IJIRST International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology| Volume 3 | Issue 08 | January 2017

ISSN (online): 2349-6010

A Survey on Security and Key Management in

VANET
Vasukidevi G. Dr. R.Sethukarasi
Assistant Professor Professor
R.M.K. College of Engineering and Technology, Puduvoyal, R.M.K. College of Engineering and Technology, Puduvoyal,
India India

Abstract
Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) is an emerging technology for enhancing the safety measures of vehicles. To ensure
safety and to keep track of accident prone zones, there is a need for communication between vehicles. The advantages of
VANETs are that they upgrade traffic safety and vehicle security while shielding drivers' protection from assaults executed by
enemies. Security is a standout amongst the most basic issues identified with VANETs since the data transmitted is dispersed in
an open get to environment. VANETs confront many difficulties. This paper shows a study of the security issues and the
difficulties they create. The different classes of uses in VANETs are presented, and additionally some security prerequisites,
dangers and certain structures are proposed to take care of the security issue. Here, various authentication and secure key
management mechanisms in VANET are reviewed and their advantages are listed. The performance metrics used in different
technique for analysis are also studied.
Keywords: VANET, Security, Key Management, Authentication
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks, (VANET), are a specific sort of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, (MANET), in which vehicles go about
as hubs and every vehicle is prepared with transmission abilities which are interconnected to shape a system. The topology made
by vehicles is normally extremely progressive and randomly circulated. Keeping in mind the end goal to exchange data about
these sorts of systems, standard MANET directing calculations are not appropriate. The accessibility of route frameworks on
every vehicle makes it mindful of its geographic area and in addition its neighbors. In any case, a specific sort of steering
approach, called Geographic Routing, gets to be distinctly conceivable where parcels are sent to a goal basically by picking a
neighbor who is topographically nearer to that goal. With the quick development of vehicles and roadside activity screens, the
progression of route frameworks, and the ease of remote organize gadgets, promising shared (P2P) applications and remotely
determined administrations to vehicles got to be distinctly accessible[1]. For this reason, the Intelligent Transportation
Frameworks (ITS) have proposed the Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) norms that characterize a design that
all things considered empowers vehicle-to- 2 vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-foundation (V2I) remote communications.
As indicated by models of system, VANET can be partitioned into three classifications, the first is the Wireless Wide Area
Network (WWAN) in which the get to purposes of the cell doors are settled with a specific end goal to permit coordinate
correspondence between the vehicles and the get to focuses[2]. Be that as it may, these get to focuses require expensive
establishment, which is not possible. The second classification is the Half and half Wireless Architecture in which WWAN get to
focuses are utilized at certain focuses while a specially appointed correspondence gives get to and correspondence in between
those get to focuses. The third and last classification is the Ad Hoc V2V Correspondence which does not require any settled get
to focuses all together for the vehicles to impart. Vehicles are outfitted with remote system cards, and a unconstrained setting up
of a specially appointed system should be possible for every vehicle[3]. This review will concentrate on considering specially
appointed V2V correspondence systems, which are otherwise called VANETs. The motivation behind VANET is to permit
remote correspondence between vehicles on the street including the roadside remote sensors, empowering the exchange of data
to guarantee driving wellbeing and making arrangements for element steering, permitting portable detecting and additionally
giving in-auto stimulation.
As VANETs have extraordinary qualities which incorporate element topology, visit detachment of the systems, and differing
situations for correspondence, the steering conventions for customary MANET, for example, Ad hoc On-request Distance Vector
(AODV) are not specifically usable for VANETs.Scientists have built up an assortment of productive steering conventions for
VANETs counting Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing (GPSR). The present issue, in any case, is that the scope of the remote 3
sensors on vehicles is restricted to a couple of hundred meters at most and the movement conditions in a vehicular urban
environment frequently change powerfully. Other than that, VANET directing conventions additionally confront different issues
including the issue of unstructured streets, the distinction in the sizes of the crossing points in a specific range, the sharp bends of
the streets, uneven inclines, and different obstructions, for example, vast structures, activity lights, trees, and sign sheets. As it is
unfeasible to spend unnecessarily on remaking or rebuilding the current streets in urban situations, a steering convention with the
end goal of a bigger separation of information correspondence in oneto-one what's more, one-to-many exchanges particularly for

