p action by sending threat messages at a varying

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; }p.western { font-family: “Times New Roman”,serif; font-size: 12pt; }p.cjk { font-family: “Times New Roman”; font-size: 12pt; }p.ctl { font-family: “Times New Roman”; font-size: 12pt; }a:link { color: rgb(0, 0, 255); }

According Bharti
(2016) vehicular
Ad-hoc Network is vulnerable to several security threats, vehicle to
vehicle communication is infrastructure less and lack centralised
control, these have made it becomes vulnerable to malicious
activities
(Uzma Khan, 2015).
Data transmission passes in an open path through wireless medium and
the openness
natures of communication is expose
to security threats
(R.A.
Raja Mahmood, 2014).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

1.9.1 Denial
of Service (DOS) attack

In DOS attack the malicious nodes prevents legitimate and authorised
vehicle from accessing the network and resources. In this attack, the
path of the network is jam by malicious node so that no authorised
vehicle can access the network. This attack is serious, since,
infected vehicle will not be able to communicate with the other
vehicles (Supinder
Kaur, 2016).
DOS attacks in vehicular networks as mentioned by
(Bharti, 2016)
can be implemented from one of the following techniques:

Jamming mode: In this
approach, the malicious vehicle senses the physical channel of the
communication and gets the information about the frequency at which
the vehicle receives the signal. The malicious vehicle re-transmits
the signal on the channel so that the channel is jam by making the
channel busy executing unnecessary tasks, this will make the channel
overwhelm and stop executing necessary tasks.

Distributed
mode: In this approach, the attack executes in distributed manner
from multiple malicious vehicles at different locations, by
preventing the victim vehicle from accessing the network resources
and services. The malicious vehicle may use different time slot for
executing the action by sending threat messages at a varying time,
the aim is to slow down the network and prevent the network from
operating properly. The execution of this threat as described by
(Supinder
Kaur, 2016)
is achievable against vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to
infrastructure communication.

Sybil Attack: As describe by
(Supinder
Kaur, 2016) is
a threat in which multiple messages from one node are sends to
multiple nodes with different identities. This creates confusion in
the network that can leads to collisions problem in the network.

1.9.2 Threats in Routing

The goal of routing attacks as
described by (Bharti,
2016) is to
exploits the vulnerability of network layer of routing protocol by
either dropping the packet or disturbs the routing process of
communication. The most common routing attack in vehicular network is
black hole attack. In this type of attack, the malicious vehicle
attracts the active vehicles to transmit the packet through itself.
However, the malicious vehicle keeps sending false route continuously
claiming to be an active route. This threat has the characteristics
as follows:

Packet dropping: In this
threat, the malicious vehicle attracts and convinces the active
vehicles to broadcast the packet through itself by sending fake
route request claiming to be an active route, the active vehicle
broadcast the packet through the malicious vehicle route, when the
packet reaches the malicious vehicle, then the packet is drop
(Supinder
Kaur, 2016).
This type of attack reduces network throughput and increases packet
drop ratio significantly and can lead to collapse or suspension of
the communication channel (Soufiene
Djahel, 2011).
However, According to (Varadharajan,
2005) packets
can also be dropped due to congestion, corruption or fault from the
channel of communication and overflow of transmission queue.

Route flooding: In this
threat, the malicious vehicle floods the network channel with
generated forge Route Requests (RReg) addressed to unknown
destination in the network. The malicious vehicle does not intend to
receive a reply but to flood the network and creates congest. As
results of this, the network resources are exhausted and increase
unnecessarily bandwidth consumption, as well as disruption of
operational performances of the routing operations
(Kshitij Bhargava, 2014).