EXISTING SYSTEM: The most of the related works preclude the ambiguity of the environment by assuming that malicious dropping is the only source of packet loss, so that there is no need to account for the impact of link errors. On the other hand, for the small number of works that differentiate between link errors and malicious packet drops, their detection algorithms usually require the number of maliciously-dropped packets to be significantly higher than link errors, in order to achieve an acceptable detection accuracy. Depending on how much weight a detection algorithm gives to link errors relative to malicious packet drops, the related work can be classified into the following two categories. The first category aims at high malicious dropping rates, where most (or all) lost packets are caused by malicious dropping. The second category targets the scenario where the number of maliciously dropped packets is significantly higher than that caused by link errors, but the impact of link errors is non-negligible. DISADVANTAGES OF EXISTING SYSTEM: In an open wireless environment, link errors are quite significant, and may not be significantly smaller than the packet dropping rate of the insider attacker. So, the insider attacker can camouflage under the background of harsh channel conditions. In this case, just by observing the packet loss rate is not enough to accurately identify the exact cause of a packet loss. This problem has not been well addressed in the existing system. In the existing system first category case, the impact of link errors is ignored.
EXISTING SYSTEM: The most of the related works preclude the ambiguity of the environment by assuming that malicious dropping is the only source of packet loss, so that there is no need to account for the impact of link errors. On the other hand, for the small number of works that differentiate between link errors and malicious packet drops, their detection algorithms usually require the number of maliciously-dropped packets to be significantly higher than link errors, in order to achieve an acceptable detection accuracy. Depending on how much weight a detection algorithm gives to link errors relative to malicious packet drops, the related work can be classified into the following two categories. The first category aims at high malicious dropping rates, where most (or all) lost packets are caused by malicious dropping. The second category targets the scenario where the number of maliciously dropped packets is significantly higher than that caused by link errors, but the impact of link errors is non-negligible. DISADVANTAGES OF EXISTING SYSTEM: In an open wireless environment, link errors are quite significant, and may not be significantly smaller than the packet dropping rate of the insider attacker. So, the insider attacker can camouflage under the background of harsh channel conditions. In this case, just by observing the packet loss rate is not enough to accurately identify the exact cause of a packet loss. This problem has not been well addressed in the existing system. In the existing system first category case, the impact of link errors is ignored.
Privacy-Preserving-and-Truthful-Detection-of-Packet-Dropping-Attacks-in-Wireless-Ad-Hoc-Networks-docx.docx