A Survey on Security Issues to Detect Wormhole Attack in Wireless Sensor Network

International Journal on AdHoc Networking Systems (IJANS) Vol. 2, No. 4, October 2012
DOI : 10.5121/ijans.2012.2404 37
A SURVEY ON SECURITY ISSUES TO DETECT
WORMHOLE ATTACK IN WIRELESS SENSOR
NETWORK
Priya Maidamwar1
and Nekita Chavhan2
1
Wireless Communication & Computing, Department of Computer Science &
Engineering, G H. Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, India
priyamaidamwar2189@gmail.com
2
Computing, Department of Computer Science & Engineering,
G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, India
niki.chavan@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Sensor nodes, when deployed to form Wireless sensor network operating under control of central authority
i.e. Base station are capable of exhibiting interesting applications due to their ability to be deployed
ubiquitously in hostile & pervasive environments. But due to same reason security is becoming a major
concern for these networks. Wireless sensor networks are vulnerable against various types of external and
internal attacks being limited by computation resources, smaller memory capacity, limited battery life,
processing power & lack of tamper resistant packaging. This survey paper is an attempt to analyze threats
to Wireless sensor networks and to report various research efforts in studying variety of routing attacks
which target the network layer. Particularly devastating attack is Wormhole attack- a Denial of Service
attack, where attackers create a low-latency link between two points in the network. With focus on survey of
existing methods of detecting Wormhole attacks, researchers are in process to identify and demarcate the
key research challenges for detection of Wormhole attacks in network layer.
KEYWORDS
Denial of Service, Mobile adhoc network, Security, Wireless sensor network, Wormhole attacks.
1. INTRODUCTION
Wireless sensor networks as a part of MANET consists of a large number of tiny sensor nodes
that continuously monitors environmental conditions. Sensor nodes perform various significant
tasks as signal processing, computation, and network self-configuration to expand network
coverage and strengthen its scalability. The sensors all together provide global scenario of the
environments that offer more information than those provided by independently operating
sensors. They are also responsible for sensing environment and transmission information. Usually
the transmission task is critical as there is huge amount of data and sensors devices are restricted.
As sensor devices are limited the network is exposed to variety of attacks. Traditional security
mechanisms are not applicable for WSNs as they are usually heavy and nodes are limited. Also
these mechanisms do not eliminate risk of other attacks. WSNs are useful in various critical
domains such as environment, industry, military, healthcare, security and many others. For an
instance, in a military operation, a wireless sensor network monitors several activities. If an event
is detected, these sensor nodes sense it and report the information to the base station (called sink)

38
by communicating with other nodes. To collect data from WSNs, base stations are generally used.
They usually have more resources (e.g. computation power and energy) than normal sensor nodes
which have more or less such constraints. Aggregation points gather data from neighbouring
sensor nodes integrate the data and forward them to base stations, where the data are further
processed or forwarded to a processing centre. In this way, energy can be conserved in WSNs and
network life time is thus prolonged.
WSNs have some special characteristics that distinguish them from other networks such as
MANET. The characteristics, are listed as follows, that can lead to the use of WSNs in the real
world:
• Sensor nodes possess extremely limited resources, such as battery life, memory space and
processing capability. Routing protocols and algorithms are preferred to achieve longer sensor
life.
• WSNs are self configuring and self organizing wireless networks.
• The topology of sensor network changes rapidly and randomly. Sensor nodes are continuously
added and deleted from the network.
• WSNs have centralized approach in terms of network control. Data flows from sensor nodes
towards a few aggregation points which further forward the data to base stations. Also base
stations could broadcast query/control information to sensor nodes [1].
Among the designs of WSNs, security is one of the significant aspects that deserve great
attention, considering the tremendous application opportunities. Thus keeping in mind security
constraints this paper presents a brief review of existing techniques for wormhole attack detection
in network layer.
Thus, the survey paper focuses on various approaches to detect wormhole attacks. Section 2
describes the challenges of sensor networks; section 3 presents attacks on sensor networks;
section 4 studies background and significance of wormhole attack; section 5 describes wormhole
attack model; section 6 presents types of wormhole attack; section 7 describes countermeasures to
wormhole attacks and section 8 followed by future research challenges. Section 9 describes the
conclusion.
2. CHALLENGES OF SENSOR NETWORKS
A wireless sensor network is a special network which has many constraint compared to a
conventional computer network Security in wireless sensor networks has attracted a lot of
attention in the recent years. Majority of resource constraints makes computer security more
challenging task for these systems. The various challenges are discussed as follows.
.
2.1. Wireless nature of communication
The open nature of wireless medium is inherently less secure and thus makes it vulnerable against
various kinds of malicious attacks. These attacks can be either passive or active attacks. Passive
attack intends to steal information and to eavesdrop on communication within the network In
active attacks, attacker modifies and injects packets into the network. This factor should be taken
into consideration so that performance of the system is not significantly affected.

