| Literature DB >> 27657073 |
Hai Zhou1, Yuanming Wu2, Li Feng3, Daolei Liu4.
Abstract
A wireless sensor network (WSN) faces a number of outsider and insider attacks, and it is difficult to detect and defend against insider attacks. In particular, an insider selective-forwarding attack, in which the attackers select some of the received packets to drop, most threatens a WSN. Compared to a distributed WSN, a cluster-based WSN will suffer more losses, even the whole network's destruction, if the cluster head is attacked. In this paper, a scheme solving the above issues is proposed with three types of nodes, the Cluster Head (CH), the Inspector Node (IN) and Member Nodes (MNs). The IN monitors the CH's transmission to protect the cluster against a selective-forwarding attack; the CH forwards packets from MNs and other CHs, and randomly checks the IN to ascertain if it works properly; and the MNs send the gathered data packets to the CH and evaluate the behaviors of the CH and IN based on their own reputation mechanism. The novelty of our scheme is that in order to take both the safety and the lifespan of a network into consideration, the composite reputation value (CRV) including forwarding rate, detecting malicious nodes, and surplus energy of the node is utilized to select CH and IN under the new suggested network arrangement, and the use of a node's surplus energy can balance the energy consumption of a node, thereby prolonging the network lifespan. Theoretical analysis and simulation results indicate that the proposed scheme can detect the malicious node accurately and efficiently, so the false alarm rate is lowered by 25.7% compared with Watchdog and the network lifespan is prolonged by 54.84% compared with LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy).Entities:
Keywords: IDS; cluster-based WSN; inspector node; reputation value; selective-forwarding
Year: 2016 PMID: 27657073 PMCID: PMC5038810 DOI: 10.3390/s16091537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The basic topological structure of a cluster.
Figure 2Local monitoring.
Figure 3IN’s inspection of the CH.
Figure 4CH’s random check for IN.
Figure 5Workflow of local network.
Figure 6Collusion attack.
Figure 7Clustering.
Figure 8Detection of node 6 captured in different time.
False alarm comparison.
| Mechanism | Type of Threshold | Threshold | Number of Malicious Node | Simulation Times | Detection Times | False Alarm Times | False Alarm Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watchdog | Static | 0.7 | 1 | 1000 | 961 | 282 | 28.2% |
| Neighbor-based monitoring | Static | 0.7 | 1 | 1000 | 975 | 172 | 17.2% |
| Proposed | Dynamic | Init 0.7 | 1 | 1000 | 998 | 25 | 2.5% |
Figure 9Forward probability of the network with one malicious node.
Figure 10Forward probability of the network with two malicious nodes.
Figure 11Forward probability of the network with three malicious nodes.
Figure 12The number of remaining nodes in the network.
Network lifespan comparison.
| Mechanism | Simulation Environment | Simulation Times | Network Lifespan (Average Turns) |
|---|---|---|---|
| LEACH | Local network | 1000 | 480.405 |
| Proposed | Local network | 1000 | 310.259 |