See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340883621

PFR Based Technique to Detect Intruder in MANET

Article in Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems · April 2020
DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP2/SP20201109

CITATIONS READS
0 57

2 authors:

Sankara Narayanan S Chidambarathanu Krishnan

SRM Institute of Science and Technology RMK Engineering College
19 PUBLICATIONS 106 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chidambarathanu Krishnan on 08 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Jour of adv research in dynamical & control systems, vol. 12, special issue-02, 2020

PFR Based Technique to Detect Intruder in

MANET
1
Sankara Narayanan S, 2K. Chidambarathanu, 3Meena L C
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Veltech Rangarajan Dr.Sahunthala R&D institute of Science and
Technology, India,
2
Associate Professor, Department of Information Technology,R.M.K Engineering college, India,

Abstract- Mobile Adhoc networks (MANET) are one category of wireless networks that operates without any centralized
infrastructure. Every node in MANET not only acts as a host and also acts as a router to forward the packets from neighbor nodes.
Security becomes a major concern in MANET. Intrusion detection system plays a major role to detect intruder in MANET. Here
PFRACK approach is proposed to detect intruder in MANET. Here every node maintains PFR table which contains the packet
forward ratio of the node. To access the performance, PFRACK is compared with A3ACK method in terms of packet delivery ratio
and routing overhead. Results shows that PFRACK provides better packet delivery ratio and routing overhead compared to existing
A3ACK method.

Index Terms- Mobile Ad hoc networks, Intrusion Detection System, Active Attack, Packet Forward Ratio, AODV

Introduction
Due to the nature of dynamic topology, network topology changes frequently. In MANET every node acts as host and router to
forward the packets. Due to mobility of nodes each node must cooperate with other node to provide routing. The application of
MANET includes military application, emergency and rescue operations, collaborative and distributed computing. Due to limited
security available for MANET, it is prone to various attacks [8]. Based on routing topology MANET’s are classified into three types
namely table‐driven, on demand and hybrid. In table‐driven, each node maintains a routing table. Destination Sequence Distance
Vector (DSDV) routing protocol is popular table driven routing protocol [9][12]. In on‐ demand routing protocols, routes are formed
only when it is required. Ad hoc on demand distance vector routing protocol (AODV) is popular reactive routing protocol. Hybrid
routing protocol is a combination of both proactive and reactive routing protocol [13].

Due to limited transmission range, MANET is prone to various attacks in different layers. Attacks in MANET are classified into two
type namely active attack and passive attack [10]. In active attack attacker not only captures the information and also modifies the
information. Passive attack attacker only captures the information not doing any modification [11][5].

Intrusion Detection System (IDS) is the front line of defense in MANET [5]. The purpose of IDS is to detect the intruders in the
network. In this paper we have proposed PFR based AODV protocol to identify attacker in MANET. We have simulated PFRACK in
network simulator with respect to pause time and mobility and comparison is made with A3ACK.

The content of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 discusses the related works and section 3 elaborates the proposed method.
Results and discussion are presented in section 4. Section 5 concludes our work.

Related Work

Marti et al [1] proposed watchdog technique to detect routing misbehavior in MANET. Watchdog technique detects misbehaving
nodes. Watchdog maintains a buffer of recently sent packets. If the node is not forwarding the packet before time out then watchdog
increments the failure count. If failure count exceeds the threshold value the watchdog identifies that node is malfunctioning. However
watchdog suffers from various problems.

Kejun Liu et al [2] proposed Twoack scheme to detect routing misbehavior in MANET. Twoack scheme focusing on the problem of
misbehaving link. In twoack scheme every 3rd node sends ack packet to 1st node after successfully receives the packet.

Here node X forwards the packet P1 to node Z via intermediate node Y. Once node Z receives packet P1 it sends acknowledgement
packet back to node X via node Y. If node X didn’t receive acknowledgement packet within predefined time periods the nodes Y and Z
597
DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP2/SP20201109
*Corresponding Author: Sankara Narayanan S, Email: sankarme2007@gmail.com
Article History: Received: Jan 20, 2020, Accepted: Apr 17, 2020
 PFR Based Technique to Detect Intruder in MANET

are identified as malicious. It successfully solves the problem of ambiguous collision, receiver collision and limited transmission
power. However this technique has the drawback higher routing overhead.

Basabaa et al [3] proposed A3ACK scheme to detect intruder in MANET. A3ACK approach solves three problems of watchdog.
Performance of A3ACK scheme was measured in terms of PDR and routing overhead.