39
2.2. Ad-Hoc Deployment
Sensor nodes are deployed randomly and do not have any fixed topology. The ad-hoc nature of
sensor networks means no regular structure can be defined. Due to high mobility of nodes
network topology is always subject to changes. Hence security mechanisms must be able to
operate within this dynamic environment.
2.3. Hostile Environment
Hostile environment in which sensor nodes are deployed is another challenging factor. Due to the
broadcast nature of the transmission medium, wireless sensor networks are vulnerable to various
security attacks. Moreover nodes are placed in a dangerous or unguarded environment where they
are not physically protected. Attackers may capture a node, physically tamper it, and extract
valuable information from it. The highly hostile environment represents challenging approach for
security researchers.
2.4. Resource Limitation
Adequate amount of resources are mandatory for the implementation of all security approaches.
including memory, bandwidth, and energy to power the sensor. However, currently these
resources are very limited in a tiny wireless sensor which poses considerable challenges to
resource-hungry security mechanisms.
2.4.1 Limited Memory and Storage Capacity:
Sensor node is a tiny device with very small amount of memory and storage space for the code. It
is necessary to limit the code size of the security algorithm in order to develop an effective
security mechanism.
2.4.2 Power Limitation:
The use of wireless sensor networks is increasing day by day and since each node depends on
energy for its activities, this has become a biggest constraint and primary requirement in wireless
sensor networks. The failure of one node can destroy the entire system. Therefore, some
mechanisms must be designed to conserve energy resource.
2.5. Scalability
Scalability is a major factor in wireless sensor networks. A network topology is dynamic, it
changes depending upon the user requirements. All the nodes in the network area must be
scalable so as to adapt themselves with changing network topology.
2.6. Unreliable Communication
Certainly, unreliable nature of communication channel is another challenging issue to sensor
security. The security of the network depends heavily on a defined protocol, which in turn
depends on communication.
2.6.1 Unreliable Transmission:
Sensor network follows packet-based routing approach for communication. Hence transmission is
connectionless and therefore inherently unreliable.

40
2.6.2 Conflicts:
Although the channel is reliable, the communication may still be unreliable because of congestion
of data packets. This is due to the broadcast nature of the wireless sensor network.
2.6.3 Latency:
Latency is defined by how much time a node takes to monitor, or sense and communicate the
activity. Sensor nodes gather information, process it and send it to the base station. Latency in a
network is computed based on these activities as well as how much time a sensor node takes to
forward the data in heavy network traffic or in a low density network.
2.7. Unattended Operation
In certain cases, the sensor nodes are not operated and hence are left unattended for long periods
of time. There are three main reasons to unattended sensor nodes.
2.7.1 High risk of Physical Attacks:
After deployment, sensors are usually left unattended and easy to be physically compromised. An
adversary can capture one or more nodes, injects some malicious code into them to cause threats
or receives information from the network. Also, an adversary can easily eaves drop the
transmission or launch serious attacks. Therefore, it is not surprising that sensor networks are
vulnerable to many security attacks.
2.7.2 Managed Remotely:
Remote management of a sensor network makes it difficult to detect physical tampering and
physical maintenance issues.
2.7.3 Lack of Central Coordinator:
A sensor network should be a distributed network. Each sensor node should operate
autonomously with no central point of control in the network. In case if designed inaccurately, it
will make the network organization difficult, inefficient, and weak. A sensor node left unattended
for longer time is more likely to be compromised by an adversary [2].
3. ATTACKS ON WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Wireless sensor networks are susceptible to wide range of security attacks due to the multi-hop
nature of the transmission medium. Also, wireless sensor networks have an additional
vulnerability because nodes are generally deployed in a hostile or unprotected environment.
Although there is no standard layered architecture of the communication protocol for wireless
sensor network, hence there is need to summarize the possible attacks and security solution in
different layers with respect to ISO-OSI model as follows[3]:

