Invention Journal of Research Technology in Engineering & Management (IJRTEM)

ISSN: 2455-3689
www.ijrtem.com Volume 1 Issue 3 ǁ May. 2016 ǁ PP 26-31

Security in Manet Using Fl-Saodv

Prakashkumar ,Sahil Malik,Saketbajoria
Department of Computer Engineering
D Y Patil College of Engineering, Akurdi
SPPU, Pune

Abstract Mobile Ad Hoc Network(MANETs) is a wireless communications technology in which devices may move around. There is
no fixed structure or network that all the participating nodes form. It is a very flexible network. These characteristicsof MANET make
it very unsafe and prone to various attacks.Although many research focus on how to deliver packets fromone node to another, very
less importance had been given tothe security. Current techniques of addressing security on thefixed structured wired network are
only useful to protect thetransmitted message on the end nodes, the security of routinginformation among the mobile nodes in the
hostile environmentwhere mobile Ad Hoc networks are usually used has beeninadequately addressed. Security and routing has been
treatedseparately incase of wired network but that cannot be done inwireless network since routing itself can be a major reason
fordata loss or theft if done in a casual manner making it prone toattack from malicious node.Hence the routing and security hasto be
looked into as one and not separately. Making the routingsecured can make the MANET a more reliable network. We havemade the
routing mechanism secured but extending Fuzzy logic toit. Fuzzy logic in deciding the route makes it less prone to attacksand thus
ensuring enhanced security. The proposed scheme ofsecure routing will be demonstrated by using simulation on NS2.
Keywords AODV, SAODV, Fuzzy Logic, Black holeattack.

I. INTRODUCTION
Today there are various devices that form together a flexiblenetwork that has no fixed structure and no centralizedmonitoring
node, such a network is called MANET.MANETis a self-configuring network of mobile routers and associatedhosts connected by
wireless links. The routers (mobile devices,nodes) are free to move randomly and organize themselvesarbitrarily; thus, the networks
wireless topology may changerapidly and unpredictably. The network appears on-demand,automatically and instantly, and data hops
from ad-hoc deviceto device till it reaches its destination, the network updatesand reconfigures itself to keep nodes connected. The
networktopology changes when a node joins in or moves out. Packetforwarding, routing, and other network operations are carriedout
the by the individual nodes themselves [1]. In MANETswith each node acting as a router and dynamically changingtopology the
availability is not always guaranteed. It is also notguaranteed that the path between two nodes would be free ofmalicious nodes. The
wireless links between nodes are highlysusceptible to link attacks (passive eavesdropping, active interfering,etc). Stringent resource
constrains in MANETs may also affect the quality of security when excessive computationsis required to perform some encryption.
These vulnerabilitiesand characteristic make a case to build a security solution,which provides security services like authentication,
confidentiality,integrity, non-repudiation and availability. In order toachieve this goal we need a mechanism that provides securityin
each layer of the protocol. [1].

II. ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN MANET

Routing protocols in MANETs can be divided into proactive,reactive and hybrid protocols, depending on the
networktopology. .

A. Proactive Routing protocol

Proactive protocols are also called table-driven routingprotocols. They attempt to maintain consistent, up-to-daterouting information
from each node to every other node in thenetwork. Some of the table driven ad-hoc routing protocolsare Destination-Sequenced
Distance-Vector (DSDV),WirelessRouting Protocol (WRP), and Clusterhead Gateway SwitchRouting (CGSR). In small networks,
proactive routing can beefficient, as normal communication does not involve any delayin the route setup.

B. Reactive Routing Protocol

Reactive protocols also called on-demand-driven routingprotocol. In contrary with table-driven routing protocols, theydo not update
the routing information periodically. It createsroutes only when desired by the source node. Some of theon-demand-driven routing
protocols are Ad-hoc On-Demand
Distance Vector Routing (AODV) [SAODV] Dynamic SourceRouting (DSR). A problem with on-demand routing is keepingup with
the nodes in the network. Because of the reactivenature, nodes do not have to announce their arrival or departurefrom the network.

| Volume 1| Issue 3 | www.ijrtem.com | May 2016| 26

 Security in Manet Using Fl-Saodv

This means that the intended recipientmight already have left the network when the sender wants toinitiate transmission. A route
request still has to be transmittedthroughout the whole network, consuming resources of all the
nodes.
C. Hybrid Routing Protocol
Hybrid protocols make use of both reactive and proactiveapproaches. They typically dynamically switch between proactiveand
reactive parts of the protocol. For instance, tabledrivenprotocols can be used between networks and on-demandprotocols inside the
network or vice versa. Example is the
Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP).

