposed method gives higher performance than O
AODV and Fuzzy Logic. Table 4. Summarizes the
trust value computation of other techniques and the
proposed system.
5.4. Control Overhead
This metric is a proportion of the amount of control
packet distribution to a number of data transmissions.
5.5. Detection Accuracy
Detection Accuracy is the measurement system, which
measures the degree of closeness of measurement

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
480
between the original malicious node and the detected
malicious node by the proposed method.
5.6. Varying the Number of Nodes with a Fixed
Mobility
Fig.1. Energy value of CBDS and CBDS+Energy for
different Number of Nodes
This paper study the energy value of the CBDS and
CBDS+Energy for a different number of nodes. The
results are captured and showed in Fig. 1. In this
study, the total number of malicious nodes are taken in
this work from 0 to 10 in percentage. The highest node
speed is taken as 20 m/s. Here, the energy threshold
value is set to 30%, 70%. From the above Fig.1, it can
be observed that our CBDS+Energy scheme shows a
higher energy value compared with that of CBDS.
Although 10 percent of all nodes on the network is at
risk, CBDS + Energy remains successful in detecting
these malicious nodes while maintaining more than 90
percent of its energy.
This paper study the detection accuracy value of the
CBDS and CBDS+Energy for a different number of
nodes. The results are captured and showed in Fig. 2.
In this study, the total number of malicious nodes are
taken in this work from 0 to 10 in percentage. The
highest node speed is taken as 20 m / s. Here, the
energy threshold value is set to 30%, 70%. From the
above Fig.2, it can be observed that our
CBDS+Energy scheme shows a higher detection
accuracy value compared with that of CBDS.
to 93 percent of accuracy value.
Fig.2. Detection Accuracy of CBDS and
CBDS+Energy for different Number of Nodes
Fig.3. Control Overhead of CBDS and CBDS+Energy
for different Number of Nodes
This paper study the control overhead value of the
CBDS and CBDS+Energy for a different number of
CBDS+Energy scheme shows a higher trust value
compared with that of CBDS. Although 10 percent of
all nodes on the network is at risk, CBDS + Energy
remains successful in detecting these malicious nodes
while maintaining less value of control overhead with
500.

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
481
Fig.4. Packet Delivery Ratio of CBDS and
CBDS+Energy for different Number of Nodes
This paper study the packet delivery ratio of the
CBDS and CBDS+Energyfor a different number of
The total number of malicious nodes are taken in this
work from 0 to 10 in percentage. The highest node
speed is taken as 20 m / s. Here, the energy threshold
be observed that our CBDS+Energy scheme gives a
superior packet delivery ratio than the CBDS. Among
the entire nodes, only 10 percent are at risk, CBDS +
Energy remains successful in detecting these
malicious nodes while maintaining more than 92
percent of packet delivery ratio.
Fig.5. Trust Value of CBDS and CBDS+Energy for
different Number of Nodes
This paper study the trust value of the CBDS and
CBDS+Energy for a different number of nodes. The
be observed that our CBDS+Energy scheme shows a
higher trust value compared with that of CBDS.
percent of trust value.
5.7. Varying the Number of Nodes with a
Different Threshold
Fig.6. Energy value of CBDS and CBDS+Energy for
different threshold
This paper study the energy value of the CBDS,
CBDS+Energy-Threshold 35 and CBDS+Energy-
Threshold75 for a different number of nodes. The
be observed that our CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75
scheme shows a higher energy value compared with
that of the other two schemes. Although 10 percent of
all nodes on the network is at risk, CBDS+Energy-
Threshold 75remains successful in detecting these
percent of its energy.
Fig.7. Detection Accuracy of CBDS and
CBDS+Energy for different threshold

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
482
This paper study the detection accuracy value of the
CBDS, CBDS+Energy-Threshold 35 and
CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75 for a different number of
CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75 scheme shows a higher
detection accuracy value compared with that of the
other two schemes. Although 10 percent of all nodes
on the network is at risk, CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75
while maintaining more than 92 to 97 percent of the
accuracy value.
Fig.8. Control Overhead of CBDS and CBDS+Energy
for different threshold
This paper study the control overhead value of the
CBDS+Energy-Threshold75 fora a different number
of nodes. The results are captured and showed in Fig.
8. In this study, the total number of malicious nodes
are taken in this work from 0 to 10 in percentage. The
CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75 method shows a higher
trust value compared with that of the other two
schemes. Although 10 percent of all nodes on the
network is at risk, CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75
while maintaining less value of control overhead with
400.
This paper study the packet delivery ratio of the
CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75 of malicious nodes vary
from 0% to 10% for all network. The highest node
be observed that our CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75
scheme gives a superior packet delivery ratio than the
other two methods. Among the entire nodes only 10
percent are at risk, CBDS+Energy-Threshold
75remains successful in detecting these malicious
nodes while maintaining more than 97 percent of
packet delivery ratio.
Fig.9. Packet Delivery Ratio of CBDS and
CBDS+Energyfor different threshold
Fig.10. Trust Value of CBDS and CBDS+Energy for
different threshold
This paper study the trust value of the CBDS,
CBDS+Energy-Threshold 35 and CBDS+Energy-
Threshold 75 for a different number of nodes. The
results are captured and showed in Fig.10. In this
study, the percentage of malicious nodes varies from
0% to 10% for all network. The highest node speed is
taken as 20 m / s. Here, the energy threshold value is
set to 30%, 70%. From the above Fig.10, it can be
observed that our CBDS+Energy-Threshold 75
scheme shows a higher trust value compared with that
of the other two schemes. Although 10 percent of all
nodes on the network is at risk, CBDS+Energy-
Threshold 75 remains successful in detecting these