Shakshuki et al [4]. proposed AACK technique which is an extension of TwoAck technique. It contains TwoAck model and End-to-
end acknowledgement model. AACK scheme can be explained with the help of following diagram.

Fig. 1 AACK

In figure 1, sender S sends the data packet to destination node once destination node receives the packet it sends the acknowledgement
packet on the reverse path. If not source node switches to TACK model to detect misbehaving nodes in the path. AACK model fails to
detect malicious nodes in presence of collaborative attacks.

Sheltami et al [7] proposed enhance adaptive acknowledgement (EAACK) based IDS in MANET. Digital signature is adopted in this
scheme. EAACK consists of three parts, namely, acknowledgement, secure acknowledgment, and misbehavior report authentication
(MRA). In ACK mode, sender node sends ACK packet to receiver. If the sender receives packet within particular time period it sends
acknowledgement packet back to sender on the reverse path. Otherwise it switches to S-ACK mode. During S-ACK mode every third
node will send an acknowledgement packet to first node. If first node didn’t receive acknowledgement packet within particular time
period, then second and third node is assumed as intruder.

Proposed Method
Here source node starts sending data packet to destination node through intermediate nodes and waits for acknowledgement packet
within predefined time interval. If acknowledgement packet arrives at predefined time interval it assumes that no intruder in the path.
If not, intruder is assumed in the path. Thereafter packet forward ratio (PFR) is verified for each intermediate node. Every node
maintains packet forward ratio table. Packet forward ratio is calculated by number of packets received to the number of packets
forwarded. If the PFR for any node is below the threshold value then that node is assumed as malicious node.

Proposed system is explained with the help of following diagram.

Data1 Data1
S A B C P D

End to end ACK

Fig. 2 PFRACK

Figure 3 shows the PFRACK protocol. Here source node S starts sending data packet to destination node D through intermediate
nodes A,B,C and P. Once destination node (D) successfully receives the data packet it sends the Acknowledgement to source node
through reverse path. If source node(S) didn’t receive acknowledgement packet within predefined time interval it assumes intruder in
the path. Thereafter packet forward ratio is checked for intermediate nodes A,B,C and P. In this example node C is malicious node
which is having very less packet forward ratio. So node C is identified as malicious and alert message is sent to all nodes in the
network.

Results And Discussion

We have used Network simulator 2.34. Here number of nodes considered as 50 and traffic type is constant bit rate. Packet delivery
ratio and routing overhead is taken as a measure to evaluate the performance of our proposed method.

Simulation results and Discussion

In this section comparison is made between A3ACK and PFR ACK. Figure 3 compares the results of packet delivery ratio vs. pause
time of normal AODV protocol, A3ACK and PFRACK. Pause time is varied from 5 to 25 seconds. A3ACk protocol provides the
 Jour of adv research in dynamical & control systems, vol. 12, special issue-02, 2020

packet delivery ratio up to 78%. But our proposed PFRACK protocol provides up to 93% packet delivery ratio.

Pause time vs. PDR

100

packet delivery ratio(%)

80
60
40 AODV
20 A3ACK
0 PFRACK
5 10 15 20 25
Pause time(s)

Fig. 3 Pause time vs. PDR

Figure 4 compares the results of pause time vs. routing overhead of A3ACK and PFRACK. When we vary the pause time, routing
overhead is dropped. Routing overhead of A3ACK protocol is in the range of 0.17 to 0.25 but PFRACK provides routing overhead in
the range of 0.09 to 0.15. It was observed that PFRACK protocol provides less routing overhead compared to A3ACK protocol.

Pause time vs. routing

overhead
0.3
Routing overhead

0.2
0.1 A3ACK
0 PFRACK
5 10 15 20 25
Pause time

Fig. 4 Pause time vs. routing overhead

Figure 5 compares the results of speed vs. packet delivery ratio. Here speed is varied from 3 to 15. A3ACK protocol provides the
packet delivery ratio up to 80%. But PFRACK protocol provides packet delivery ratio up to 94%. Simulation results show that
PFRACK provides much better packet delivery ratio compared to AODV and A3ACK.

599
DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP2/SP20201109
*Corresponding Author: Sankara Narayanan S, Email: sankarme2007@gmail.com
Article History: Received: Jan 20, 2020, Accepted: Apr 17, 2020
 PFR Based Technique to Detect Intruder in MANET

Speed vs. Packet delivery

ratio
100

Packet delivery ratio(%)

50 AODV
A3ACK
0
3 6 9 12 15 PFRACK

Speed(m/s)

Fig. 5 speed vs. packet delivery ratio

Figure 6 compares the results of speed vs. routing overhead of A3ACK and PFRACK. It was observed that routing overhead of
PFRACK is 0.09. on the other hand routing overhead of A3ACK protocol is 0.28. Compared to A3ACK protocol PFRACK protocol
provides very less routing overhead.

