Your SlideShare is downloading. ×



Published on

International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) is an open access online peer reviewed international journal that publishes research and review articles in the fields of …

International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) is an open access online peer reviewed international journal that publishes research and review articles in the fields of Computer Science, Neural Networks, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, Information Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Plastic Engineering, Food Technology, Textile Engineering, Nano Technology & science, Power Electronics, Electronics & Communication Engineering, Computational mathematics, Image processing, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, Environmental Engineering, VLSI Testing & Low Power VLSI Design etc.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Pallavi Sharma, Manpreet kaur / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1271-12751271 | P a g eDevelop a scanning algorithm for the detection of selfish nodes incognitive radio networksPallavi Sharma Manpreet kaurMtech student Assistant ProfessorLovely professional university Phagwara Sukhchain Sahib College PhagwaraAbstractCognitive radio is a wireless basedcommunication technology which hasintelligence built into it. Secure communicationis a key for any wireless network . Like all othernetworks, cognitive radios are susceptible tovarious kinds of attacks like DOS attack , PUEattack , tunnel attack and jamming attack .While performing these attacks nodes in thenetwork becomes selfish and start maximizingtheir own spectrum usage and they preventother users from communicating in the samenetwork . In this paper an algorithm isgenerated which can detect selfish nodes in anetwork . This analysis will help to give betterfuture products that could use the resources in amore efficient way .Keywords : Cognitive Radio , Selfish node ,Spectrum band, Sweet spot .I. INTRODUCTIONCognitive radio is a radio capable of beingaware of its surroundings , learning and adaptivelychanging its operating parameters . It learns fromits experiences to give reasoning and to decidewhich action to take in future so that it can meet theneeds of users.A fundamental problem in facingfuture wireless systems is to find suitable carrierfrequencies and bandwidths to meet the demands ofusers for future services .Radio frequency spectrumis considered to be a limited natural resource so itsutilization is a very important factor for betterfuture wireless products.Spectrum utilization is themost important aspect of the cognitive radiotechnology . Cognitive radios are fullyprogrammable wireless devices that can sense theirenvironment and dynamically adapt theirtransmission waveform, channel access method,spectrum use,and networking protocols as neededfor good network and application performance.[5]Cognitive radios have the ability to implementprotocols and spectrum policies in a way whichdiffers from traditional communication systems.The primary objective of cognitive radio networkis to provide reliable communication whenever andwherever needed . Cognitive radios are used toimprove the efficiency of various resources in awireless communication systems . Cognitive radioscan either be deployed in licensed spectrum orunlicensed spectrum .The creation of new rules forspectrum sharing by using cognitive radioprotocols will change the way spectrum will beused in the future . other aspect of cognitive radionetwork is that it offers a greater flexibility to thenetworks in a way that they can reorganize themaccording to the requirements and also repair themto provide more reliability.[6]II. LITERATURE SURVEYIn year 2011, Ruiliang Chen, Jung-MinPark, and Jeffrey H. Reed discussed primaryuser emulation attack. In primary user emulationattack the attacker transmits the signal whichshows same characteristics as of primary user.These attacks interfere with the spectrum sensingprocess and reduce the channel resources availableto unlicensed users. To overcome this threat atechnique transmitter verification scheme calledLOCDEF which helps to distinguish betweenprimary signals and signals transmitted byattacker by estimating its location and observingits signal characteristics. There is highprobability of these attacks in the cognitiveradio because of the fact that cognitive radios arehighly reconfigurable because of the softwarebased air interface. [1]Trang V. Mai, Joseph A. Molnar and Dr.Kevin Rudd, “Security vulnerabilities in case ofcognitive radio networks” discussed various attacksin Physical layer whether it is PUE, denial ofservice attack or jamming attack. Dynamicspectrum access in cognitive radio introducesmany types of threats Data indicates that with asimple level of sophistication physical jammingcould degrade the performance of DSA networks.These attacks could have a long term negativeimpact on the cognitive network because of itscapability to learn from the environment toestablish internal policy constraints.[2]WangWeifang discussed the effect of Denial of Service(DoS) attacks in security of wirelessnetwork.Cognitive radio networks are vulnerable toDoS attack due to their own characteristics.This paper analyzed the architecture of cognitiveradio networks and discussed the possiblevarious DoS attacks in ad hoc cognitive radionetworks in different protocol layers.[3]HushengLi and Zhu Han discusses the approach ofcombating the primary user emulation attack .Incognitive radio systems, primary user emulation