E-ISSN: 2321-9637
483
percent of trust value.
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a new approach is proposed for finding
and avoiding malicious node attack in MANETs. In
this work, the node source selects a highly valuable
node for collaboration, in that the node's address is
employed as a trap to track malicious nodes to launch
RREP messages as a response. In this case, a
malicious node was detected and prevented from
participating in the operation of the input using
energy-based reverse tracing technology. The
performance metrics shows the result of the existing
and proposed system. From the experimental setup, it
is shown that the proposed approach gives the best
result than the existing approaches.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Pirzada and C. McDonald, “Detecting and
evading wormholes in mobile ad hoc wireless
networks,” International Journal of Network
Security, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 191-202, 2006.
[2] A.RajaramandS.Palaniswami, “Malicious node
detection system for mobile ad hoc networks,”
International Journal of Computer Science and
Information Technologies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 77-
85, 2010.
[3] Baadache and A. Belmehdi, “Avoiding Blackhole
and cooperative Blackhole attacks in wireless ad
hoc networks,” Intl. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Security,
vol. 7, no. 1, 2010.
[4] Bansi S. Kantariya1, Dr. Narendra M. Shekokar,”
Detection and Mitigation of Greyhole Attack in
Wireless Sensors Network Using Trust
Mechanism”, 2013.
[5] G. Arulkumaran& R. K. Gnanamurthy, ”Fuzzy
Trust Approach for Detecting Black Hole Attack
in Mobile Adhoc Network ”, 2017.
[6] G.S.MamathaandS. C.Sharma, “Anew
combination approach to secure manets against
attacks,” International Journal of Wireless &
Mobile Networks, vol.2, no.4, pp. 71-80, 2010.
[7] H. Deng, W. Li, and D. Agrawal, “Routing
Security in Wireless Adhoc Network,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 10, Oct. 2002.
[8] H. Liu, J. G. Delgado-Frias, and S. Medidi,
“Using two-timer scheme to detect selfish nodes
in ad-hoc networks,” in 6th IASTED International
Conference Communication, Internet, and
Information Technology, pp.179-184, Alberta,
Canada, 2007.
[9] JaydipSen,” Detection of Cooperative Black Hole
Attack in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, Bengal
Intelligent Park, Salt Lake Electronic Complex,
Kolkata, India,2014.
[10] K. Liu, D. Pramod, K. Varshney, and K.
Balakrishnan, “An Acknowledgement based
approach for the detection of routing misbehavior
in MANETs,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol.
6, no. 5, pp. 536–550, May 2007.
[11] K. Vishnu and A. J Paul, “Detection and removal
of cooperative black/gray hole attack in mobile ad
hoc networks,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 1, no.
22, pp. 28–32, 2010.
[12] N.Venkatadri, Reham Abdellatif Abouuhogail,
and Ahmed Yahya, “Secure TORA: Removal of
Black Hole Attack using Twofish Algorithm”,
International Journal of Software Engineering and
its Applications, 2016.
[13] P.-C. Tsou, J.-M. Chang, H.-C. Chao, and J.-L.
Chen, “CBDS: A cooperative bait detection
scheme to prevent malicious node for MANET
based on hybrid defense architecture,” in Proc.
2nd Intl. Conf. Wireless Commun., VITAE,
Chennai, India, Feb. 28–Mar. 03, pp. 1–5,2011.
[14]Pham Thi Ngoc Diep, Monika Sachdeva,
“Detecting Colluding Blackhole and
Greyholeattack in Delay Tolerant Networks”,
ICRTEDC-2015, Vol. 1, Special Issue. 2.
[15]Pham Thi Ngoc Diep,” Detecting Colluding
Blackhole and Greyhole Attack in Delay Tolerant
Networks”, 2015.
[16]S. Anandukey and M. Chawla,
“Detectionofpacket dropping attack using
improved acknowledgment based scheme in
MANET, ”International Journal of Computer
Science Issues I, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 12-17, 2010.
[17]S. Ramaswamy, H. Fu, M. Sreekantaradhya, J.
Dixon, and K. Nygard, “Prevention of cooperative
blackhole attacks in wireless ad hoc networks,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Wireless Netw., pp. 570–575,
Jun. 2003.
[18]S. S. Manvia, L. B. Bhajantrib, and V. K. Vagga,
“Routing misbehavior detection in manets using
2ACK,” Journal of Telecommunication and
Information Technology, vol 4, no. 1, pp. 105-
111, 2010.
[19]W. Kozma and L. Lazos, “REAct resource-
efficient accountability for node misbehavior in
ad hoc networks based on random audits,” in
Proc. WiSec , pp. 103–110, 2009.
[20]W. Ren, Dit-Yan Yeung, Hai Jin, and Mei Yang,
“PulsingRoQDDoSattack and defense scheme in
mobile ad hoc networks,” International Journal of
Network Security, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 227-234,
2007.
[21]W. Wang, B. Bhargava, and M. Linderman,
“Defending against collaborative packet drop
attacks on MANETs,” in Proc. 28th IEEE Int.
Symp. Reliable Distrib. Syst., New Delhi, India,
Sep. 2009.
[22]Y. Xue and K. Nahrstedt, “Providing fault-
tolerant Adhoc routing service in adversarial
environments,” Wireless Pers. Commun. vol. 29,
pp. 367– 388, 2004.

Paper id 71201999

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Paper id 71201999 (20)

More from IJRAT (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Paper id 71201999