41
Table 1. Layering based attacks and possible Security approaches
Layer Attacks Security approaches
Physical Layer
Denial of Service
Tampering
Priority Messages
Tamper Proofing
Hiding, Encryption [4].
Data Link Layer
Jamming
Collision
Traffic manipulation
Use Error Correcting Codes
Use spread spectrum techniques
Network Layer
Sybil attack
Wormhole attack
Sinkhole
Flooding
Authentication
Authorization
Identity certificates
Transport Layer
Resynchronization
Packet injection attack
Packet Authentication
Application Layer
Aggregation based attacks
Attacks on reliability
Cryptographic approach
3.1. Definitions, Strategies and Effects of Network Layer Attacks on WSN
WSNs are organized in layered form. This layered architecture makes these networks vulnerable
and lead to damage against various kinds of attacks. For each layer, various attacks and their
defensive mechanisms are defined. Thus, WSNs are vulnerable to different network layer attacks,
such as black hole, gray hole, wormhole, sinkhole, selective forwarding, hello flood,
acknowledgement spoofing, false routing, packet replication and other attacks to network layer
protocols [3].
Now, the following table shows network layer attacks on WSNs, its classification and comparison
based on their strategies and effects.

42
Table 2. Classification of Network layer attacks on WSN
4. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE OF WORMHOLE
ATTACK
Scarcity of various resources makes wireless sensor network vulnerable to several kinds of
security attacks. Attacker possessing sufficiently large amount of memory space, power supply,
processing abilities and capacity for high power radio transmission, results in generation of
several malicious attacks in the network. Wormhole attack is a type of Denial of Service attack
that misleads routing operations even without the knowledge of the encryptions methods unlike

43
other kinds of attacks. This characteristic makes it very important to identify and to defend
against it [9].
Wormhole attack is a severe type of attack on Wireless sensor network routing where two or more
attackers are connected by high speed off-channel link called wormhole link [10].
Wormhole attacks exists in two different modes, namely ‘hidden’ and ‘exposed’ mode, depending
on whether attackers put their identity into packet headers when tunnelling and replaying packets
[11].
In wormhole attack, a pair of attackers forms ‘tunnels’ to transfer the data packets and replays
them into the network. This attack has a tremendous effect on wireless networks, especially
against routing protocols. Routing mechanisms can be confused and disrupted when routing
control messages are tunnelled. The tunnel formed between the two colluding attackers is referred
as wormhole. Figure 1 shows the wormhole attack. Packets received by node X is replayed
through node Y and vice versa.
Normally it take several hops for a packet to traverse from a location near X to a location near Y,
packets transmitted near X travelling through the wormhole will arrive at Y before packets
travelling through multiple hops in the network. The attacker can make A and B believe that they
are neighbours by forwarding routing messages, and then selectively drop data messages to
disrupt communication between A and B [12].
Figure 1: Wormhole Attack [13]
5. WORMHOLE ATTACK MODEL
Wormhole attack is one of the Denial-of-Service attacks that can affect the network even without
the knowledge of cryptographic techniques implemented. This is the reason why it is very
difficult to detect. It may be launched by one, two or more number of nodes. In two ended
wormhole, packets are tunnelled through wormhole link from source to destination node. On
receiving packets, destination node replays them to the other end.
Designing prevention and detection methods of Wormhole attack requires the classification of
Wormhole attacks. Figure 2 illustrates the three models of wormhole attack.
Depending on whether the attackers are visible on the route, packet forwarding behaviour of
wormhole nodes as well as their tendency to hide or show the identities, wormholes is classified
into three types: closed, half open, and open. In the following cases S and D are the source and
destination nodes respectively. Nodes M1 and M2 are malicious nodes.