  • 2. Pallavi Sharma, Manpreet kaur / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1271-12751272 | P a g e(PUE) attack means that an attacker sendsprimary-user-like signals during the spectrumsensing period such that honest secondaryusers leave the corresponding channels,which causes a serious threat to cognitive radiosystems. A passive anti-PUE approach, similar tothe random frequency hopping in traditionalanti-jamming schemes, is proposed and calleddogfight in spectrum. In this scheme, the defendersrandomly choose channels to sense and avoid thePUE attack. It is assumed that the channel statisticslike availability probabilities are known. [4].III ATTACKS IN COGNITIVE RADIONETWORKSCognitive radio users are vulnerable tovarious kinds of attacks . One reason is thatsecondary users do not own spectrum usage andalso cognitive radio support opportunistic spectrumsharing so attackers could take advantage of theseflexibility features . As a result securityconsiderations are very important for the successfuldeployment of cognitive radio networks [5]Beforetaking into consideration security countermeasuresit is very important to understand different kinds ofattacks . These kinds of attacks occur in PHY layerand they manipulate spectral environment ofradios.Denial of service attack : In case of denialof service attack the attacker does not allowauthorized users to use network resources . theattacker basically flood the network with so manyrequest objects which results in decrease of thenetwork bandwidth and degradation of wirelessnetwork systems .[7]PUE Attack : Primary users always havepriority to access the spectrum because they arelegitimitate users . In case primary user is detected ,all other users immediately leave that band . butsometimes secondary users start behaving likeprimary users and imitate the characteristics ofprimary users to launch primary user emulationattack .[11]Sybil Attack : In this attack single entityclaims to be multiple identies at a same timeresulting in ineffectiveness of many functionsperformed by sensor network like routing andresource allocation .This attack mostly occurs inpeer to peer networks where it undermine thepower and authority of established network . Whenany faulty node becomes part of such network itstarts overhearing the communication and startcontrolling the network in its own way .Validationtechniques can be used to prevent these attacks.[14]Wormhole attack : In wormhole attack theattacker starts recording packets of data at any onelocation and then redistribute that data in wholenetwork . it is difficult to prevent the network fromwormhole attack even if the networkcommunication system provides authenticity andconfidentiality .[16]To establish a wormhole attacka direct link known as wormhole link is createdbetween two dedicated nodes present in network .As soon as wormhole link becomes operationaleavesdropping of messages start at origin point andthose messages start replaying at destination point.During the route discovery the attackers makes thenodes believe that path through them isshortest.Under wormhole attack malicious nodessteal the identity of legitimitate nodes [17]. Todetect such attack , the system requires specialhardware and time based synchronizationalgorithm.Node impersonation attack : In this attackan authorized entity called node is impersonated bybreaking an procedural mechanism . The attackerassumes the identity of another node in thenetwork, thus receiving messages are directed tothe fake node. These attacks are also calledspoofing attacks . this attack is considered toinitialize the first step to enter in the network forcarring out further attacks.[8] Depending on theaccess level of the impersonated node, the intrudermay even be able to reconfigure the network so thatother attackers can easily join or attacker couldremove security measures to allow subsequentattempts of intrusion .these attcks can also injectfalse routing information in the network This kindof malicious behavior can be detected using thehash function and the signature that is associatedwith the incoming data packets .