Trust Management in Mobile

Ad Hoc Networks Using a

Scalable Maturity-Based
Model
Authors: Pedro B. Velloso, Rafael P. Laufer, Daniel de
O. Cunha, Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte, and Guy Pujolle

Paper Presentation By : Gaurav Dixit

(gdixit@vt.edu)

Outline
Introduction
Trust Model

Implementation
Results

Introduction
MANets - same node can work as
router server client
Assumption of good behavior Not
true!
Trust needs to be measured - This
paper provides one such method.
Applying human trust dynamics to
trust calculation of nodes
Builds on recommendations

 Trust level of a node depends on:=

(previous individual experiences) +
(recommendation from neighbors)
Benefits of trust calculation:
avoid sending packets to malicious
nodes.
increased co-operation among good
nodes.

Recommendations collected only from

neighbors. Advantages for nodes:
Less storage
Less power requirement
Less processing
Better for changing topologies
information for entire network not
required

Since, recommendations not

forwarded, it is good for networks:
Less recommendation messages
travelling in network - low traffic
Low energy consumption for entire
network

Relationship Maturity
Similar to human trust behavior, more
weightage is given to the
recommendations from older
neighbors.

Trust Model
Trust level assigned to each neighbor.
Trust value reflects behavior history,
and thus expected future behavior.
Node forms opinion based on
experiences.
Transmission of these opinions about
node i are called recommendations.

Trust Model
Recommendations compensate for
lack of monitoring capabilities.
Paper defines Recommendation
Exchange Protocol (REP)

Trust Model
Trust level varies from 0 to 1.

Recommendation from C more

important than that from B, because
of relationship maturity.

Trust Model: Architecture

Two parts:
I) Learning Plan:
gathers and
converts
information into
knowledge.
II) Trust plan: assess
trust level of each
neighbor using
stored knowledge
and

Trust Model: Components

Trust Model: Components

Behavior monitor observes network,

indicates new neighbors to Rec
Manager, and send behavior report to
Classifier.
Classifier sends behavior
classification to Experience
Calculator.
Trust Calculator calculates trust with
inputs from experiences and
recommendations.
Auxiliary Trust Table entries
correspond to relationship maturity.

Trust Model: Components

Three operation modes:
I) Simple: Just trust table, REP optional
II) Intermediate: Simple mode plus
storage of recommendations
III) Advanced: Complete system
implementation.
) Recommendation Manager
implements REP.
) All nodes are in advanced mode in

Trust level evaluation

() = (1 )() + ()
() = () + (1 )()
Ta(b) ->Trust calculation from node a
for node b
Qa(b) -> Personal Experience
Ra(b) -> Recommendations
All variables(except a & b) range from

Recommendation
Computation

subset of neighbors
() relationship Maturity
() random variable with normal
distribution representing
recommendation uncertainty.
() = ( (), ())

First Trust Values

Initial trust values can be:
I) Prudent : Strangers have low trust
value
II) Optimist: High trust in new
neighbors.
III) Moderate: Trust value between
Prudent and optimist.
Fa First trust value
() = (1 ) + ()

Recommendation Exchange
Protocol
Only one hop neighbors considered.
( IP TTL=1)
Consists of:
I) TREQ: Trust Request
II) TREP: Trust Reply
III) TA: Trust Advertisement

REP
TREQ sent when nodes first meet,
with IP of new neighbor as target
node. Wait time tREQ before sending
TREQ
TREP sent by neighbors who have
target node as their neighbor, after
waiting for random time period tREP
TA sent if trust level changes by
threshold

Authentication
A pair of public-private key for each
node is sufficient for the system to
work.
Sybil attack would not be a problem
since the malicious identities are
quickly found and ignored.

Trust Model Implementation

Learning Plan

Nature of nodes vary from 0

(untrustworthy) to 1 (trustworthy)
A node with nature of 0.8 would do 8
good actions out of 10.
Behavior Monitor is emulated by
concept of perception, which
indicates probability of noticing a
certain action.
Classifier (perfectly) classifies actions.

Node will decide for itself whether or

not it will use behavior monitor in
promiscuous mode. Required
perception value and personal
constraints would help in this
decision.
Experience Calculator observes imin
actions before calculating trust.
Higher perception would result in
more accurate trust level. But higher
imin means higher convergence time.

Results: Small networks

All nodes are at
one hop distance.
Time in seconds.
Convergence at
t=350 for = =
= 0.5

Results: Small networks

Optimistic first
trust strategy.
Time in minutes.
Nature set to
0.2 .
Number of
neighbors
varied.

Results: Small networks

Neighbors
=15
Varying
alpha

Results: Small networks

Perception is
the fraction of
actions a node
can notice
from its
neighbors
Varying

Results: Multihop MANets

Analyzing movement in more
complex networks.
21 nodes with 250m
transmission range, placed in
1000 m 400 m .
= = = 0.5
First trust optimist (0.9)
Nature of nodes = 0.2

Results: Multihop

m1 keeps 3 old neighbors

m2 has no old neighbors

Results: Multihop

m1 keeps 3 old neighbors

m2 has no old neighbors

Results: Multihop

Node speeds three times faster.

Results: Multihop

Varying perception lower

perception takes longer time to
converge.

Results: Relationship maturity

Node 1,8,15 go
to zone F2.
Evaluating
trust level of
node 8 about
node 20

Results: Relationship maturity

Using lower
perception
value(0.2)
Note that
recommend
ations are
important in
low
perception
cases

Results: Lying Attacks

20 nodes
-250m
transmission
range, placed
in a
150 m 150m
Node 1
changes nature
from 0.9 to 0.2

Results: Lying Attacks

Malicious
nodes fixed at
40%

Results: Lying Attacks

Slander Attack
Node2
evaluating
node1 which
has nature 0.9
Pessimistic
strategy
(Fa=0.1)

Results: Lying Attacks

Slander Attack
Varying alpha

Results: Lying Attacks

Slander
Attack
Varying
perception
parameter.

Results: Lying Attacks

Slander
Attack
Malicious
nodes lie
after t=200

Results: Lying Attacks

Slander
Attack
Malicious
nodes
identification
time varying

Results: Lying Attacks

Slander
Attack
Malicious
nodes
identification
time varying

REP
To reduce number of messages sent
across network:
TREQ is sent once containing
multiple target nodes, using timer
based approach.
TREP instead of sending once per
request, implemented as broadcast
this saves 85%
TREP implemented, additionally,
with timer, saves 99% messages.
TA implemented with a threshold to
reduce its occurrence.

REP

REP
Changing the
value of Trust
threshold()

REP
Changing the
value of Trust
threshold()
and its
impact on
trust levels.

Discussion
Using smart timers in suppressing
redundant messages scales well in
large networks, reducing overhead for
trust management by 85 to 99%.
Increasing value of improves the
trust model efficiency, since we can
use already derived results (by
neighbors) in the form of
recommendations.

Conclusion
Flexible trust evaluation model
proposed based on concept of human
trust, which uses recommendations
and relationship maturity.
Recommendation Exchange Protocol
(REP) proposed.
Model highly scalable since only
neighbors consulted.
Model tolerates 35 % liars
Trust level error reduced by 50% by
using relationship maturity

Thank You!