Vol. 2, No. 2 | July – December 2018 Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network - A Review Irsa Naz∗ Sabrina Bashir∗ Sumbal Abbas∗ Abstract MANET is a wireless ad-hoc network which includes mobile nodes. In MANET mobile refers to the movable nodes which can change their location frequently. MANET is a network which has no central infrastructure; it is a self-managing and self-configuring network. In MANET devices can be heterogeneous like laptops, mobiles, PDAs, etc. Due to the mobility of the nodes and no infrastructure mobile ad hoc network can be used in disaster and emergency situations. Mobile ad-hoc network has the features of dynamic topology, multi-hop routing, energy constraint and easy setup. The nodes in the MANET work as a both host and a router, to make routes in the network. Due to all these flexible features of MANET there are many security vulnerabilities arise. In MANET routing is a main concern due to the mobility and the node work as a router. The security of the routing layer is essential because if any attack interrupts the communication security of whole network can be compromised. There are different types of attacks in MANET: internal attacks, external attacks, active attacks and passive attacks. The attacks of network layer are identified in this paper. Some routing protocols are used for the security of MANET like SAODV, SRP, SEAD and Ariadne etc. In this paper, we present a review of routing attacks and their possible solutions for example, how to avoid f these attacks. Keywords: Mobile ad-hoc network, Routing, Attacks, Security 1. Introduction One of the emerging technologies of wireless net- working is Mobile Ad-Hoc Network, which is an infras- tructure free network. There is no central management it is a self-organizing and self-configuring network. In Mobile ad-hoc network, nodes are movable. They can freely move in any direction [1]. Due to these features of MANET, this network can be used in military battle- fields, emergency, Commercial Sector, Medical Service and disaster recovery situations. Nodes in MANET not only work as a host but they are also functioning as a router. Nodes include the mobile devices, laptops, PDAs and other handheld devices [2]. In Ad-hoc net- work nodes depend on the batteries or other resources of energy. Network topology in MANET is dynamic. When the network change, the nodes have to maintain the routing dynamically according to the network. There are many security challenges for MANET due to no central in- frastructure and the dynamic topology [2][3]. Different types of attacks can easily occur in the ad-hoc network like internal attacks, external attacks, active, and pas- sive attacks. In this paper, we described routing layer attacks and there solutions how to avoid these attacks. Three types of routing protocols are used in ad hoc network: table driven, on demand and hybrid protocols [4]. Some routing protocols are used for the security of the ad-hoc network like SEAD, SAODV, and SRP etc. Intrusion detection system, watchdog and some other methods are described for securing the routing layer in ad hoc network. The paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 presents MANET, section 3 Security attributes of MANET, sec- tion 4 Types of attacks in MANET, section 5 Routing protocols of MANET, section 6 Secure routing proto- cols, section 7 Secure mechanisms for routing attacks and section 8 describes conclusion 2. MANET MANET is a collection of mobile nodes which are used for communication without any infrastructure. MANETs are used in sensor networks, personal area networks, and commercial sectors, military and emer- gency situations [5]. The characteristics of MANET are described below: A. CHARACTERISTICS OF MANET • No centralized infrastructure because of ∗Department of Computer Science and IT University of Lahore, Gujrat Campus Gujrat, Pakistan Corresponding Email: irsawarraich@gmail.com SJCMS | P-ISSN: 2520-0755 | E-ISSN: 2522-3003 c© 2018 Sukkur IBA University - All Rights Reserved 14 Irsa Naz (et al.), Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network- A Review (14-21) nodes self-managing and self-configuring ca- pability. • Flexibility in organization and rapidly setup network • Nodes have multi-hop routing • Dynamic network topology • Nodes have energy constraints that affect the functionality of network. • Nodes work as both host and a router • Less bandwidth than the wired or infras- tructure network. • Nodes can be heterogeneous. • Ad hoc network are exposed to many secu- rity threats. B. VULNERABILITIES OF MANETs Due to the some features ad-hoc network is more vulnerable as compared to wire or infrastructure network. Some of the vulnerabilities of MANET are listed below [6]: 1. No Centralized Management There is a no central manager that manages the network; every node is freely moved in the network. It is very difficult to monitor the traffic in the dynamic environment and the attacker can take the advantage of it. 2. Dynamic Topology Topology changes any time in the network. So there is a no trusting environment in the network. A malicious node can easily vio- late the network security. 