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 107

 A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET
(IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

VANETs should be created. As a matter of first importance, element distinguishing proof forces that each partaking element
ought to have a diverse and one of a kind identifier. In any case, recognizable proof itself does not infer that the element
demonstrates that it is its real personality this necessity is called substance verification. Each of the application bunches has
diverse needs in regards to these prerequisites.V2V cautioning spread needs recognizable proof to perform message steering and
sending identifiers are fundamental to fabricate directing tables. Fig 1 illustrates the security architecture of VANET.

Fig. 1: Security in VANET

Sender validation is additionally required for obligation purposes. Envision that a normal vehicle sends a warning as though it
were a police watch. It ought to be then expected to demonstrate the character of the radiating hub. In gathering communications
it is not required to distinguish or verify the imparting peers. The main need is to demonstrate that both taking interest substances
have the required credits to wind up gathering individuals this is the quality confirmation necessity[4]. Truth be told, this is the
main correspondence design that needs this necessity. In beaconing, recognizable proof what's more, confirmation of the sender
is required. Close-by vehicles can then form a dependable neighbor table. Both necessities are likewise present in I2V notices,
where just messages sent by the framework are believable. Framework notices are sent to every passing vehicle inside a zone, so
ID or confirmation of the recipient is not required. Despite what might be expected, V2I notices additionally require the
discharging vehicle to be recognized and verified. Along these lines, as it were vehicles with a dependable personality will have
the capacity to send such messages. Finishing the referred to prerequisites ought not suggest less security. Truth be told, security
protection is basic for vehicles. In the vehicular setting, security is accomplished when two related objectives are fulfilled
untraceability and unlinkability.
To start with property states that vehicle's activities xoughtnot to be followed. Then again, second property sets up that it
ought to be unthinkable for an unapproved element to interface a vehicle's character with that of its driver/proprietor.
Nevertheless, this security assurance ought to be evacuated when required by movement powers for obligation acknowledgment.
This prerequisite is available in all V2V messages. Indeed, security ought not to get bargained regardless of the possibility that
distinctive messages are sent by a similar vehicle. It doesn't matter to I2V notices, as the sender (i.e. the framework) does not
have security needs. Non-renouncement necessity guarantees that it will be outlandish for a substance to deny having sent or got
some message. It is required for the sender in V2V notices and reference points. Along these lines, if a vehicle sends some
vindictive information, there will be a proof that could be utilized for obligation purposes. In gathering interchanges it is not by
and large required, as the radiating hub could be any of the gathering individuals. As for I2V and V2I notices, nonrepudiation of
starting point is required, so wrong cautioning messages can be without a doubt connected to the sending hub. Non-denial of

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 108

 A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET
(IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

receipt is not as of now required, but rather it will be later on. As of now, mishap duty depends just on the human driver. Be that
as it may, later on there are some imagined applications that would computerize in part the driving undertaking.
In such circumstance, not accepting a notice message could be basic for risk attribution. Another essential security necessity in
vehicular interchanges is secrecy, that is, to guarantee that messages might be perused by approved gatherings. This necessity is
as it were exhibit in gathering interchanges, in which just gathering individuals are permitted to peruse such data. The rest of the
VANET settings transmit open data. Indeed, this prerequisite is not considered in some past works. In any case, for fulfillment, it
will be considered in this diagram. The accessibility necessity suggests that each hub ought to be equipped for sending any data
whenever. As most exchanged messages influence street movement wellbeing, this necessity is basic in this environment.
Planned correspondence conventions and instruments ought to spare however much data transmission and computational power
as could be expected, while satisfying these security necessities. It is available on all correspondence designs, that is, it
influences not just V2V interchanges, additionally I2V ones. At long last, identified with the data itself, information
trustworthiness and precision must be guaranteed. Information in question ought not to be modified and, more imperatively, it
ought to be honest. False or changed information ought to prompt to potential accidents, bottlenecks and other activity security
issues. Hence, information trust must be given on all VANET communications.

