International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 20 Number 1 – Feb 2015
The Effects of Black hole attack on AODV and TORA protocols: A Review
Dipika Jain#1 , Ms. Sunita Sangwan*2
#1
1,2
Student, *2 Assistant Professor (SS)
Computer Science & Engineering Department, PDM College of Engineering & Technology, B’Garh
M.D.U., Rohtak, Haryana, India
Abstract
Wireless network is a collection of large number of wireless
devices. Such a network may or may not have a base station. The
network having a fixed based station is termed as an
infrastructured network. The network without a base station is
termed as infrastructureless network.
MANET is an infrastructureless wireless network system that is
self governed, dynamic and decentralized. Each node in the
network is free to move to and fro the network that is any node
can join or leave the network at any time. This can be broadly
used in areas like defense-battle fields, disaster prone areas,
vehicular computing or any other area of personal area network.
In this paper, we focus on Adhoc On Demand Distance Vector
Routing Protocol (AODV) and Temporally Ordered Routing
Algorithm (TORA) that are under Reactive Routing Protocol.
Also we discuss about the effect of black hole attack on these two
protocols. End-to-End Delay, Packet Delivery Ratio,
Throughput, Dropped Packets, Jitter and Network Load are
parameters.
iMANET: This type of MANET is used to link mobile nodes
to fixed internet gateways in the network.
Reactive Routing Protocol
It is alternatively named as an On demand routing protocol or
demand driven reactive protocol which gets active only when
nodes want to transmit data packets to other nodes. It uses
flooding technique to propagate the request for path. This
protocol does not require maintenance of routes to destination
nodes. AODV (adhoc on demand distance vector), DSR
(Dynamic Sequence Routing) and TORA (Temporally
Ordered Routing Algorithm) are examples of reactive routing
protocol.
Keywords: MANET, AODV, TORA, Black Hole
I. INTRODUCTION
MANET, a wireless Mobile Adhoc Network is a collection of
mobile nodes that can freely enter and exit the network. These
mobile nodes are connected by wireless links and acts as
routers to forward the data packets across the network.
Multihop, Security, Bandwidth, battery power constraint,
Routing and Large network size are the major challenges in
MANET. There are three basic types of MANET:
 Vehicular Adhoc Network (VANET),
 Intelligent Vehicular Adhoc Network (InVANET)
and
 Internet based Mobile Adhoc Network (iMANET).
VANET: VANET is a type of Mobile Ad-Hoc network where
vehicles are equipped with wireless and form a network
without help of any infrastructure.
InVANET: Vehicles that form a communication network using
WiMax IEEE 802.16 and WiFi IEEE 802.11. Main aim is to
avoid vehicular collision so as to keep passengers safe.
ISSN: 2231-5381
Fig: RREQ Flooding
AODV Protocol
Adhoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol
(AODV) is widely known reactive routing protocol where the
network is silent until a connection is needed. This protocol
creates routes between nodes only when the source node
requests for it. AODV protocol supports both unicast and
multicast broadcasting. AODV use control messages to find
the route from source to destination node. These control
messages are as:

Route Request Message (RREQ)

Route Reply Message (RREP) and

Route Error Message (RRER)
The route created lasts only till the data packets are travelling
from source node to the destination node. It is better than
DSDV as the network size may increase or decrease
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 6
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 20 Number 1 – Feb 2015
depending upon the number of nodes. This protocol uses
sequence number at each destination node to determine the
freshness of the routing information. The sequence number is
carried by all the routing packets across the network.
TORA Protocol
Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm is a reactive routing
protocol for mobile adhoc networks. It finds routes for the
data packets across the network using link reversal algorithm.
This protocol builds and maintains DAG (Directed Acyclic
Graph) and attempts to achieve high degree of scalability.
TORA protocol provides information regarding multiple
routes. It maintains the routing information of the adjacent
nodes in the network. The network topology changes
dynamically in the transmission area.
II. SECURITY ATTACKS
Confidentiality, Authorization, Integrity, Availability are the
basic requirements for a secured network. Transmission of
data packets in MANET takes place in an open medium which
makes it vulnerable to security attacks. MANET is more
vulnerable than a wired network. There are two basic types of
security attacks detected in MANET as:

Internal Attacks and

External Attacks.