3. Power and Bandwidth Limitation Due to limited bandwidth or capacity the signal can be affected by noise and interfer- ence. Ad-hoc network depends on the bat- tery. So due to the limited power any node may turn to selfish. 4. No Boundary In wired networks gateways and firewalls are used for the security of the network but in ad hoc network there is no any secure boundary provided for the security of net- work. 5. Cooperativeness In MANET nodes are supportive to each other so a malicious node can take the ad- vantage of it. And it can break the security of the network. 3. Security Attributes of MANET Following are the some attributes for ensuring the se- curity of the mobile ad-hoc network [7]. 1. Availability: All the time nodes have to be available for the communication. 2. Confidentiality: It has to ensure that data is not revealed to illegal users. 3. Integrity: It has to be ensured that message is never changed during the transmission. 4. Authentication: Before communicating with any node, node has to be checked about the iden- tity of that node. 5. Non-repudiation: The sender and the receiver cannot reject the sending and receiving informa- tion. 4. Types of Attacks In MANET Following types of attacks can occur in MANET: • Internal Attacks • External Attacks • Passive Attacks • Active Attacks Internal Attacks Internal attacks are directly hits on a network nodes and connection between these nodes. The node which exists in the network forwards the wrong routing data to the other nodes .It is complex to identify this attack because these attacks arises due to most trustworthy nodes [8]. External Attacks These attacks are not legally part of that network. Main purpose of attacker in external attacks is to cause congestion in network, broadcast false information of routing and interrupt the operation of entire network [9]. There are two important types of these attacks: Passive Attacks: MANETs are more susceptible to passive attacks. The passive attack does not change the data spread inside a network. But it comprises unau- thorized “listening” to network movement. In Passive attacks the attacker takes valued info in targeted net- works. Valued information like node hierarchy as well as network topology is found. The attacker’s objective is to attain data that is being transferred [10]. It is difficult to find out passive attacks as the process of network itself doesn’t get affected. In order to over- come these attacks, powerful encryption algorithms are used to encrypt the data being transmitted. Monitor- ing, eavesdropping and traffic analysis are examples of passive attacks. Active Attacks: These types of attacks are executed by malicious nodes. Active attack includes alteration Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - SJCMS | Volume 2 No. 2 July – December 2018 c© Sukkur IBA University 15 Irsa Naz (et al.), Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network- A Review (14-21) of data or may create wrong information. These at- tacks prevent messages route between different nodes in a network [11]. These attacks can be internal or external. In this attack, attacker attempts to interrupt the route of system or change the system resources. An attacker inserts malicious packets in a network for implementing active attack. ATTACKS ON DIFFERENT LAYERS Several attacks in MANET occur and we are classifying these attacks on the basis of protocol stack. But we will mainly focus on attacks at network layer. Attacks are listed in Table 1 [12]. ATTACKS AT NETWORK LAYER It is very difficult to identify attacks on network layer because in MANET each node is associated with one another via hop-by-hop. Each single node takes deci- sion about path to send packets, due to this way ma- licious node easily attack on that network. The main reason behind attacks on network layer is to insert mali- cious node between paths of sender to receiver or grasp traffic of network. Due to this way the attacker may generate routing hoops to form critical congestion in network. Different kinds of attacks are identified as discuss below. 1. Blackhole Attack: It is a type of attack in which malicious node claims route that is effective and smallest to tar- get node and after that secretly drips data and monitor packets when they transmit via it [13]. Due to this shortest route created by attacker blackhole starts making fake packets by changing total and number of series of transmitting pro- tocol message. The malicious node that is used in sending data packets towards destination in- stead of sending those is called blackhole node. This malicious node answers to request of each route by falsely declaring that this is a new route towards destination. 2. Wormhole Attack: In this attack, a malicious node collects data packets from one place to other malicious node through tunnels in similar network above an el- evated speed wireless link. The tunnel occurs among two attacker nodes is denoted as a worm- hole. Tunnels exist between two malicious nodes. That’s why it is called as tunnelling attack [14]. When attacker keeps packet of data at one place, transmits those packets to alternative place, rout- ing is interrupted. 