MLERT ppt

1. HIDING NODE IDENTITIES
USING MLERT PROTOCOL IN
MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKs
Under the Guidance of Presented By
Mr. S.Chinnadurai. M.Tech., Dhivya.T
Asst. Professor 814312405005
Dept of CSE. ME-CSE(II year).

2. OVERVIEW
Problem Statement
Abstract
Literature Survey
Existing System
Disadvantages
Proposed System
Advantages
Modules
Module Description
Screen Shots
References

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT
 Existing routing protocols in MANET, does not provide good anonymity
protection for the nodes in the network.
 A Mysterious Location based Enhanced Routing proTocol is used.

4. ABSTRACT
MANETs use anonymous routing protocols that hide node locations from
attackers. It relies on either hop-by hop encryption or redundant traffic. It
generates high cost and cannot provide full protection to data. In order to
transfer messages with low cost and high anonymity protection a Mysterious
Location based Enhanced Routing proTocol (MLERT) is used.

5. LITERATURE SURVEY

6. AN ANONYMOUS ON-DEMAND POSITION-BASED
ROUTING (AODPR) IN MANETs
TECHNIQUE:
 AODPR protocol is used to prevent the traffic analysis and maintain anonymity of
destination node.
DRAWBACKS:
 Fails to provide security for route nodes.
 Attackers can change the temporary id and retrieve the data.

7. A SCALABLE LOCATION MANAGEMENT SCHEME IN
MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
TECHNIQUE:
 DLM (Distributed Location Management) is designed.
DRAWBACK:
 It hides only the location of source and destination.
 Generates high cost.

8. ALARM: ANONYMOUS LOCATION-AIDED ROUTING IN
SUSPICIOUS MANETS
TECHNIQUE:
 An anonymous routing framework ALARM is designed to achieve node
authentication and privacy.
DRAWBACK:
 It fails to hide the source and destination nodes.
 Details of sender or receiver node will be updated.

9. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS: PROTOCOLS, ATTACKS, DESIGN
ISSUES AND OPEN PROBLEMS
TECHNIQUES:
 Intersection attacks.
 Timing attacks.
DRAWBACK:
 Possibilities of channel jamming.

10. ANONYMOUS SECURE ROUTING IN MOBILE AD-
HOC NETWORKS
TECHNIQUES:
 Anonymous Secure Routing (ASR) protocol is used to provide additional properties
on anonymity such as identity anonymity and location privacy.
DRAWBACK:
 Low efficiency.
 Unable to repair the broken routes.

11. EXISTING SYSTEM
 Hop by hop encryption mode used to protect the privacy.
 Redundant traffic.

12. DISADVANTAGES
 Unable to give complete security.
 More complexity.
 Limited resource is a problem in MANETs.
 Imposes higher requirement of routing efficiency.

13. PROPOSED SYSTEM
 MLERT- Mysterious Location based Enhanced Routing proTocol.
 GPSR Algorithm.
 AES Algorithm
 TTL algorithm.

14. ADVANTAGES
 Provides route anonymity, and location anonymity of source and destination.
 It is flexible to intersection attacks and timing attacks.
 Uses randomized routing of one message.

15. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

16. MODULES
 Node Registration
 The MLERT Routing
 Dynamic Pseudonym
 Anonymity Protection
 Random Forwarder

17. MODULE DESCRIPTION
NODE REGISTRATION:
 All nodes are registered in the database with proper ip address and port number.
 This process is to identify the correct user in the database.
 Provides security to the data.
 Protect data transmission between sender and receiver.

18. THE MLERT ROUTING:
 MLERT features a dynamic and unpredictable routing path.
 Hierarchical zone partition of network is done.
 Choose an intermediate relay node.
DYNAMIC PSEUDONYM:
 A source node S sends a request to a destination node D and the destination
responds with data.
 Each node in the network uses a dynamic pseudonym as its node identifier rather
than using its real MAC address.

19. ANONYMITY PROTECTION:
 Intersection attack and timing attacks are resolved.
 TTL algorithm is implemented to overcome those attacks.
RANDOM FORWARDER:
 The partition pattern in ALERT varies depending on the randomly selected TDs.
 The order of horizontal and vertical division provides a better anonymity
protection.

20. SCREENSHOTS

21. NODE REGISTRATION

22. TOPOLOGY CREATION

23. ZONE PARTITION

24. FORWARDING MESSAGE

28. REFERENCES
[1]. A.R. Beresford and F. Stajano, “Mix Zones: User Privacy in Location-Aware Services,” Proc. IEEE Second Ann.
Conf. Pervasive Computing and Comm. Workshops (PERCOMW), 2004.
[2]. K.E. Defrawy and G. Tsudik, “ALARM: Anonymous Location-Aided Routing in Suspicious MANETs,” Proc.
IEEE Int’l Conf.Network Protocols (ICNP), 2007.
[3]. Y.C. Hu, D.B. Johnson, and A. Perrig, “SEAD: Secure Efficient Distance Vector Routing for Mobile Wireless Ad
Hoc Networks,” Proc. IEEE Workshop Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA), 2002.
[4]. M.F. Mokbel, C.-Y. Chow, and W.G. Aref, “The New Casper: Query Processing for Location Services without
Compromising Privacy,” Proc. 32nd Int’l Conf. Very Large Databases (VLDB), 2006
[5]. N.R.Potlapally, S. Ravi, A. Raghunathan, and N.K. Jha, “Analyzing the Energy Consumption of Security
Protocols,” Proc. Int’l Symp. Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED), 2003.

29. [6]. Sk.Md.M. Rahman, M. Mambo, A. Inomata, and E. Okamoto, “An Anonymous On-Demand Position-Based
Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. Int’l Symp. Applications on Internet (SAINT), 2006.
[7]. L. Sweeney, “k-Anonymity: A Model for Protecting Privacy,” Int’l J. Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowledge-Based
Systems, vol. 10, no. 5,pp. 557-570, 2002.
[8]. X. Wu, “AO2P: Ad Hoc On-Demand Position-Based Private Routing Protocol,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing,
vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 335-348, July/Aug. 2005.
[9]. X. Wu, J. Liu, X. Hong, and E. Bertino, “Anonymous Geo-Forwarding in MANETs through Location Cloaking,”
IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1297-1309, Oct.2008.
[10]. Y. Xue, B. Li, and K. Nahrstedt, “A Scalable Location Management Scheme in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks,”
technical report, 2001.
[11]. Haiying Shen and Lianyu Zhao, “ALERT: An Anonymous Location-Based Efficient Routing Protocol in
MANETs” vol. 12, no. 6, June 2013.

30. THANK YOU