Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETS):Attacks and
Challenges: A Survey
Harish P. Chatar
Prof. Surendra Waghmare
PG Student,Dept.of E&TC
Engg.,
G.H.Raisoni College of Engg.
and Management,
University of Pune,
Pune,India
HOD of E&TC Dept.
G.H.Raisoni College
of Engg. and Management
University of Pune, Pune,India
surendra.waghmare@raisoni.net
harish.chatar201@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Vehicular Ad-Hoc network have recently as one of the
most important topic for research and automotive
industries. Due to their high potential to improve safety
traffic, efficiency and other added services. Authentication
in vehicular Ad-Hoc network uses
Public
Key
Infrastructure (PKI) to verify integrity of message and
identity of message sender. In proxy based authentication
security (PBAS) proxy vehicles are used to authenticate
multiple messages with verification function at the same
time. The issues considered in the authentication scheme
included the level of security. This paper presents a survey
of VANETs attack and message authentication using proxy
vehicles and carefully considering the other similar work as
well as update new attack and categorizing them into
different class.
may emerge due to the use of wireless devices in VANET
communication. VANETs have a number of distinctive
properties that could be also vulnerabilities for attackers to
exploit. Those properties include the particular nature of
communication in VANETs.Vehicular Ad hoc Network
have attracted a lot of attention in research commute
because of their varied value added services namely vehicle
safety, automated toll payment, traffic management, travel
lodge.[1]
Keyword
Vehicular Ad hoc Networks, Security Attacks, Challenges
INTRODUCTION
In the last few year, the massive deployment of wireless
technology and the growing number of wireless product on
motorized vehicles including remote keyless entry devices,
PDAs, laptops, and mobile telephones have opened a
number Varity of possibilities for both drives and their
passengers.[1] The principle behind ad hoc networking is
multi-hop relaying in which messages are sent from the
source to the destination by relaying through the
intermediate hops (nodes) VANETs have attracted a lot of
attention due to its potential to offer better driving
experience and road safety, as well as many other value
added services.[3] Security issue is critical in VANETs
because many different forms of attacks against VENETs
Fig 1: Hierarchy of wireless ad hoc network
OVERVIEW OF VANET
1. Intelligent transportation system(ITSs) :[6]
In this each vehicle take the role of sender, receiver and
route to broadcast the information to the vehicular network
which than used the information to found safe, free flow of
traffic. The communication occur between vehicles and
roadside unit vehicle must be equipped with some short of
onboard unit that enables the short range wireless Ad hoc
network will be formed. Fixed RSUs which are connected
to backbone network, must be in place to communication.
The number and distribution of roadside unit is depend on
communication protocol. These include inter vehicle,
vehicle to roadside, and routing based communication.
2. Inter-vehicle communication:[6]
The roadside unit may place at every kilometer, less &
enabling high data rates to be maintained at heavy traffic.
When broadcasting speed limit according to internal
timetable and traffic condition. If a vehicle has a high speed
limit, a broadcast will be delivered to the vehicle in the
form of visual warning, that driver reduce his speed.
The inter-vehicle communication used multi-hop broadcast
to transmit the information related to traffic over a multihop to group of receiver. In transportation system, vehicle
need only active on the road ahead and not behind.
Fig 3:Vehicle-to-roadside communication
4. Routing based communication:[6]
Fig 2: Inter-Vehicle Communication
a)
b)
There are two types of message forwarding in inter-vehicle
communication:
Naïve broadcasting- In which vehicle send broadcast
message periodically and regular interval of time. The
vehicle ignores the message if it has come from a vehicle
behind it. If the message comes from a vehicle in front, the
receiving vehicle sends its own broadcast message to
vehicle behind it. The limitations of the naïve broadcasting
method is that large numbers of broadcast message are
generated.
Intelligent broadcasting- With implicit acknowledgement
addresses the problems inherent in naïve broadcasting by
limiting the number of messages broadcast for a given
emergency event. The assumption is that the vehicle in the
back will be responsible for moving the message along to
the rest of the vehicles. If a vehicle receives a message
from more than one source it will act on the first message
only.