3. Sinkhole Attack: In sinkhole attack malicious node presents false information of routing to create itself as definite node and obtains entire traffic of network. After getting network traffic, it changes the confiden- tial information. The attacker node attempts to interest in confidential data from close nodes. 4. Rushing Attack: Rushing attacks are generally against on-demand routing protocols. When compromised node re- ceives a route demand packet from resource node, it overflows the packet in all over the network ear- lier any other nodes which similarly get the sim- ilar route demand packet can respond [15]. In this attack, nodes only retransmit the initially request accepted to find out all route and ignore all others. When initially a route is discovered, the attacker enters in a network through messages request. If attacker’s messages reach initially, at- tacker will be included in route discovery proce- dure. 5. Replay Attack: In replay attacks, a malicious node keeps com- mand on messages of further nodes and retrans- mits them [21]. This is because topology is not static in MANET’s; it transform’s commonly due to movement of nodes. Due to this reason nodes must keep record of their tables of routing of de- clared routes. 6. Link Spoofing Attack: A malicious node transmits or presents the fake information of route to disturb the operation of routing. In this attack, malicious node influences the data or traffic of routing [16]. 7. Sybil Attack In Sybil attack, attacker might create false char- acters of number of extra nodes. Sybil attack con- tains a malicious node that is declaring multiple identities. In this attack, a malicious node cre- ates itself as a huge number other than individual node. This attack could be easily disturbed rout- ing, distributed storage algorithms and system of fault tolerant. This is a critical attack because every single node depends on several intermedi- ary nodes for communication. 5. Routing Protocols in MANETs 1. Table Driven or Proactive Routing Proto- cols: In Table driven protocols, every node consists of one or more routing table which contains the routing information from every node to all other nodes in the network. Different tables maintain this routing information. So, when the topology changes the nodes circulate the updated infor- mation all over the network. So, tables consist of consistent and updated routing information [17]. Table driven protocols use proactive tech- nique. So, when there is a need to forward a packet, it follows the routing information table for route. Proactive protocols include clustered gateway switch routing, wireless routing proto- Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - SJCMS | Volume 2 No. 2 July – December 2018 c© Sukkur IBA University 16 Irsa Naz (et al.), Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network- A Review (14-21) Table 1: Attacks on Different Layers Layers Attacks Application Layer Repudiation, Data Corruption, Viruses and Worms Network Layer Wormhole, Black hole, Sinkhole, Rushing attack, Link Spoofing, Sybil, Replay Transport Layer Session Hijacking, SYN Flooding Physical Layer Jamming, Interception, Eavesdropping, Tempering Data link Layer Traffic Analysis, Monitoring, Disruption Multi- Layer Denial of service, Impersonation, Replay, Man-In-The-Middle col, destination sequenced distance vector rout- ing and optimized link state routing. 2. On Demand or Reactive Routing Proto- cols: On demand, routing protocols not stored the routing information. These protocols make the route between the source and destination while, it is Necessary. The route is generated on the demand of the source, when it has to communi- cate to the destination node [18]. Some reactive protocols are Ad-hoc on demand distance Vector routing, dynamic source routing, and temporally ordered routing algorithm, etc. 3. Hybrid Routing Protocols: Both proactive and reactive protocols have some pros and cons. Hybrid protocols use the both schemes proactive and reactive for the efficient routing. These protocols involve Zone routing protocol. Table 2 shows some strengths and weakness of protocols [19]. Figure 1: Routing Protocols in MANET 6. Secure Routing Protocols 1. Ecure Adhoc on Demand Distance Vector Routing (SAODV): SAODV is a reactive protocol that is based on the AODV protocol. It secures the routing messages by using the digital signatures and authenticates the RREQ and RREP messages. This proto- col used asymmetric cryptography, hash function are used for getting the integrity. And digital signatures provide the authentication and non- repudiation. This protocol has a robust security mechanism that is very secure and provides a full featured security. 