III. AD-HOC ON DEMAND ROUTING PROTOCOL

Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing isa protocol which is working with mobile ad-hoc
networks(MANETs) and every other network including wireless also.The AODV (Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector)
routingprotocol is a example for reactive routing protocol also calledon demand. Routes are established as per the demand so it
iscalled on demand routing vector. However, once establisheda route is maintained as well as they need to maintain theeach entry in
the routing table. Reactive routing protocolsestablish a path between the one to other node only when datato be exchanged and path
will be established. In AODV, thenetwork is not doing any work until a connection is needed.[2] There are some control message
specify for the AODVrouting protocol, RouteRequest, RouteReply and RouteError.A source node is receiving multiple RREPs then
the sourcenode will choose the RREP with having minimum hop count.If HELLO packet was not received by any node
consecutivethree times, it concludes that the specific node will be down.If link is break and it detected then a Route Error (RERR)
issent. A route request is consider the parameters like sourceid, destination id, expiry date and broadcast id. For detectingand
counselingit’sneighbor node Hello message is used. Hellomessages are used then it is broadcast by some active node andit’s all
neighbor node are receiving the Hello message. Fromthe neighbor node if a node is not able to receive the Hellomessages., in result
nodes sends continuously Hello message ifa link break is detected. Here in AODV source node broadcastthe RREQ to every node in
the network. Source node willbroadcast the RREQ, destination node will send return RREPto source node via neighbour node and
source node receiveRREP and path will complete. [3]

IV. BLACK HOLE ATTACK

In a Black hole attack, a node which is called maliciousnode will absorb all the network traffic towards them anddiscard all
the packet. If we want to catch the black hole attack,when malicious node checking its routing table it directly senda fake RREP with
largest sequence number and smallest hopcount to prove that it has the minimum path to reach thedestination. By this way we can
catch the black hole nodein the network. Source node gets the more than one RREPfrom the different node but it is choose the RREP
from themalicious node because that has a largest sequence number.The source node ignores the RREP which are not comingfrom the
malicious node and then malicious node drops allthe packets rather better to forward further to the destination node. [4] The malicious
node takes all the route towards them and attack all the RREQ packet. Malicious node generates thefake RREP and that will be
delivered to the source node that itdoes know the path for destination. By this way source nodeassumes that it is the next node to reach
the destination soit will send the packet to the malicious node and maliciousnode will be remove all the packets which are comes from
thesource node. [5]Single black hole attack and Collaborative black hole attackare two types for the black hole attack. [6] In the
network if allthe network traffic is switched to single node, it is called singleblack hole attack which is malicious node and it will
drops allthe packets. In collaborative black hole attack, there are manymalicious nodes which are work together to switch
normalrouting information towards the malicious node and assemblethat route according to them. Some researchers had work onblack
hole attack and provide methods to detect maliciousnodes but that is not sufficient to solve the black hole problemand the more
detection method should be initiated to solve theblack hole attack. [7].

V. PROPOSED WORK

A. New secure routing protocol operation

FL-SAODV is a new scheme of secure routing protocol forMANETs. Like SAODV that is based on the AODV protocol,FL-SAODV
is also an extension to the SAODV. FL-SAODVassumes that each mobile node has a signature key pair froma suitable asymmetric
cryptosystem. Each node is capable
of securely verifying the association between the address ofa given mobile node and the public key of that node. Twomechanisms are
used to secure the message: digital signaturesto authenticate the non-mutable fields of the message, andhash chains to secure the hop
count information, which isthe only mutable information in the messages. Every nodeuses digital signatures to sign the whole message
and that anyneighbor that receives verifies the signature. FL-SAODV hasthree operations:
(1) determination of the node security level
(2) route discovery
(3) route maintenance.

| Volume 1| Issue 3 | www.ijrtem.com | May 2016| 27

 Security in Manet Using Fl-Saodv

B. Mobile nodes security level

The security level of a mobile node in MANETs is determinedby the length of the secret key (l), the frequency of thekey change (f),
and the number of its neighbour nodes (n) at aparticular time. Its value can be determined by using a fuzzysystem described in
Algorithm 1, as shown in Fig 3. A NovelSecure Routing Protocol for MANETs

C. Fuzzy system of determining the security level

The security level of each mobile node is determined bya fuzzy reasoning system. The fuzzy system is implementedusing the
analysis and knowledge we obtained in Section4.1. The membership functions of each factor are selectedas follows. Fuzzy
membership function for three factors aredefined as: 1. key length: short and long.Membership functions for Key Length 2. frequency:
slowand fast; The membership functions looks quite the same asthe one above. We would not present them here.