Internal Attacks
Active Attacks
Active attacks may harm or alter the data being transmitted
across the network. It may even prevent the flow of message
from one node to another. The attack involves actions of the
intruders with the aim to attack the data traffic. The malicious
nodes through an unauthorized access sense the network and
change or modify the routing information, the packet
sequence number etc and thus resulting into congestion in the
network. These attacks are seen in several layers of the
protocol stack. Some of them are Black Hole Attack, Worm
Hole Attack, DoS Attack and Gray hole Attack.
Here we discuss about the Black hole Attack in AODV and
TORA Protocol.
III. BLACK HOLE ATTACK
A black hole attack is one of the Network layer attacks in
MANET. It is an attack where one malicious node claims
itself as the shortest path to the destination node. Black hole
attack can be an internal or an external attack. It can further be
classified as:
 Single black hole attack and
 Cooperative black hole attack
Single Black Hole Attack
Internal Attacks are carried out by the most promising and
trusted nodes that are the part of the network. The trusted node
acts as the genuine node and attains an unauthorized access. It
also participates in other network activities. Such malicious
nodes generate wrong routing information for other nodes in
the network.
External Attacks
External Attacks are carried out by the malicious nodes
outside the network. Such attacks cause congestion in the
network generating false routing information. These attacks
prevent the network from normal communication. Passive
attacks and Active attacks are further classification of such
attacks.
Passive Attacks
Passive attacks neither harm nor alter the data transmitted
across the network. The malicious node listens to the network
and senses the medium through an unauthorized access.
ISSN: 2231-5381
Powerful encryption algorithms are the only solution to keep
the data safe from being corrupted. Such attacks can be
prevented.
A single black hole attack is when one malicious node in the
network claims itself as the shortest path to reach the
destination node. The source node sends the data packet to
this malicious node which is either dropped or delayed by the
node. There is no interaction among the source and destination
nodes regarding the data packet. There can be several ways to
detect this attack in the network. One of them is neighbor
hood based detection method [21][16]. In this scheme, the
unconfirmed nodes are identified along with a new routing
path from source to destination. It uses lower detection time.
Cooperative Black Hole Attack
The scheme of cooperative black hole is considered when
single black hole detection fails. A cooperative black hole is
when some malicious nodes collaborate together to behave as
the normal route. These nodes hide from the single black hole
detection schemes. Several schemes of detecting the
cooperative black hole are presented as, DRI table and Cross
Checking Scheme, Distributed Cooperative mechanism,
Hashed based scheme and Backbone nodes and restricted IP
scheme. In the scheme of DRI table and Cross Checking
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 7
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 20 Number 1 – Feb 2015
[16][1] every node maintains a DRI (Data Routing
Information) table where bit 1 stands for „true‟ and bit 0
stands for „false‟. They maintain table of „from‟ and „through‟
bits on the data packets. In the scheme of cross checking, the
source node sends the request message in order to find a
secure route for transfer of data packets to the destination
node. The intermediate node generates a reply message to the
source node which contains information regarding the next
hop node with a DRI table entry. The source node checks this
entry with its own DRI table to identify it as a reliable node.
End-to-End Delay
∑ (Arrive Time – Send Time)
∑ (No. of Connections)
The data packets that are successfully delivered to destination
are considered.
2.
Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR)
It is the number of delivered data packets to the destination.
PDR= ∑ (No. of packets receive)
∑ (No. of packets send)
Greater value of PDR (Packet Delivery Ratio) means the
performance of the protocol is better.
3.
Throughput
It is the number of data packets successfully transmitted to
their final destination per unit time. This is also termed as the
productivity of a network. It can be given as packets / sec.
This parameter depends on two main factors, limited
bandwidth and limited power. It is denoted by T.
T=
4.
Received node
Simulation Time
Dropped Packets
It is the number of packets that were sent by the source node
but failed to reach the destination node. It is denoted by L.
L=
Sent Packets
Received Packets
ISSN: 2231-5381
It is the measured as the ratio of the number of received
packets by the destination node to the number of sent packets
by the source node.