II. AUTHENTICATION AND KEY MANAGEMENT

The difference between unicasting and multicasting is that the packets are transmitted several times in unicasting, whereas in
multicasting the packets are forwarded to multiple destinations once. Answer for hinder access of information in the gathering is
cryptography in which keys are particularly scattered. This key is known as the gathering key in the specific circumstance of
gathering correspondence. Just those individuals from the gathering will translate the gathering message that perceives the
aggregate key. Key administration is a fundamental part of any protected correspondence. Most cryptosystem relies on upon a
few major secure, incredible, and profitable key administration structure. At whatever point enrollment changes when a late part
leaves the gathering then again new part joins the gathering this gathering key ought to be revived. This operation is called
rekeying. Bunch key administration suggests dispersion and support required in rekeying and encryption. One of the troubles of
gathering key management [5] is the best approach to ensure rekeying using least transmission capacity overhead without
augmenting stockpiling overhead.
There are different diverse approaches to bargain out with gathering key administration; we can parcel them into three
guideline classes:
Centralized Group Key Management
In this system, key circulation capacity is ensured by one element which is responsible for producing and conveying keys at
whatever point required [5, 6]. So a gathering key administration convention hopes to constrict stockpiling needs, computational
drive on both client and server sides, and information exchange limit utilization [6][7].
Decentralized Group Key Management
Decentralized arrangement will tackle issues of get-together work in single space, in which substantial gathering is part among
subgroup administrators. To keep a key separation from a bottleneck [8] and single level of disappointment chain of key
administrator offers the work of scattering key [7].
Distributed Group Key Management
The fact that in that regard there is no plain Key circulation focus (KDC). Get to control is performed by all individuals and key
era can be either contributing which implies that each one part in gathering contributes some data to get the key or done by one
in every one of the individuals.
Table 1
Comparative Analysis of Task Offloading and Scheduling Techniques
Task Offloading
Author and
Year Techniques Advantages Performance Metrics
References
1) Increases bandwidth utilization
Message authentication at 2) Reduces packet collision 1) Transmission delay
Kargl, et al. [9] 2016
physical layer 3) Decreases end-to-end and 2) End-to-end delay
transmission delay
1) Message size
Buttner, et al. Key agreement protocol for 1) On time delivery of messages
2015 2) Execution time
[10] anonymous authentication 2) Fast execution
3) Faulty messages
Sanchez, et Authentication based on driver 1) Driver and vehicle details can be 1) Message transmission rate
2016
al.[11] ID cards gathered in an efficient way 2) Retransmission rate
1) High level of security and 1) Time for distribution phase
Baldini,et al. Identity based cryptographic
2013 privacy 2) Time for satisfying the requests.
[12] scheme
2) Resolves the key escrow problem 3) ID-based private key

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 109

 A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET
(IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