3. Vehicle-to-roadside communication:[6]
In vehicle roadside communication it represent the single
hop broadcast where the road side unit send a broadcast
message to all equipped vehicle. Vehicle-to-roadside
communication provide high bandwidth link between
vehicle & roadside unit.
Routing based communication is a multi-hop uncast where
a message is propagated in a multi-hop fashion unit the
vehicle carrying the desired data is reached.
When the query is received by vehicle owing the desired
information, the application at that vehicle immediately
sends a uncast message containing the information to the
vehicle is received the request form, which is then charge
with the task of forwarding it toward the source.
Fig 4:Routing based communication
VANETs have a number of distinctive properties that could
be also vulnerabilities for attackers to exports. Those
property include the particular nature of communication in
VANTEs. Connections in VANET in particular and in any
wireless Ad Hoc network in general based of node to node
communication: every node is able to act as either a host
inquiring data or a router forwarding data. There are two
types of Nodes:[1]
1) Roadside Units:
Waiting for fixed nodes provisioned along the
route
component of that network then it separate the network in
to two disconnect component.[2]
2) Onboard Unit:
It consist of mobile node equipped with some
radio interface that enables connecting to other nodes in
wireless.
Fig 6:Black hole Attack
Gray hole attack:
Fig 5:A basic Structure of VANET
Gray hole attack has its own characteristic behavior .DATA
packets, but nodes malicious activity is limited to certain
condition. Two most common type of behavior.
SECURITY CHALLENGES:
Use of wireless links service in Ad-hoc network susceptible
to link attack ranging passive to active impersonation,
message replay & message distortion. Active attack could
range from deleting message, injecting message, thus
violating availability, integrity, authentication and non
repudiation. We need to consider malicious attack not only
from outside but also from within the network node.
Following are the security can be breached.
Vulnerability of channel: In wireless network, message
can be eavesdropped and fake message can be injected into
the network without difficulty of having physical to
network component.[2]
Vulnerability of nodes: As nodes do not reside in a
protected place they can be easily captured and fall under
the control of attack.[2]
Absence of infrastructure: Ad-hoc network don’t work
on fixed infrastructure, the classical security solution based
on certification authorized.[2]
Dynamically changing topology: It is difficult to
distinguish that routing information change due to topology
change.[2]
Fig 7:Gray hole Attack
a)Node dependent attack:-DATA packets toward a
certain victim node or coming from certain node, while for
other nodes it behaves normally by routing DATA packet ti
the destination nodes correctly.
SECURITY ATTACKS:
Black hole attack:
In this attacks a malicious acts like a Black hole, dropping
all data packet passing through it as like mater and energy
disappears from our universe in a black hole. If the
attacking node is connecting node of two connecting
Fig 7.1:Gray hole node dependent attack
b)Time dependent attack:-DATA packet based
on some trigger time while behaving normally during
the other instance.
connects via a warm hole link. In above figure Node X &Y
performing warm hole attack.[2]
Fig 8:Wram hole Attack
Fig 7.2: Gray hole time dependent attack
Rushing Attack:
Jellyfish Attack:
Jellyfish attack is somewhat different from Black-Hole &
Gray-Hole attack. Instead of blindly dropping the data
packet, it delays them before delivering them. It may even
scramble the order of packet in which they are received and
it in random order. Jellyfish attack can result in significance
end to end delay and thereby degrading QoS. Few of
method are used in this attack.
a)
One of the methods is scrambling packet order before
delivering them instead of received FIFO order. ACK
based flow control mechanism will generate duplicate ACK
packet.
b)
Another method can be, performing selective Black-hole
attack by dropping all packets at every RTO. This will
caused timeout in sender node at every RTO for that
duration.
c)
The attacking node can store all the received packet in its
buffer but sends them after some random delay maintaining
the received packet order. Sometime the source node might
take a longer route instead of the most obvious shortest
route.
