| Literature DB >> 30463282 |
Farhan Ahmad1, Asma Adnane2, Virginia N L Franqueira3, Fatih Kurugollu4, Lu Liu5.
Abstract
Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network (VANET), a vital component of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology, relies on communication between dynamically connected vehicles and static Road Side Units (RSU) to offer various applications (e.g., collision avoidance alerts, steep-curve warnings and infotainment). VANET has a massive potential to improve traffic efficiency, and road safety by exchanging critical information between nodes (vehicles and RSU), thus reducing the likelihood of traffic accidents. However, this communication between nodes is subject to a variety of attacks, such as Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attacks which represent a major risk in VANET. It happens when a malicious node intercepts or tampers with messages exchanged between legitimate nodes. In this paper, we studied the impact on network performance of different strategies which attackers can adopt to launch MITM attacks in VANET, such as fleet or random strategies. In particular, we focus on three goals of MITM attacks-message delayed, message dropped and message tampered. The simulation results indicate that these attacks have a severe influence on the legitimate nodes in VANET as the network experience high number of compromised messages, high end-to-end delays and preeminent packet losses.Entities:
Keywords: Intelligent Transportation System; Internet-of-Things; Man-In-The-Middle Attack; Vehicular Ad-Hoc network; security; simulation; smart cities
Year: 2018 PMID: 30463282 PMCID: PMC6263439 DOI: 10.3390/s18114040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Illustration of VANET in smart cities.
Comparison of Different Studies on MITM Attacks in VANET.
| Studies | Man-In-The-Middle Attacks | Attacker Pattern | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Message Tampered | Message Delayed | Message Dropped | Distributed Attackers | Fleet of Attackers | |
| Afdhal et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Dhyani et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Grimaldo et al. [ | ✓ | Unspecified | |||
| Purohit et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Almutairi et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Cherkaoui et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Rawat et al. [ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Leinmuller et al. [ | ✓ | Unspecified | |||
| Grover et al. [ | ✓ | Unspecified | |||
| Proposed Study | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Figure 2Man-In-The-Middle Attacks in VANET.
Figure 3Illustration of Passive and Active MITM Attacks in VANET.
Figure 4Attacker Pattern (a) Distributed (b) Fleet.
Figure 5Workflow of Veins Simulation Framework.
Figure 6Snapshot of Veins (a) Vehicles during accident (b) Vehicles after accident.
Simulation Details.
| Parameter | Value | |
|---|---|---|
|
| Network Simulator | OMNET++ 5.0 |
| Traffic Simulator | SUMO 0.25.0 | |
| V2X Simulator | VEINS 4.4 | |
|
| No. of Vehicles | 100 |
| No. of RSUs | 5 | |
| No. of Malicious Nodes | 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% | |
| Simulation Area | 2.5 km × 2.5 km | |
| Simulation Time | 1000 s | |
| Accident Start time | 75 s | |
| Accident Duration | 50 s | |
| Communication Range | 250 m | |
| Vehicle Maximum Speed | 13.9 km/h | |
|
| MAC Protocol | IEEE 802.11p |
| Network Protocol | IEEE 1609.4 (WAVE) | |
| Radio Propagation Model | Simple Path Loss | |
| Data Size | 1024 bits | |
| Header Size | 256 bits | |
Figure 7(a) End-to-End Delay (b) Content Delivery Ratio.
Figure 8(a) Compromised Messages (b) Packet Loss Ratio.
Figure 9Content Delivery Ratio.
Figure 10(a) Dropped Messages (b) Packet Loss Ratio.
Figure 11(a) End-to-End Delay (b) Content Delivery Ratio.
Figure 12(a) Compromised Messages (b) Packet Loss Ratio.