2. Authentication Routing for Adhoc Net- work (ARAN): This protocol uses asymmetric cryptography and provides end to end authentication. A trusted Certification Authority provides the public key, IP address and timestamp to the node before starting the communication. The harmful nodes can’t start attacks because it requires the au- thentication certificate from the trusted certifi- cate authority. Timestamp is defining the time when the certificate is created and when it will expire. Some attacks are possible that are Denial of Service attacks due to the negotiated nodes. The sharing nodes transmitted the route requests that are unnecessary over the network. These un- necessary requests give chance to attacker for at- tack in the network and it can cause overcrowding there by compromise the functionality of network [20]. Before the packets broadcasting to the next stage and checked for validation, every packet is authenticated in the network by using pub- lic keys. Intermediate node cannot reply; only the destination node can reply which is authen- ticated. ARAN prevents different attacks like spoofing attack, table overflow and black hole, because it has a solid cryptography mechanism and features. 3. Secure Routing Protocol(SRP): Secure routing protocol is based on hybrid (ZRP) protocol and other reactive routing protocols. This protocol used symmetric cryptography; Se- curity Association is maintained by using the shared keys between the nodes. Packet includes the two identifiers: Query sequence number and Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - SJCMS | Volume 2 No. 2 July – December 2018 c© Sukkur IBA University 17 Irsa Naz (et al.), Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network- A Review (14-21) Table 2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Protocols Type of Protocols Advantages Disadvantages Proactive 1. Each node maintains the routing infor- mation before it is needed. 2. Minimizes the end-to-end delay of sending packets by updating the routing information. 1. These protocols are not good for large area networks. It has to maintain the in- formation of each node in the table. 2. More overhead waste the limited band- width. 3. Not appropriate for highly mo- bile networks. Reactive 1. Routes are only built when they are needed. 2. Scales to medium size net- works with moderate mobility. 3. De- creases control overhead and power con- sumption. 1. Delay occurs due to the Source node has to wait for the route to be built ear- lier starting the communication. Hybrid It provides the advantages of both proac- tive and reactive, protocols. It decreases the overhead of proactive and decrease the delay of reactive. In large routing, it gets the disadvantages of proactive protocols, and for small rout- ing get the disadvantage of reactive random query identifier. The route reply MAC provides integrity protection for the route reply packets. The query identifiers are used by in- termediate nodes to check for replay attacks. If a query identifier matches one used in the past, the intermediate node discards the query packet. In network, many queries are received from around for measuring the frequency of these queries us- ing nodes that take part in the process of route discovery and keep the question rate [21]. So the malicious nodes have lower importance for taking part. 4. Secure Efficient Adhoc Distance Vector (SEAD): SEAD was established to provide routing security by symmetric cryptography and it is based on DSDV (Destination Sequence Distance Vector) and also has a function that is One-Way Hash to verify the route updating mechanism. For pro- viding security to table driven protocols is diffi- cult for it but providing security to on demand protocols is much easier for it. No attacker can attack in this network because it is using longer sequence numbers. It gives the verified security to packets for avoiding the wormhole attack using the Hash function, by retransmitting the packets from one place to another [21]. All packets reach their destination safely. Tunnelling, black hole and denial of service attacks are possible. 5. Ariadne: It is an on demand (reactive) routing protocol which is based on DSR protocol. It uses au- thentication for the routing messages. Shared secrets between the nodes and digital signa- tures are used for performing the authentica- tion. It also uses hashing for verifying that no intermediate node is missing or removing from the path. Ariadne based on timestamps that record time of any event and it controls some threats like modification and spoofing [22]. By using the source paths, avoided routes loops because packets will not send into loops. Secure protocols can categorize in two cate- gories prevention and detection as Figure 2. Figure 2: Secure Routing protocols 7. Security Mechanisms For Attacks 1. Watchdog and Pathrater: Watchdog and pathrater are the two techniques which are used to secure the routing between the source and destination. Watchdog is used to check the transmission and misbehaviour of the Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - SJCMS | Volume 2 No. 2 July – December 2018 c© Sukkur IBA University 18 Irsa Naz (et al.), Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network- A Review (14-21) nodes. The node sends the packets to its next node and keeps this information in its buffer. The job of the watchdog is to check that whether the neighbour node forwards the packet or not. If the watched packets are the same with the pack- ets that in the buffer, the node is not malicious. But if the node not forwards the packet and the number of abuses exceeds the threshold value, it considers that node is distrustful. Then watchdog forwards this message to the other nodes about the mischievous node. Then the other nodes check this message and this information is also sent to the pathrater. Pathrater is used to assign the rate to the nodes. Rating is done according to the behaviour of the node. So,when the mali- cious node is identified ,pathrater assigns the rate to this node by -100.Pathrater informs the proto- cols for avoiding this node and remove this node . Pathrater remove the unreliable paths and pro- vide the new secure paths for sending the packets. 