VI. METHODOLOGY
A. Mobile node’s security levelThe security level of a mobile node in MANETs isdetermined by the length of the secret key
(l), the frequencyof the key change (f), and the number of its neighbour nodes(n) at a particular time. Its value can be determined by
usinga fuzzy system described in

Algorithm 1

n number of neighbouring nodes

f the frequency of key change
l the length of the key
for all rules in the ruleset do
getfuzzified value of n, f and l.
calculate the individual security level using fuzzy reasoning
add the individual security level to the total security level
end for
get the defuzzified value of the total security level

B. Route discovery
The route discovery consists of two processes:
(1) routerequest from the source node to the destination node, and
(2)route reply from the destination to the source node.
Theoperation of route discovery is described in
Algorithm 2.

S Source Node, T Destination Node

SLi is the security level of node i.
SLp is the security level in the RREQ packet {The Destination
node sends RREP back}
Source node broadcasts a RREQ to all of its neighboursrepeat
for neighbour nodes do
if there is a route to the destination node then
authenticate the RREQ using MD5
calculate its security level using Algorithm 1.
ifSLi>SLp then
update the security level in the RREQ packet
overwrite the SL in RREQ with Sij =
min(Sij , SLp)
update other fields in RREQ
end if
else
broadcast the RREQ to its neighbour nodes
end if

| Volume 1| Issue 3 | www.ijrtem.com | May 2016| 28

 Security in Manet Using Fl-Saodv

end for
until Destination node is reached {The Destination node
sends RREP back}
for all RREQ received do
if Broadcast ID && Security Level in RREQ then
create a RREP
unicast RREP back to S
else
drop the RREQ
end if
the destination determines which route is the best
SLk = max(Si)
end for

C. Route maintenance
A node uses HELLO message to maintain the localconnectivity. The route maintenance is described inAlgorithm 3.

S the source node

D the destination node
repeat
S send a HELLO message to each neighbouring nodes
for all neighbour nodes do
if the neighbour node does not receive any packets
within a certain time then
the node assume the link is lost
the node send an RERR message to all precursors
end if
end for
until Route Expired
S starts a new route discovery described in Algorithm 2.

VII. SIMULATION RESULT

Simulator Network Simulator 2

No. of nodes 71
Area Size 1200m x 1200m
Interface Type Physical/ Wireless Phy
MAC 802.11b
Radio Range 150 m
Antenna Type Omni Antenna
Propagation Type Two way ground
Rotating protocol AODV
Traffic Source CBR
Mobility Model Random waypoint

| Volume 1| Issue 3 | www.ijrtem.com | May 2016| 29

 Security in Manet Using Fl-Saodv

Fig. 1. Performance when Fuzzy region

Fig. 2. Performance Fuzzy classification

Fig. 3. Figure Performance after implementation of fuzzy logic

| Volume 1| Issue 3 | www.ijrtem.com | May 2016| 30

 Security in Manet Using Fl-Saodv

Fig. 4. Figure Final performance after preventing attack

VIII. CONCLUSION
Security in MANET is a major issue. In our work we haveproposed a technique to protect the network from black holeattack
by iumplementing fuzzy logic in Secured AODVrouting protocol. This has enhanced the security of thenetwork but efficiency had
been compromised in view ofsecurity. Hence making this more efficient can be taken asfuture work.

REFERENCES
[1] L. Ertaul and D. Ibrahim, “Evaluation of secure routing protocols in mobilead hoc networks (manets).,” in Security and
Management, pp. 363–369, 2009.
[2] W. Saetang and S. Charoenpanyasak, “Caodv free blackhole attack in adhoc networks,” in International Conference on
Computer Networks andCommunication Systems (CNCS 2012) IPCSIT, vol. 35, pp. 63–67, 2012.
[3] H. Changela and A. Lathigara, “Algorithm to detect and overcomethe black hole attack in manets,” International Journal of
ComputerApplications, vol. 124, no. 8, 2015.
[4] M. Roopak and D. B. Reddy, “Performance analysis of aodv protocol underblack hole attack,” International Journal of
Scientific & EngineeringResearch, vol. 2, no. 8, p. 1, 2011.
[5] M. Ghonge and S. Nimbhorkar, “Simulation of aodv under blackhole attackin manet,” International Journal of Advanced
Research in ComputerScience and Software Engineering, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012.
[6] R. Kaur and J. Kalra, “A review paper on detection and prevention ofblack hole in manet,” International Journal of Advanced
Research inComputer Science and Software Engineering, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 37–40,2014.
[7] S. Sonia and P. Padmavati, “Performance analysis of black hole attackon vanet’s reactive routing protocols,” International
Journal of ComputerApplications, vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 22–26, 2013.

| Volume 1| Issue 3 | www.ijrtem.com | May 2016| 31