6.
Energy Consumption
It is determined by the transmission and reception of data
packets by nodes.
Time required to transmit the packet is given by:
Time required by received packets is given by:
E2E delay is an average time taken by a data packet to arrive
in the destination.
E2E=
Packet Delivery Fraction (PDF)
txEnergy =txPower * ( Packet size )
Bandwidth
IV. PERFORMANCE METRICS
1.
5.
rxEnergy =rxPower * ( Packet size )
Bandwidth
where; txEnergy is the energy consumed during transmission
process and txPower is the transmission power.
V. RELATED WORK
In this section we will discuss some research work that has
been already done by various authors.
Jasvinder et al., [8] proposed effects of E2E delay, throughput,
network load on AODV in the absence and presence of the
black hole attack. The work is simulated using 45 nodes
moving at a constant speed of 10m/sec. It is observed that
larger number of nodes affect the performance of the network
using OPNET simulator.
Nital Mistry et al., [17] proposed the improved AODV
protocol on NS-2 simulator ver.2.33 using single detection
type. Simulation was performed with 25 nodes and 300s as the
simulation time. The result showed improvement of Packet
Delivery Ratio (PDR) by ~80% that lead to rise in end to end
delay.
Ravi Kumar et al,. [10] proposed the effects of four
parameters, End-to end delay, throughput, Packet Delivery
Ratio and control overhead with different number of nodes
taken as 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, different pause time taken as
0s, 30s, 90s, 120s and 150s, and different network size. It was
simulated using NS-2 (2.34) simulator. It concluded that DSR
is better in terms of PDR when network size is less than
600*600 sq m. As the network size goes beyond this, OLSR is
better in terms of throughput and PDR.
Er. Pragati et al,. [12] proposed the simulation of AODV,
LEACH and TORA protocols using parameters: End-to-End
delay, Packet Delivery Ratio and Packet loss on NS-2
simulator. It was concluded that the packet delivery ratio was
better for AODV but with the increased number of nodes,
PDF in TORA increased. It was also calculated that average
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 8
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 20 Number 1 – Feb 2015
end to end delay increased in TORA as the number of nodes
in the network were increased. Packet loss in TORA increased
due to delay.
Ms. Gayatri Wahane et al,. [1] proposed an algorithm for
detection of cooperative Black hole attack. This introduced
the concepts of maintenance of data routing information table
(DRI) and cross checking of a node. It was concluded that the
proposed algorithm works well in case of detecting the
cooperative black hole attack and ensuring a secure as well as
a reliable route from source to destination. The work was
simulated using throughput, average end-to-end delay,
dropped packets and packet delivery fraction metrics on NS-2
simulator.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we study about the general survey about
MANET and its security issue. It is considered to study effects
of black hole attack on AODV and TORA protocol with Endto-end delay, throughput and Packet delivery Ratio as
parameters. There is a need to analyze the effect of black hole
attack modified AODV with respect to ZRP, OLSR, TORA
and GRP.
[9] Vipan Chand Sharma, Atul Gupta and Vivek Dimri, “Detection of Black
Hole Attack in MANET under AODV Routing Protocol”. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software
Engineering, Vol.3, Issue.06, PP-438-443, June 2013.
[10] Ravi Kumar and Prabhat Singh, “Performance Evaluation of AODV,
TORA, OLSR, DSDV Routing Protocols using NS-2 Simulator”.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology (IJIRSET), Vol.2, Issue.8, August 2013.
[11] Manjeet Singh and Gaganpreet Kaur, “A surveys of attacks in MANET”.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Sciences and
Software Engineering (IJARCSSE), Vol.3, Issue.6, June 2013.
[12] Er. Pragati and Dr. Rajender Nath, “Performance Evaluation of AODV,
LEACH and TORA protocols through simulation”. International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Vol.2,
Issue.7, July 2012.
[13] Kamini Maheshwar and Divakar Singh, “Black Hole Effect Analysis and
Prevention through IDS in MANET”. European Journal of Applied
Engineering and Scientific Research, 1(4), 84-90, 2012.