44
5.1 . Open Wormhole
Source(S) and destination (D) nodes and wormhole ends M1 and M2 are visible. Nodes A and B
on the traversed path are kept hidden. In this mode, the attackers include themselves in the packet
header following the route discovery procedure. Nodes in network are aware about the presence
of malicious nodes on the path but they would imitate that the malicious nodes are direct
neighbours.
5.2 . Half-Open Wormhole
Malicious node M1 near the source (S) is visible, while second end M2 is set hidden. This leads
to path S-M1-D for the packets sent by S for D. The attackers do not modify the content of the
packet. Instead, they simply tunnel the packet form one side of wormhole to another side and it
rebroadcasts the packet
5.3 . Close Wormhole
Identities of all the intermediate nodes (M1, A, B, M2) on path from S to D are kept hidden. In
this scenario both source and destination feel themselves just one-hop away from each other.
Thus fake neighbours are created.
Fig 2: Representation of Open, Half-Open and Closed Wormhole [14]
6. TYPES OF WORMHOLE ATTACK
In this section, we classify the wormhole attack based on the techniques used for launching it.
Number of nodes involved in establishing wormhole and the way to establish it classifies
wormhole into the following types:
6.1 . Wormhole using Packet Encapsulation
Here several nodes exist between two malicious nodes and data packets are encapsulated between
the malicious nodes. Hence it prevents nodes on way from incrementing hop counts. The packet
is converted into original form by the second end point. This mode of wormhole attack is not
difficult to launch since the two ends of wormhole do not need to have any cryptographic
information, or special requirement such as high-power source or high bandwidth channel.

45
6.2 . Wormhole using Out-of-Band Channel
This kind of wormhole approach has only one malicious node with much high transmission
capability in the network that attracts the packets to follow path passing from it. The chances of
malicious nodes present in the routes established between sender and receiver increases in this
case. Also this type is referred as “black hole attack” in the literature.
6.3 . Wormhole using Packet Relay
One or more malicious nodes can launch packet-relay-based wormhole attacks. In this type of
attack malicious node replays data packets between two far nodes and this way fake neighbours
are created. This kind of attack is also called as “replay-based attack” in the literature.
6.4 . Wormhole using Protocol Distortion
In this mode of wormhole attack, single malicious node tries to attract network traffic by
distorting the routing protocol. This mode does not affect the network routing much and hence is
harmless. Also it is known as “rushing attack” in the literature.
The following Table IV summarizes different modes of the wormhole attack along with the
associated requirements are given [15].
Table 3. Summary of wormhole attack modes
Name of Mode
Minimum no. of
adversary nodes
Requirements
Packet Encapsulation Two None
Out -of -band Channel Two High speed wire line link
High power Transmission Capability One High power source
Packet relay One None
Protocol Distortions One None
7. COUNTERMEASURES TO WORMHOLE ATTACK
Several Researchers have worked on detection and prevention of wormhole attacks in Wireless
Sensor Networks. This section will describe the important wormhole attack detection
mechanisms.
5.1.1 Location Information based method
Hu, Perrig and Johnson defined the wormhole attacks in adhoc networks [16]. Later, they
proposed a mechanism, called packet leashes, which prevents packets from travelling farther than
transmission range. This mechanism describes two types of leashes: Geographical and Temporal.
In Geographical Leashes, each node knows its precise location and all nodes have loosely
synchronized clocks to determine the neighbour relation. Before sending a packet, node appends
its current position and transmission time to it. On receiving packet, receiving node computes the
distance with respect to the sender and the time required by the packet to traverse the path. The
receiver can use this distance information to deduce whether the received packet passed through a
wormhole or not. In Temporal Leashes, every node maintains a tightly synchronized clock but
does not depend on GPS information [11].