2. Location Based Method for Link Spoofing Attack: In this attack, the attacker node distribute wrong links with the other nodes to disturb the func- tions of routing layer. In ad-hoc network there are MPRs (Multipoint Relay nodes) that are used for spreading the messages among the nodes. If one of the node as a MPRs is selected and this is a malicious node, it can alter the data pack- ets and disturb the network. To remove this at- tack time stamp and GPS (Global Poisoning sys- tem) with cryptography is used. Every node is linked with time stamp and location based GPS. All nodes share its location data among all the nodes through GPS [23]. So, due to the location data, attacks are easily identified by checking the distance among the nodes. 3. Solution for Wormhole Attack: In this attack, attacker gets the packet at one place and tunnels these packets to another place in the network. Some methods are proposed to avoid this attack like IDS, signal processing tech- niques and to make changing in the hardware de- sign. A packet leash is a protocol that is used as a solution for wormhole attack. The sender inserted the information in the packet for con- trolling the distance of transmission, and some information is included to limit the lifetime of packet. At the receiving side the receiver ver- ifies that whether the packet travels the same distance according to the information included by the sender or not [24]. This protocol needs information of location and synchronized clocks. Sector method and directional antennas are also used for avoiding this attack. 4. Black Hole Attack Solution In black hole attack, the attacker showing an op- timal route to the node and gets the packets when the nodes sending request. Then it can change the packets. Many packets are lost in this attack and also cause denial of service (DoS). To pre- vent this attack different routing protocols are proposed for security such as SAR and SAODV. In Security aware ad-hoc routing protocol (SAR) a route discovery method is used and a trust level is added into the rushing request packets. The other nodes that are intermediary receive a packet with trust level. If the trust level is ful- filled, the node will handle the packet and spread it to neighbours, otherwise dropped. Secure Ad- hoc on Demand Distance Vector Routing proto- col (SAODV) is also used as a solution for this attack. It uses some techniques in routing that are central key controlling, digital signatures for node level authentication and to lessen the mod- ifying node checks a hash chain. 5. Rushing Attack Solution In rushing attack, the attacker sends many mes- sages in the network for flood of packets. If the node receives message firstly from attacker, Then the node rebroadcasts its request for route dis- covery. Then it becomes very difficult for the nodes to discover the usable/non-attacking route. Different mechanisms are proposed to prevent this attack Secure Neighbour Detection, Secure Route Delegation, and Randomized ROUTE RE- QUEST forwarding. These techniques work to- gether to defend this attack. When the sender node sends a Route Request to the neighbour node that is within the range, it allows the neigh- bour node to forward the request after signs a Route Delegation message. And then the neigh- bour node signs an Accept Delegation message after determining that the sender node is within the range. With the help of these techniques, the connection of neighbourhood between nodes can be conformed and ensured. Rushing Attack Pre- vention (RAP) protocol is also used to protect the network from rushing attack. Figure 3 shows the comparison which protocol provides security against these attacks [25]. 8. Conclusion Due to dynamic topology and no infrastructure MANET has many security challenges. This paper de- scribes the different types of attacks of MANET, secu- rity attributes of MANET and our main focus on the security of the network layer in MANET. This paper identifies the attacks of network layer like wormhole at- tack, rush attack, Sybil attack and black hole attack, etc. Different protocols are described in this paper that provide security at the network layer. Some secure mechanisms are reviewed in this paper like watchdog and other solutions against some attacks are described. We present a review of attacks and their solutions in MANET how can avoid these attacks. Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - SJCMS | Volume 2 No. 2 July – December 2018 c© Sukkur IBA University 19 Irsa Naz (et al.), Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network- A Review (14-21) Figure 3: Comparison of Protocols References [1] S. Aluvala, K. R. Sekhar, and D. Vodnala, “An Empirical Study of Routing Attacks in Mobile Ad- hoc Networks,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 92, pp. 554–561, 2016. [2] S. Sarika, A. Pravin, A. Vijayakumar, and K. Sel- vamani, “Security Issues in Mobile Ad Hoc Net- works,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 92, pp. 329–335, 2016. [3] P. Joshi, “Security issues in routing protocols in MANETs at network layer,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 3, pp. 954–960, 2011. [4] A. Dorri and S. R. Kamel, “Security Challenges in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey,” Interna- tional Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Survey, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 15–29, 2015. [5] R. D. Pietro, S. Guarino, N. Verde, and J. Domingo-Ferrer, “Security in wireless ad-hoc net- works – A survey,” Computer Communications, vol. 51, pp. 1–20, 2014. [6] R. Khatoun, “ASROP : AD HOC Secure Rout- ing Protocol,” International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1–20, 2012. [7] A. O. Alkhamisi and S. M. Buhari, “Trusted Se- cure Adhoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vec- tor Routing in MANET,” 2016 IEEE 30th Interna- tional Conference on Advanced Information Net- working and Applications (AINA), 2016. [8] S. Chatterjee and S. Das, “Ant colony optimization based enhanced dynamic source routing algorithm for mobile Ad-hoc network,” Information Sciences, vol. 295, pp. 67–90, 2015. [9] K. Govindan and P. Mohapatra, “Trust Computa- tions and Trust Dynamics in Mobile Adhoc Net- works: A Survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 279–298, 2012. [10] C. Gupta and P. Pathak, “Movement based or neighbor based tehnique for preventing wormhole attack in MANET,” 2016 Symposium on Colossal Data Analysis and Networking (CDAN), 2016 [11] S. V. Vasantha and A. Damodaram, “Bulwark AODV against Black hole and Gray hole attacks in MANET,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Re- search (ICCIC), 2015. [12] Vij and V. Sharma, “Security issues in mobile ad- hoc network: A survey paper,” 2016 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), 2016. [13] R. Singh, P. Singh, and M. Duhan, “An effective implementation of security based algorithmic ap- proach in mobile adhoc networks,” Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, 2014. [14] A. Kaur and Dr. A. Singh,” A Review on Secu- rity Attacks in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks,” Inter- national Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 2012. [15] S. J. Ahmad and P. R. Krishna, “Security on MANETs. using block coding,” 2015 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Commu- nications and Informatics (ICACCI), 2015. [16] M. K. Parmar and H. B. Jethva, “Analyse im- pact of malicious behaviour of AODV under per- formance parameters,” 2014 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Communications, Con- trol and Computing Technologies, 2014. [17] G. Dhananjayan and J. Subbiah, “T2AR: trust- aware ad-hoc routing protocol for MANET,” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, no. 1, Jul. 2016. [18] J. Rajeshwar and G. Narsimha, “Secure way rout- ing protocol for mobile ad hoc network,” Wireless Networks, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 345–354, 2015. Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - SJCMS | Volume 2 No. 2 July – December 2018 c© Sukkur IBA University 20 Irsa Naz (et al.), Secure Routing in Mobile Ad hoc Network- A Review (14-21) [19] R. K. Singh and P. Nand, “Literature review of routing attacks in MANET,” 2016 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), 2016. [20] G. M. Borkar and A. R. Mahajan, “A secure and trust based on-demand multipath routing scheme for self-organized mobile ad-hoc networks,” Wire- less Networks, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 2455–2472, 2016. [21] S. Manjula and Suresha, “Energy efficient and se- cured routing scheme in hybrid network,” 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCIC), 2016. [22] G. Padmavathi, P. Subashini, and D. D. Aruna, “Hybrid routing protocols to secure network layer for Mobile Ad hoc Networks,” 2010 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research, 2010. [23] P. K. Sharma and V. Sharma, “Survey on se- curity issues in MANET: Wormhole detection and prevention,” 2016 International Conferenceon Computing, Communication and Automation (IC- CCA), 2016. [24] K. Madhuri, N. Viswanath, and P. Gayatri, “Per- formance evaluation of AODV under Black hole attack in MANET using NS2,” 2016 International Conference on ICT in Business Industry & Gov- ernment (ICTBIG), 2016. [25] K. Sachan and M. Lokhande, “An approach to detect Gray-hole attacks on Mobile ad-hoc Net- works,” 2016 International Conference on ICT in Business Industry & Government (ICTBIG), 2016 Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - SJCMS | Volume 2 No. 2 July – December 2018 c© Sukkur IBA University 21