Warm hole attack:
warm hole attack in cosmological term, connects two
distant point in space via shortcut route. In the same way in
MANET also one or more attacking node can disrupt
routing by short circuiting the network, thereby disrupting
usual flow of packets. Warm hole attack can be done with
single node also but generally two or more malicious node
In AODV or related protocol, each node before
transmitting its data, first established a valid route to
destination. Sender node broadcasts a RREO (route
request) message in neighborhood and valid routes rely
with RREP (route reply) with proper route information.
Some of the protocols use duplicate suppression
mechanism to limit the route request and reply chatter in
network. In rushing attack, attacker node does send packet
to proper node after its own filtering is done, so from
outside the network behave normally as if nothing
happened.[2]
Fig 9: Rushing Attack
Few of the protocols that might help in resolving Rushing
attack:
i) SEDYMO: Secured Dynamic MANET On. Demand is
similar to DYMO but it dictates intermediate node must
add routing information while broadcasting the routing
message and no intermediate node should delete.
ii) SRDP: Secure Route Discovery Protocol is security
[6]Sherali Zeadally, Ray Hunt, Yuh-Shyan Chen, Angela
enhanced Dynamic Source routing (DSR) protocol.
Irwin, Aamir Hassan,”Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks: Status,
iii) SND: Secure Neighbor Detection is another method
of verifying each neighbor’s identity within a maximum
transmission range.
Result, and Challenges”,in Telecommunication System,
Volume 50,Issue 4,app 217-241,2012.
[7] P. Enge, Retooling the Global Positioning System,
Scientific American (May) (2004).
CONCLUSION:
[8] J.T. Isaac, S. Zeadally, and J.S. Cmara, “security attacks
Security in ad hoc networks is a very challenging issue.
Because of their characteristics, ad hoc networks, are open
especially to Denial of service attacks.[1]Classical security
solutions are not suited for ad hoc networks.Basic
Mechanisms A)Difficult to force the nodes to collaborate
B)No standard routing protocol yet . Because of their
characteristics, ad hoc networks are open especially to
Denial of service attacks. Consists of vehicle-to-vehicle,
vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. It improves the
safety of vehicles. Supports Intelligent Transportation
system.
and solutions for vehicular ad hoc network”,in IET
solution in vehicular AD HOC Network: A Survey”
International Journal on Ad Hoc Network System Vol.4,
No.2, April 2014.
[2] Sanjana Lakkadi, Amit Mishra, Manish Bhardwaj”
Security in ad hoc networks” American Journal of
Networks and Communications vol.2,No 3.1, January 16,
2015.
[3] Yiliang Liu, Liangmin Wang, “Message Authentication
Using Proxy Vehicles in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks”
IEEE Transactions On Vehicular Technology, vol.xxx Year
2014.
[4]Raya, M. and Hubaux, J., “The Security of Vehicular
in Proceedings of the 3rdACM
Workshop on Security of Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks
(SASN 2005), Alexandria, VA.
[5] Harsch, C., Festag, A. & Papadimitratos, P., “Secure
Position-Based Routing for VANETs”, in Proceedings of
66thVehicular
Technology Conference
(VTC-
2007).Gerlach, M., Full Paper: Assessing and Improving
Privacy
in
VANET’s
Authentication in Vehicular Ad hoc Networks: ECDSA
Based Approch”, in International Conference on Future
Computer and communication,2009, pp. 16-20.
[10] Sherali Zeadally ,Ray Hunt ,Yuh-Shyan Chen ,Angela
Irwin ,Aamir Hassan “Vehicular ad hoc networks
(VANETS): status, results,and challenges”Telecomm Syst
[11] Security for Ad Hoc Network, Hang Zhao.
[1] Vinh Hoa LA, Ana Cavalli “Security Attacks and
IEEE
[9] S.S. Manvi, M. S. Kakkasageri, D. G. Adiga, “Message
DOI10.1007/s11235-010-9400-5.
REFERENCES
Ad Hoc Networks”,
Communication, pp. 894-903,2009.
www.network
de/downloads/escar2006 herlach.pdf.
konwheels