46
Both mechanisms use lightweight hash chains to authenticate the nodes [9]. The Message
Authentication Code (MAC) can be calculated in real time. One benefit of packet leashes is the
low computation overhead.
5.1.2 Statistical Analysis method
Song et al. propose a wormhole discovery mechanism based on statistical analysis of multipath
routing. Song observes that a tunnel created by a wormhole is very attractive in terms of routing,
and will be selected and requested with unnaturally high frequency as it only uses routing data
already available to a node. These factors enables for easy integration of this method into
intrusion detection systems only to routing protocols that are both on-demand and multipath [16].
5.1.3 Hardware based method
Hu and Evans suggested the method of directional antennas [17]. It is based on the fact that in ad
hoc networks with no wormhole link, if one node sends packets in a given direction, then its
neighbour will receive that packet from the opposite direction. Only when the directions are
matching in pairs, the neighbouring relation is confirmed. It is necessary that each node requires a
special hardware i.e. directional antenna.
5.1.4 Visualization based method
Multi-dimensional scaling-visualization of wormhole (MDS-VOW) is adopted by Wang and
Bhargava [11] to detect wormhole attacks in static WSNs. In this approach using the received
signal strength, every node measures the distance to its neighbour. Based on these measurements,
base station calculates the network’s physical topology. It is observed that the network with
malicious nodes has different visualization from that with normal nodes. In absence of
wormholes, topology should be more or less flat, where as in their presence ‘string’ pulling
different ends of network are seen. It reconstructs the layout of the sensors using multi-
dimensional scaling scheme. The anomalies, which are introduced by the fake connections
through the wormhole, will bend the reconstructed surface to pull the sensors that are far away to
each other. Therefore, MDS-VOW could locate the wormhole connections. In MDS-VOW, all
sensor nodes are required to send their neighbour lists to the base station.
5.1.5 Graph theory method
Lazos and Poovendran [11] developed a “graph theoretical” approach to wormhole attack
prevention in WSNs. According to it, limited location-aware guard nodes (LAGNs) which are
nodes with known location and origination which can be acquired through GPS receivers are
used. Between every one hop neighbours, LAGNs use “local broadcast keys”. In order to detect
wormhole attack, it is not possible to decrypt a message encrypted with a local key – encrypted
with the pair-wise key. Hence during the key establishment, authors used hashed messages from
LAGNs to detect wormholes. If a wormhole is present, node can detect certain inconsistencies in
messages from different LAGNs. In absence of wormhole, a node should be unable to hear two
LAGNs that are far away from each other.
5.1.1 Hop counting method
The hop count is the minimum number of node-to-node transmissions. This method uses protocol
Delay per Hop Indicator (Delphi) [16] proposed by Hon Sun Chiu and King-Shan Lui, can detect
both hidden and exposed wormhole attacks. In DelPHI, attempts are made to determine every
available disjoint route between a source and a destination. To identify wormhole, delay time and
length of each route are measured and the average delay time per hop along each route is

47
computed. According to this, the route containing a wormhole link will have a greater Delay per
Hop (DPH) value. This mechanism can detect both modes of wormhole attack; however, pinpoint
the location of a wormhole cannot be determined.
5.1.2 Message Travelling time information based method
Message travelling time information is measured in terms of round trip time (RTT). One way to
prevent wormhole attack, as used by Tran et al. [11], Jane Zhen and Sampalli [16], is to measure
RTT of a message and its acknowledgement. The RTT is the time that extends from the Route
Request (RREQ) message sending time of a node A to Route Reply (RREP) message receiving
time from a node B. Node A will calculate the RTT between A and all its neighbours. Because the
RTT between two fake neighbours is higher than between two real neighbours, node A can
identify both the fake and real neighbours. In this mechanism, each node computes the RTT
between itself and all its neighbours. No special hardware is required in this mechanism[16].
5.1.3 Trust based methods
Another significant method for identifying and isolating malicious nodes that create a wormhole
in the network is Trust Based Method by Jain and Jain [16] .In this method, trust levels are
derived in neighbouring nodes based upon their sincerity in execution of the routing protocol.
This derived trust is then used to influence the routing decisions, which in turn guide a node to
avoid communication through the wormholes. Assuming that wormholes drop all the packets it
receives, it should have least trust level and hence can be easily eliminated. By using Trust Based
Model Packet Dropping is reduced by 15% without using any cryptography mechanism and
throughput is increased up to 7-8%.
Table 4. Summary of wormhole attacks detection mechanisms

