Part B
Table of Contents
Security issues of the routing protocols. 3
Possible attacks to the routing protocols. 3
Attacks on LEACH and PEGASIS. 3
Selective forwarding methods. 4
Comparison and analysis between the two protocols. 5
Security issues of the routing protocols
The routing protocols should always be kept encrypted and authenticated in order to keep the entire network save. The cybercriminals always want to access the network so that they can access to the data that are being transmitted through the network also. Generally, attacks are made by placing a malicious node within the network. As a network is made of multiple nodes, therefore, it becomes difficult to identify a malicious node among the legitimate nodes unless proper measures are taken.
Generally, nodes are used to pass data from one node to another. In the case of malicious nodes, the node collects the data but do not transmit the data, i.e. it drops the data. If the cybercriminal is not an amateur, then the cybercriminals will place the malicious node in such a manner so that it does not drop all the data, but instead of that, it will pass some of the data, especially, those that are not important at all. As a result of that, no one will become suspicious regarding the loss of the data. Thus, the data can be accessed. These are the general issues that a routing protocol can experience unless suitable measures are taken.
Possible attacks to the routing protocols
Attacks on LEACH and PEGASIS
There are several attacks or types of attacks that can really threaten the working of LEACH protocol. Some of the attacking processes are spoofing, altering, dropping and replying the packets. Like the LEACH protocol, the PEGASIS protocol can also experience similar attacking issues. As both the protocols are hierarchical protocols, therefore, the attacking methods are also similar. Some attacks that can really degrade the functionality or the performance of this protocol are explained below:
Sybil Attack
It is the type of attack that most of the networks. More precisely, the peer to peer networks face. This type of attack can really threat the security system of the peer to peer networks. In this attack process, a malicious node is used to steal the identity of other legitimate nodes so that access can be obtained to the data that are exchanged between the actual nodes or legitimate nodes [5]. This attack can affect the network in multiple ways such as it can increase the traffic; it can lower the lifetime of the network or moreover it can also drop the vital packets of the network.
Selective forwarding methods
This protocol can also be attacked by selecting forwarding method. This attack methodology also includes a malicious node placement [4]. There is a path through which the data is passed or transmitted from one node to another node. In this attacking method, the malicious node is placed in this path of data transmission so that the data can be captured or access can be made. Generally, the data is passed from one node to another, but when a malicious node gets the data, it does not pass the data to the next node, but instead of passing it, the malicious node drops all the data. In this case, the malicious node can be identified very easily. Therefore, instead of dropping all the data, the malicious node selectively passes some of the non – important information so that it cannot be identified. In such cases, it is very difficult to identify the malicious node.
Hello Flooding attack
There are several protocols used in networking. In different protocols, different methods are used to identify the nodes. Sometimes, the nodes send some messages to make itself identified to others. Hello, flooding attack is similar to this. In some cases, the nodes need to send HELLO packets to advertise itself to the other nodes. By getting this packet, the other nodes understand the sender is within their range. In this attacking method, the malicious nodes send similar packets to the other nodes, but the difference is that it sends in a continuous manner, i.e. the frequency is much higher than that of the legitimate nodes [6]. This high frequency increases the traffic within the network and as a result of that collisions take place. At the same time, this method consumes lots of energy from the sensor nodes, and as a result of that, the lifetime of the network gets reduced. At the same time, the legitimate nodes will think that the HELLO packet is coming from a legitimate and neighbour node and as a result of that it will transmit data to the HELLO packet sending node which will eventually result into the theft of the data.
Counter Measures
The Sybil attack can be countered using two methods. The two methods through which the Sybil attack can be prevented are authentication and encryption method. These two methods have proved themselves as effective methods through which the WSN, i.e. Wireless Sensor Network, can be saved from the Sybil attack. The selective forwarding method can also be prevented using the above two methods, i.e. authentication and encryption methods can be used as the countermeasure of the selective forwarding attacking method. In case of HELLO flooding attack, it becomes difficult to prevent the attack unless the malicious node is identified. Therefore, the source of the continuous transmission of HELLO packet should be identified and then suitable steps should be taken. Apart from this, here also authentication and encryption methods are helpful to prevent the attack from taking place. If the malicious node cannot be placed, then the attack can never happen.
Comparison and analysis between the two protocols
LEACH and PEGASIS both are hierarchical routing protocols. LEACH is a cluster-based hierarchy, whereas PEGASIS is a chain – based approach. In the case of PEGASIS protocol, no aggregation of data takes place, but in the case of LEACH protocol, aggregation of data takes place. In the case of LEACH protocol, the number of LEACH protocol is more than that of the PEGASIS protocol.
Summary of the report
From this report, a clear idea regarding the two routing protocols names PEGASIS and LEACH has been obtained. Moreover, an idea of the working methodology of routers has also been obtained from this report. It has been found that routing is nothing but a mapping procedure. There are two types of routing protocols that can mainly be used in a WSN, i.e. in Wireless System Network and these two types of routing protocols are LEACH and PEGASIS. LEACH stands for Low – Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy. LEACH protocol is actually a TDMA – based MAC protocol. This protocol is linked with clustering protocol along with a simple routing wireless sensor network ( WSN ) routing protocol. The main objective of this protocol is to reduce the amount of energy that is consumed for creating and maintaining clusters so that the lifetime of a wireless sensor network can be improved in a significant manner. There are two phases of this routing protocol, such as set up phase and steady-state phase. PEGSIS stands for Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information System. This routing protocol has two objectives. It aims to increase the life span of the network and also aims to reduce the bandwidth of the network. LEACH is a cluster-based hierarchy, whereas PEGASIS is a chain – based approach. In the case of LEACH protocol, a number of LEACH protocol is more than that of the PEGASIS protocol.
Both of these routing clusters can be attacked by cybercriminals unless suitable preventions are taken. Some of the attacking processes are spoofing, altering, dropping and replying the packets, and the routing protocols should be kept safe from such attacking methods. There are other attacking methods such as Sybil attack, selective forwarding methods and HELLO flooding attack. Suitable countermeasures should be performed in order to keep the routing protocols safe from the above – mentioned attacking methods. Most importantly, encryption and authentication methods should be used as the primary countermeasures to keep the entire network safe from the above – mentioned and many other attacking methods.
References
[1]S. Samaranayake, S. Blandin and A. Bayen, “A tractable class of algorithms for reliable routing in stochastic networks”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 199-217, 2012. Available: 10.1016/j.trc.2011.05.009.
[2]Y. Xu, Z. Wang, Y. Li, F. Chen, T. Lin and W. Niu, “Request routing through collaborative in-network caching for bandwidth optimization: a methodology”, Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 28, no. 1, p. e2947, 2015. Available: 10.1002/ett.2947.
[3]A. Patooghy and S. Miremadi, “Complement routing: A methodology to design reliable routing algorithm for Network on Chips”, Microprocessors and Microsystems, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 163-173, 2010. Available: 10.1016/j.micpro.2010.03.002.
[4]J. Ehmke, Integration of Information and Optimization Models for Routing in City Logistics. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2012.
[5]Y. HONMA, M. AIDA, H. SHIMONISHI and A. IWATA, “A New Multi-Path Routing Methodology Based on Logit-Type Probability Assignment”, IEICE Transactions on Communications, vol. 94-, no. 8, pp. 2282-2291, 2011. Available: 10.1587/transcom.e94.b.2282.
[6]T. Yan, Q. Ma and M. Wong, “Advances in PCB Routing”, IPSJ Transactions on System LSI Design Methodology, vol. 5, pp. 14-22, 2012. Available: 10.2197/ipsjtsldm.5.14.