[14] Saida Mohammad, Maher Alsanabani and Tariq Alahdal, “Comparision
Study of Routing Protocols in MANET”. International Journal of Ad-Hoc,
Vehicular and Sensor Networks (IJAHVSN), 2013.
[15] Lamyaa M.T. Harb, Dr. M. Tantawy, NTI, and Prof. Dr. M. Elsoudani,
“Performance of Mobile Adhoc Networks under attacks”. IEEE 2013.
REFERENCES
[1] Ms. Gayatri Wahane and Prof. Ashok Kanthe, “Technique for Detection
of Cooperative Black Hole Attack in MANET”. IOSR Journal of Computer
Science (IOSR-JCE), e-ISSN: 2278-0661, PP.59-67, 2014.
[2] Ravinder Kaur and Jyoti Kalra, “A Review Paper on Detection and
Prevention of Black Hole in MANET”, International Journal of Advanced
Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering”, Vol.4, Issue 6,
PP.37-40, June 2014.
[3] Irshad Ullah and Shahzad Anwar, “Effects of Black Hole Attack on
MANET using Reactive and Proactive Protocols”. International Journal of
Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), Vol.10, Issue.3, No.1, 152-159, May 2013.
[4] Nisha, Simranjit Kaur and Sandeep Kumar Arora, “Analysis of Black
Hole Effect and Prevention through IDS in MANET”. American Journal of
Engineering Research (AJER), Vol.02, Issue.10, pp-214-220, 2013.
[5] Neha Kaushik and Ajay Dureja, “A Comparative Study of Black Hole
Attack in MANET”. International Journal of Electronics and Communication
Engineering and Technology (IJECET), Vol.4, Issue.2, pp-93-102, MarchApril 2013.
[6] Harjeet Kaur, Manju Bala and Varsha Sahni, “Performance Evaluation of
AODV, OLSR and ZRP Routing Protocols under the Black hole attack in
MANET”. International Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical,
Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering (IJAREEIE), Vol.2, Issue.6,
June 2013.
[7] Harjeet Kaur, Manju Bala and Varsha Sahni, “Study of Black Hole Attack
using different routing protocols in MANET”. International Journal of
Advanced Research in Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation
Engineering (IJAREEIE), Vol.2, Issue.7, July 2013.
ISSN: 2231-5381
[8] Jasvinder and Monika Sachdeva, “Effects of Black Hole on an AODV
Routing Protocol through the using OPNET simulator”. International Journal
of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Vol.3,
Issue.7, July 2013.
[16] Shrevin Ehrampoosh and Ali Mahani, “Securing Routing Protocol:
Affection on MANET‟s Performance”. International Journal of
Communications and Information Technology (IJCIT), Vol.1, No.1, pp.7-15,
Dec 2011.
[17] Fan-Hsun Tseng, Li-Der Chou and Han-chieh Chao, “A survey of Black
hole attacks in wireless mobile adhoc networks”. Human Centric Computing
and Informational Sciences, A SpringerOpen Journal, 2011, 1:4.
[18] Nital Mistry, Devesh C Jinwala nad Mukesh Zaveri, “Improving AODV
protocol against Black Hole attacks”. Proceedings of International Multi
Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol.II, March 17-19, Hong
Kong, 2010.
[19] Payal N. Raj and Prashant B. Swadas, “DPRAODV: A Dynamic
Learning System against Black Hole attack in AODV based MANET”.
International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), Vol.2, PP.54-59,
2009.
[20] Latha Tamilselvan and Dr. V. Sankarnarayanan, “Prevention of
Cooperative Black Hole attack in MANET”. Journal of Networks, Vol.3,
No.5, PP.13-20, May 2008.
[21] Mohammad Al-Shurman and Seong-moo yoo and Seungjin park, “Black
hole attack in Mobile adhoc networks”. AMCSE‟04, April 2-3, Huntsville,
AL, USA, 2004.
[22] Bo Sun, Yong Guan, Jian Chen and Udo W. Pooch, “Detecting Black
Hole attack in Mobile adhoc Networks”. The Institute of Electrical Engineers,
Michael Faraday House, Six Hill Way, Stevenage SGI 2AY, EPMCC 2003.
http://www.ijettjournal.org
Page 9