48
8. OPEN RESEARCH CHALLENGES
In the previous sections, we have studied various strategies of network layer attacks, significance
of wormhole attack and their countermeasures in Wireless sensor networks. This section will
identify open research challenges in this area. In Table 3, summary of wormhole detection
technique is presented. Most of the methods employ hardware which increases the manufacturing
cost of a sensor node. Later researchers focused on software-based wormhole detection
techniques. But still the detection of wormhole attacks in sensor networks is a challenging task
for researchers.
Among software-based methods, Multipath Hop count analysis, travelling time mechanism, trust
based models are widely used as they are promising in terms of detecting wormhole attacks
without any hardware requirements. As per these techniques, it is assumed that time or distance
data used for wormhole detection cannot be changed. Since malicious nodes are able to modify
transmitted information, distance-bounding and time-based wormhole detection techniques must
be supported with cryptographic authentication mechanisms so that authenticity of the
information can be verified over the path.
Wormhole attacks are strictly related to network layer protocols. As new routing protocols are
proposed for WSNs, it is important to identify possible shortcomings of these new routing
protocols, measure the performance of new routing protocol with wormhole attack and to
investigate the effectiveness of the existing wormhole detection techniques on these protocols.
Hence, there is a scope for further research in terms of measuring performance of existing
wormhole detection techniques on new routing protocols. Future work in this area focuses on
additional security enhancements for routing protocols in wireless sensor networks.
In the current wormhole detection research usually static topology of WSNs are considered.
Hence, wormhole detection in a dynamic WSN is an open research area. In a dynamic WSN, any
two genuine sensor nodes that were previously many hops far from each other may become one
hop neighbours, and hence creates illusion for the base station that a wormhole attack has been
launched. Hence, it is a challenging task to distinguish such genuine nodes from malicious nodes
while detecting wormhole attacks.
9. CONCLUSION
Wireless sensor networks are vulnerable to wide range of security attacks because of their
deployment in an open and unprotected environment. This survey paper introduces the major
security threats in WSN and also investigates different wormhole detection techniques, examines
various existing methods to find out how they have been implemented to detect wormhole attack.
It has been studied that among the number of techniques discussed, each technique has its own
strength and weaknesses and there is no proper wormhole detection technique that can detect all
wormhole attacks completely. Finally, by analyzing the pros and cons of existing techniques, the
open research challenges in the wormhole detection area are studied.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincere thanks to my honorable guide Prof. Niketa A.Chavhan and others who have
contributed towards the preparation of the paper.