computation time
4) Sign time
5) Verification time
1) Good authentication
Chim, et al. Multi-level authentication 2) Privacy preservation based on
2012
[13] scheme conditions
3) Traeability
1) BSM received power
K-means clustering based 1) Provides better authentication
Hamida, et al. 2) Average end-to-end BSM delay
2016 Elliptic Curve Digital Signature for basic safety messages even in
[14] 3) Average cryptographic loss
Algorithm (ECDSA) the presence of dense traffic.
4) Average security delay
1) Prevents from man-in-the-middle
Mejri, et Group Diffie-Hellman key attack
2016 1) Key establishment duration
al.[15] Generation scheme 2) Guarantees secure
communication
1) Simulation time
Bandak, et al. Key management using time 1) Enhances bit rate 2) End-to-end delay
2014
[16] stamp 2) Reduces the packet loss 3) Message loss ratio
4) Packet delivery ratio
1) Prevents from Denial of Service
Wang, et al. Lightweight privacy (DoS) attack 1) Network delay
2014
[17] authentication scheme 2) Minimized communication 2) Packet loss ratio
overhead and computation cost
1) Average message delay
TWO-Factor LIghtweight
Wang, et al. No vehicles can be traced due to high 2) Average message loss ratio
2016 Privacy preserving
[18] privacy preservation 3) Percentage signature verified
authentication scheme (2FLIP)
A dynamic privacy-preserving
High forward and backward secrecy 1) Average key update delay
Lu, et al. [19] 2012 key management scheme called
Fast key update 2) Average key update ratio
DIKE
Location based privacy High level of key privacy is preserved using
Liu, et al. [20] 2014
preservation key management group key management
1) Authenticated message
Distributed pseudonym Less communication overhead
Zhu, et al. [21] 2013 probability
management scheme Highly robust
2) Average message length
1) Space cost
Efficient key management in online
Boloorchi, et Symmetric Threshold Multipath 2) Communication cost
2014 High security
al. [22] key management 3) Message compromising
Secure key sharing technique
probability
Decentralized certificate verification
Zhang, et al. 1) CRL verification latency
2013 RFID key management scheme Robust to attacks
[23] 2) Communication overhead
Better response time
Horng, et al. Batch verification for secure Less message overhead 1)
Verification delay
2012
[24] authentication High transmission rate 2)Transmission overhead
1) Delay analysis
Paranjothi, et 2) Message authentication
2016 Message authentication Decreases the rate of road accidents
al.[25] probability
3) Message delivery quality
1) Delay
2) Delivery ratio
Punitha, et al. Secure and robust
2016 Secure group authentication 3) Packet drop ratio
[26] Complete safety and privacy
4) Throughput
5) Overhead
Shao, et al. Threshold anonymous Vehicles are highly traceable
2016 1) Computational cost
[27] authentication Better message link ability
2) Number of verified messages
Cooperative Message 3) Number of required
Lin, et al.[28] 2013 Reduced authentication overhead
Authentication authentication
4) Effort per vehicle

III. CONCLUSION

This paper presented a review of existing key management and authentication techniques available in VANET. The road safety
is ensured in VANET through secure communication between vehicles. The security issues are the one of the major drawbacks
of VANET. These problems can be resolved by allowing only authorized users for communication. The authorized users are

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 110

 A Survey on Security and Key Management in VANET
(IJIRST/ Volume 3 / Issue 08/ 019)

identified via authentication and the messages are transmitted in a secure way. The Keys to decrypt the messages are also
transmitted through a secure channel. The key management techniques are discussed along with their advantages. The metrics
used to evaluate performance of those techniques are also studied.