[18]Timing attack : In case of timing attackattacker attempts to compromise the security andreliability of system by analyzing the time taken toexecute the cryptographic nad network secutiyalgorithms.Some information could be gathered byanalyzing the time required to execute the querieswhich could differ depending on the requiredinput.[12]These attacks are basically used to attackon weak computing device. Timing attacks enablean attacker to extract secrets maintained in asecurity system. The most widely accepted defenseagainst timing attacks is to perform RSAblinding.This attack could be implemented withoutthe knowledge of victim . the effectiveness of thisattack depends upon various factors like cpuconfiguration , algorithms used and accuracy oftiming measurements .Illusion attack: In case of illusion attackthe attacker creats fraud traffic safety message andthe victim receive the message and believe it andchanges its behavior according to the messageparameters [9].Sinkhole attack :Wireless networks arevulnerable to attack called sinkhole attack. Thisattack prevent the base station from obtainingcomplete and correct sensing data.Many currentrouting protocols in sensor networks aresusceptible to the sinkhole attack. In a Sinkhole
  • 3. Pallavi Sharma, Manpreet kaur / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1271-12751273 | P a g eattack , a compromised node tries to draw all or asmuch traffic as possible from a particular area, bymaking itself look attractive to the surroundingnodeswith respect to the routing metric. As a result,the adversary node manages to attract all trafficthat is destined to the base station.By taking part inthe routing process, node can launch more severeattacks, like selective forwarding, modifying oreven dropping the packets coming through.[10]It locates a list of suspected nodes by checking dataconsistency, and then identifies the intruder in thelist through analyzing the network flowinformation. Specific detection rules could be madethat can make legitimate nodes become aware ofthe threat, whilethe attack is still taking place.[13]IV PROPOSED APPROACHAfter conducting a thorough survey wehave arrived at this problem statement as follows :It is to detect selfish nodes in a cognitive networkand develop a scanning algorithm for its detection.This research is based on the hypothesis that anefficient algorithm should be generated that couldidentify the nodes that are degrading the efficiencyof network in which false positive rates arecalculated in such a way that they help us to giveless number of false rates .The advantage of using this approach willbe to develop a strategy to detect when thenodes turn selfish and how they are affectingoverall routing of packets and packet deliveryratios. It will help us to simulate the spectrumcharacteristics for cognitive devices and tomaintain an hierarchy /topology of primary usersand secondary cognitive device users. It willgenerate an simulated environment for scanningand detecting selfish nodes.Figure1 : Research designUnder methodology we have described step bystep procedure to detect selfish node in cognitiveradio network.First we need to initialise a spectrumfor cognitive radio networks. It is important toanalyze the spectrum environment in whichcognitive radio will operate. Second step is todeploy primary and secondary devices in aparticularly defined area.After that deployment it isimportant to start communication between nodes.Deploy source , forwarder or sink. In ancognitive radio architecture one node willassume to be source , other node as sink andall other nodes are forwarding nodes. Identifysweet point in spectrum. Sweet spot isconsidered to be that point in spectrum wherefrequencies are low enough to provide goodcoverage with few amount of transmitters in thatcoverage area while accommodating largebandwidths. At the time all communication ishappening between nodes in the background ofscenario watch dog approach is used . In case ofwatch dog approach a buffer is maintainedwhich contains all the packets that have been sentrecently. It detects the selfish nodes in the network
  • 4. Pallavi Sharma, Manpreet kaur / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1271-12751274 | P a g eby overhearing the transmission in network . Forthe detection purpose , first it is reallyimportant to hack a certain nodes which simplymeans to make a node selfish . So an external nodewill attempt to hack a node in network by usingkeys. When the keys will match it will display amessage hack attempt successful . In case keysdoes not match external node will try to hack thenode again and will try an another attempt. In casehacker attempt is successful it will startcommunicating with that node with which it it means those nodes start behavingas selfish nodes .For seeing the accuracy of algorithmclassifiers are used. The results will come out inform of false positive and false negative ratewhich is defined in percentage.V RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONFigure 2 – ResultsFigure 3 – Selfish Network GraphThis proposed methodology helps us toanalyze the behaviour of cognitive networkunder various constraints of resources. By doingsuch analysis we can give better future productsthat will use the resources in a much more efficientway. It will help us to ensure and developreliable cognitive networks since we will bedelivering packet delivery ratio. It will help us tofind out when does the nodes turn selfish andmisbehave in the cognitive radio. This strategyensures the system to detect such misbehavioursand to avoid loss of packets.VII . CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPESo this results concludes that if any nodeattempts to behave selfish it could be identified byusing our proposed algorithm. This algorithmprovides an accuracy of 80.22% .Our result graph shows that selfish nodeutilize all the resources of network and does notallow other users to use that spectrum whichresults in spectrum deficiency andunderutilization of network resources .This proposed algorithmworks in certain scenario . But as the scenario willchange and new methods would be developed toattack on a cognitive radio networks , it willrequire certain modifications in it .REFERENCES :[1] Ruiliang Chen, Jung-Min Park, andJeffrey H. Reed ,“Defense againstprimary user emulation attacks incognitive radio networks” , VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and StateUniversity in 2008, Pages 25-37[2] Trang V. Mai, Joseph A. Molnar and Dr.Kevin Rudd , “Security vulnerabilities incase of cognitive radio networks”Publication Year: 2011 , Page(s): 1 – 4 ,IEEE 54th international Midwestsymposium[3] Husheng Li and Zhu Han ,”CombatingPrimary User Emulation Attacks inCognitive Radio Systems” ( IEEEtransactions on wireless communications ,Vol 9 , No.11, November 2010 ), WirelessCommunications, IEEE Transactions onVolume: 9 , Issue: 11 , Publication Year:2010 , Page(s): 3566 – 3577.[4] Husheng Li and Zhu Han ,”CombatingPrimary User Emulation Attacks inCognitive Radio Systems” ( IEEEtransactions on wireless communications ,Vol 9 , No.11, November 2010 ), WirelessCommunications, IEEE Transactions onVolume: 9 , Issue: 11 , Publication Year:2010 , Page(s): 3566 – 3577.[5] MacKenzie, A.B, Reed, J.H.,Athanas, PBostian, C.W.”Cognitive Radio and
  • 5. Pallavi Sharma, Manpreet kaur / International Journal of Engineering Research andApplications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.comVol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1271-12751275 | P a g eNetworking Research at Virginia Tech“Volume:97, Issue: 4,Publication Year:2009,Page(s): 660 – 688.[6] Fragkiadakis, A.; Tragos, E.;Askoxylakis,"A Survey on SecurityThreats and Detection Techniques inCognitive Radio Networks I."Volume:PP,Issue: 99,Publication Year: 2012 , Page(s):1 – 18.[7] Lau, F. Rubin, S.H. ; Smith, M.H. ;Trajkovic, L. "Distributed denial ofservice attacks" Publication year : 2000,Volume: 3, Page(s): 2275 – 2280[8] Huaping Hu Comput. Sch., Nat. Univ. ofDefense Technol., Changsha, China JingZhang ; Bo Liu ; Lin Chen ; Xin Chen"Simulation and analysis of distributedlow-rate denial-of-service attacks"Publishing year : 2010,Page(s): 620 – 626.[9] Siqin Zhao " Defend Against Denial ofService Attack" Publication year :2009,Page(s): 91 – 96.[10] Xueping Chen "Distributed denial ofservice attack and defense "Publicationyear :2010Volume: 3, On Page(s): V3-318- V3-320.[11] Shaxun Chen ,Kai Zeng ; Mohapatra, P."Hearing is believing: Detecting mobileprimary user emulation attack in whitespace",Date of Conference: 10-15 April2011,Page(s): 36 - 40.[12] Zhou Yuan ,Niyato, D. ; Husheng Li ;Zhu Han "Defense against primary useremulation attacks using belief propagationof location information in cognitive radionetworks"Date of Conference: 28-31March 2011,Page(s): 599 - 604.[13] Husheng Li ,Zhu Han "Dogfight inSpectrum: Combating Primary UserEmulation Attacks in Cognitive RadioSystems"Publication year : November2010Volume: 9, Issue: 11 ,Page(s): 3566- 3577.[14] Yi Tan ,Kai Hong ; Sengupta, S. ;Subbalakshmi, "Using Sybil Identities forPrimary User Emulation and ByzantineAttacks in DSA ", Date of Conference: 5-9 Dec. 2011, Page(s):1-5.[15] Xia Wang Iowa State Univ., AmesWong,J."An End-to-end Detection of WormholeAttack in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks"Dateof Conference: 24-27 July 2007,Page(s):39 - 48.[16] Yih-Chun Hu,Perrig, A. ; Johnson, D.B."Wormhole attacks in wirelessnetworks"Publication year: 2006,Volume:24, Issue: 2 Page(s): 370 – 380[17] Prasad, S. Dept. of Comput. Sci., NorthCarolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, USAThuente, D.J. Jamming attacks in 802.11g— A cognitive radio based approach,Dateof Conference: 7-10 Nov.2011,Page(s):1219-1224[18] lancy, T.C. Electr. & Comput. Eng.,Maryland Univ., College Park, MDGoergen, N.Security in Cognitive RadioNetworks: Threats and Mitigation,Date ofConference: 15-17 May 2008,Page(s): 1 -8