49
REFERENCES
[1] Kia Xiang, Shyaam Sundhar Rajamadam,Srinivasan, Manny Rivera,Jiang Li, Xiuzhen Cheng,
“Attacks and Countermeasures in Sensor Networks: A Survey”, pp 1-28, Springer, 2005.
[2] G. Padmavathi, Mrs. D. Shanmugapriya, “A Survey of Attacks, Security Mechanisms and Challenges
in Wireless Sensor Networks”, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security
Vol. 4, No. 1 & 2, 2009.
[3] Nityananda Sarma , Sangram Panigrahi, Prabhudutta Mohanty and Siddhartha Sankar Satapathy,
“Security Issues in Wireless Sensor Network Data Gathering Protocols: A Survey”, Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 2005.
[4] Abhishek Jain,Kamal Kant, “Security Solutions for Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE Second
International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies, pp 430-
433,2012.
[5] Shahriar Mohammadi and Hossein Jadidoleslamy, “A Comparison Of Link Layer Attacks On
Wireless Sensor Networks”, International journal on applications of graph theory in wireless ad hoc
networks and sensor networks(GRAPH-HOC) Vol.3, No.1, March 2011.
[6] Sushma, Deepak Nandal, Vikas Nandal, “Security Threats in Wireless Sensor Networks”, IJCSMS
International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies, Vol. 11, Issue 01, May 2011.
[7] Syed Ashiqur Rahman ,Md. Safiqul Islam, “Anomaly Intrusion Detection System in Wireless Sensor
Networks: Security Threats and Existing Approaches”, International Journal of Advanced Science and
Technology Vol. 36, November, 2011.
[8] Ali Modirkhazeni, Norafida Ithnin, Mohammadjavad Abbasi, “Secure Hierarchal Routing Protocols
in Wireless Sensor Networks: Security Survey Analysis”, IJCCN International Journal of Computer
Communications and Networks, Volume 2, Issue 1, February 2012.
[9] Dhara Buch, Devesh Jinwala, “Detection of Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE
Conference on Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing, pp 7-14, 2011.
[10] Khin Sandar Win, “Analysis of Detecting Wormhole Attack in Wireless Networks”, World Academy
of Science, Engineering and Technology 24, 2008.
[11] Majid Meghdadi, Suat Ozdemir and Inan Guler , “A Survey of Wormhole based Attacks and their
Countermeasures in Wireless Sensor Networks”, IETE TECHNICAL REVIEW, VOL 28, ISSUE 2,
Mar-Apr 2011.
[12] Mani Arora, Rama Krishna Challa,” Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols Based on
Wormhole Attack in Wireless Mesh Networks”, Second International Conference on Computer and
Network Technology, pp 102-104, 2010.
[13] Rama Krishna Challa ,Mani Arora, Divya Bansal, “Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols
Based on Wormhole Attack in Wireless Mesh Networks”, IEEE Second International Conference on
Computer and Network Technology, pp 102-104, 2010.
[14] Dhara Buch, Devesh Jinwala, “Prevention of wormhole attack in Wireless sensor
network”,International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), pp 85-98, Vol.3,
No.5, Sep 2011.
[15] Marianne Azer, Sherif El-Kassas, Magdy El-Soudani, “A Full Image of the Wormhole Attacks
Towards Introducing Complex Wormhole Attacks in wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, International
Journal of Computer Science and Information Security(IJCSIS), pp 41-52, Vol. No. 1, May 2009.
[16] Preeti Nagrath,Bhawna Gupta,“Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Adhoc Networks and their Counter
Measurements: A survey”, pp 245-250, IEEE 2011.
[17] Zhibin Zhao, Bo Wei, Xiaomei Dong, Lan Yao, Fuxiang Gao, “Detecting Wormhole Attacks in
Wireless Sensor Networks with Statistical Analysis”, IEEE International Conference on Information
Engineering, pp 251-254, 2010.
[18] Prasannajit B, Venkatesh, Anupama S, Vindhykumari, “An Approach towards Detection of
Wormhole Attack in Sensor Networks”, IEEE First International Conference on Integrated Intelligent
Computing, pp 283-289, 2010.

50
Authors
Priya Maidamwar received the B.E. degree from K.D.K College of Engineering,
Nagpur, State-Maharashtra, India. She is pursuing Master of Engineering (M.E.) in
Wireless Communication and Computing from G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering,
Nagpur. Maharashtra, India. Her research area includes Wireless network security,
Wireless sensor network.
Nekita Chavhan received the Master of Engineering (M.E.) in Wireless
Communication and Computing from G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur,
Maharashtra, India. She is working as Assistant Professor in G. H. Raisoni College of
Engineering, Nagpur. Her research area includes Ad-hoc Wireless networks, Wireless
sensor networks and Mobile Technology.

A Survey on Security Issues to Detect Wormhole Attack in Wireless Sensor Network

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Survey on Security Issues to Detect Wormhole Attack in Wireless Sensor Network (20)

More from pijans (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Survey on Security Issues to Detect Wormhole Attack in Wireless Sensor Network