REFERENCES
[1] W. Liang, Z. Li, H. Zhang, S. Wang, and R. Bie, "Vehicular ad hoc networks: architectures, research issues, methodologies, challenges, and trends,"
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2015, p. 17, 2015.
[2] S. Zeadally, R. Hunt, Y.-S. Chen, A. Irwin, and A. Hassan, "Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETS): status, results, and challenges," Telecommunication
Systems, vol. 50, pp. 217-241, 2012.
[3] B. T. Sharef, R. A. Alsaqour, and M. Ismail, "Vehicular communication ad hoc routing protocols: A survey," Journal of network and computer applications,
vol. 40, pp. 363-396, 2014.
[4] R. G. Engoulou, M. Bellache, S. Pierre, and A. Quintero, "VANET security surveys," Computer Communications, vol. 44, pp. 1-13, 2014.
[5] R. Barskar and M. Chawla, "A Survey on Efficient Group Key Management Schemes in Wireless Networks," Indian Journal of Science and Technology,
vol. 9, 2016.
[6] Y. Challal and H. Seba, "Group key management protocols: A novel taxonomy," International journal of information technology, vol. 2, pp. 105-118, 2005.
[7] S. Rafaeli and D. Hutchison, "A survey of key management for secure group communication," ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 35, pp. 309-329,
2003.
[8] B. Jiang and X. Hu, "A survey of group key management," in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2008 International Conference on, 2008, pp.
994-1002.
[9] F. Kargl and C. Waldschmidt, "Physical Layer-Based Message Authentication in VANETs," in Fachgesprch Inter-Vehicle Communication 2016-(inter-
veh-comm-2016), 2016.
[10] C. Bttner, F. Bartels, and S. A. Huss, "Real-world evaluation of an anonymous authenticated key agreement protocol for vehicular ad-hoc networks," in
Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), 2015 IEEE 11th International Conference on, 2015, pp. 651-658.
[11] J. Snchez-Garca, J. Garca-Campos, D. Reina, S. Toral, and F. Barrero, "On-siteDriverID: A secure authentication scheme based on Spanish eID cards for
vehicular ad hoc networks," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 64, pp. 50-60, 2016.
[12] G. Baldini, V. Mahieu, I. N. Fovino, A. Trombetta, and M. Taddeo, "Identity-based security systems for vehicular ad-hoc networks," in 2013 International
Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), 2013, pp. 672-678.
[13] T. W. Chim, S.-M. Yiu, L. C. Hui, and V. O. Li, "MLAS: multiple level authentication scheme for VANETs," Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 10, pp. 1445-1456,
2012.
[14] E. B. Hamida and M. A. Javed, "Channel-Aware ECDSA Signature Verification of Basic Safety Messages with K-Means Clustering in VANETs," in 2016
IEEE 30th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), 2016, pp. 603-610.
[15] M. N. Mejri, N. Achir, and M. Hamdi, "A new group Diffie-Hellman key generation proposal for secure VANET communications," in 2016 13th IEEE
Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2016, pp. 992-995.
[16] S. Bandak and R. Patil, "Public Key Cryptography based Secured Dynamic Routing in VANET Time Stamp based Key Management System,"
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 3, pp. 2213-2217, 2014.
[17] M. Wang, D. Liu, L. Zhu, Y. Xu, and F. Wang, "LESPP: lightweight and efficient strong privacy preserving authentication scheme for secure VANET
communication," Computing, pp. 1-24, 2014.
[18] F. Wang, Y. Xu, H. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and L. Zhu, "2FLIP: A Two-Factor Lightweight Privacy-Preserving Authentication Scheme for VANET," IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, pp. 896-911, 2016.
[19] R. Lu, X. Lin, X. Liang, and X. Shen, "A dynamic privacy-preserving key management scheme for location-based services in vanets," IEEE Transactions
on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 13, pp. 127-139, 2012.
[20] B. Liu, L. Zhang, and J. Domingo-Ferrer, "On the Security of a Privacy-Preserving Key Management Scheme for Location Based Services in VANETs," in
Foundations and Practice of Security, ed: Springer, 2014, pp. 323-335.
[21] X. Zhu, Y. Lu, B. Zhang, and Z. Hou, "A distributed pseudonym management scheme in VANETs," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks,
vol. 2013, 2013.
[22] A. T. Boloorchi, M. Samadzadeh, and T. Chen, "Symmetric threshold multipath (STM): an online symmetric key management scheme," Information
Sciences, vol. 268, pp. 489-504, 2014.
[23] Q. Zhang, M. Almulla, and A. Boukerche, "Performance analysis of an RFID Key Management scheme for vehicular networks," in Mobile and Wireless
Networking (MoWNeT), 2013 International Conference on Selected Topics in, 2013, pp. 25-29.
[24] S.-J. Horng, S.-F. Tzeng, Y. Pan, P. Fan, X. Wang, T. Li, et al., "b-SPECS+: Batch verification for secure pseudonymous authentication in VANET," IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 8, pp. 1860-1875, 2013.
[25] A. Paranjothi, M. S. Khan, M. Nijim, and R. Challoo, "MAvanet: Message authentication in VANET using social networks," in Ubiquitous Computing,
Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON), IEEE Annual, 2016, pp. 1-8.
[26] A. Punitha and J. M. L. Manickam, "Secure Group Authentication Technique for VANET," Asian Journal of Information Technology, vol. 15, pp. 1637-
1644, 2016.
[27] J. Shao, X. Lin, R. Lu, and C. Zuo, "A threshold anonymous authentication protocol for VANETs," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65,
pp. 1711-1720, 2016.
[28] X. Lin and X. Li, "Achieving efficient cooperative message authentication in vehicular ad hoc networks," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol.
62, pp. 3339-3348, 2013.

All rights reserved by www.ijirst.org 111