Speed vs. routing

overhead
0.4
Routing overhead

0.2
0 A3ACK
3 6 9 12 15 PFRACK
Speed(m/s)

Fig. 6 Speed vs. routing overhead

Conclusion And Future Work

Intruders always try to reduce the performance of the network. In this paper, we have proposed PFRACK to detect intruder in
MANET. Every node maintain PFR table to detect intruder in MANET. The performance of PFRACK is evaluated with respect to
packet delivery ratio and routing overhead. The proposed PFRACK is compared with A3ACK and AODV protocol. The simulation
results show that PFRACK provides higher packet delivery ratio compared to A3ACK and AODV protocol. Results also prove that
PFRACK protocol provides very less overhead compared to A3ACK protocol.

References
[1] S. Marti, T. J. Giuli, K. Lai, and M. Baker, Mitigating routing misbehavior in mobile ad hoc networks, in Proceedings of
International Conference on Mobile Computing and. Networking, 2000, pp. 255–265.
[2] K. Liu, J. Deng, P. K. Varshney, and K. Balakrishnan, “An acknowledgment-based approach for the detection of routing
misbehavior in MANETs, IEEE Transaction on Mobile Computing, 6,(5), 2007, pp. 536–550.
[3] A Basabaa, T Sheltami and E Shakshuki, Implementation of A3ACKs intrusion detection system under various mobility
speeds, Procedia Computer Science, 32 ( 2014, pp: 571 – 578.
[4] P. V. S. S sanjaymitra, g. N. K. Ganesh (2018) dissolution and solubility enhancement strategies: current and novel
prospectives. Journal of Critical Reviews, 5 (3), 1-10. doi:10.22159/jcr.2018v5i3.23451
[5] Bansal, S.K., Saxena, V., Kandpal, S.D., Gray, W.K., Walker, R.W., Goel, D.The prevalence of hypertension and hypertension
risk factors in a rural Indian community: A prospective door-to-door study(2012)Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research,
3 (2), pp. 117-123. DOI: 10.4103/0975-3583.95365
 Jour of adv research in dynamical & control systems, vol. 12, special issue-02, 2020

[6] Nur Atik, Alfya Nandika, Putu Indra Cyntia Dewi, Erda Avriyanti. "Molecular Mechanism of Aloe barbadensis Miller as a
Potential Herbal Medicine." Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy 10.1 (2019), 118-125. Print. doi:10.5530/srp.2019.1.20
[7] T. Sheltami, A. Al-Roubaiey, E. Shakshuki, and A. Mahmoud, “Video transmission enhancement in presence of misbehaving
nodes in MANETs,” International journal of Multimedia Sysems 15(5) 2009, pp. 273–282.
[8] Sankara Narayanan S, Murugaboopathi G. Modified secure AODV protocol to prevent wormhole attack in MANET.
Concurrency Computation Practice and Experience,2018;e5017. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.5017.
[9] Sunil Kumar and Kamlesh Dutta, Intrusion detection in mobile ad hoc networks: techniques, systems, and future challenges,
Security Communication Networks, volume 9, issue 14,2016, Pages 2484-2556.
[10] L. Jayakumar, S. Janakiraman, “An Overview about Major Research Problems in Cooperative Cognitive Radio and its
Feasible Solutions”, International Journal of Control Theory and Applications (0974-5572), 9(19), pp. 9251-9265 - 2016.
[11] C.Siva Ram Murthy and B.S.Manoj, Ad Hoc Wireless Networks Architectures and Protocols. Pearson Education,2012.
[12] L.Jayakumar, Oviya. S, Shobana. R and S. Janakiraman, “A Novel Node Selection Function for Multilevel Hierarchical
Clustering Scheme in Cooperative Cognitive Radio Networks”, International Journal of Control Theory and
Application(0974-5572), 9(3), 2016, pp. 221-233 – 2016.
[13] Sankara Narayanan, S.Radhakrishnan, Secure AODV to combat blackhole attack in MANET, International Conference on
Recent Trends in Information Technology, 2013.

601
DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP2/SP20201109
*Corresponding Author: Sankara Narayanan S, Email: sankarme2007@gmail.com
Article History: Received: Jan 20, 2020, Accepted: Apr 17, 2020

View publication stats