|
P packet Flooding Attack Network Bandwidth Denial of Service (DoS) Packet-Dropping AttackBog'liq gu2011 AQLLI SHAHAR, TEST, 1-мактаб тўгарак жадвал, BUYRUQ. YASIN BREND, TAQRIZ YANGI, 2, Tarjima SPLINES, DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS, AND OPTIMAL, (11-ozbetinshe K.U.A)Q.Zafar, APPLIKATSIYADA QIRQISHNI HAR HIL USULLARINI BAJARISH, EDUCATION SYSTEM OF UZBEKISTON, O’zbekistonning va jahon hamjamiyati, OCHILOVA NIGORANING, 7 yosh inqirozi uning sabablari va alomatlari, TEXNIKA MADANIYATI, AAAP
P
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
0.5
a Goodput under periodic packet dropping
b Delay under packet dropping
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Goodput (Mbps)
Dropping period
2-hop
3-hop
4-hop
5-hop
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0
5
10
15
20
Increased dela
y (100s)
Number of dropped packets
Random
Period
Retrans
Packet-Dropping Attack. Fig. Consequence of packet-dropping attacks, reported in [
,
]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
a Packet-delivery ratio with defense
b Delay with defense
5
10
15
20
25
P
ac
k
et deliv
er
y r
atio
Number of attackers
SMT
SSP
NSP
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
End-to-end dela
y(s)
Number of attackers
SMT
SSP
Packet-Dropping Attack. Fig. Survivability with defense, reported in [
]
attack increases exponentially with the increased number
of dropped packets. For example, dropping retransmitted
packets five times can increase the average session delay
by more than %. If retransmissions fail, the TCP
connection will be terminated.
To survive in a packet-dropping attack, the victims
should choose paths that exclude attacking nodes. In [
],
experiments were conducted to measure the survivabil-
ity when messages were delivered in multiple paths. Three
strategies were compared. SMT is a protocol that disperses
packets over multiple paths for transmission. Similar to
SMT, the secure single path (SSP) protocol also delivers
packets over multiple paths. But SSP does not disperse
packets, rather it sends each packet over a single path.
The baseline in the experiments is the nonsecure single
path (NSP) protocol that only uses a single path. The exper-
iments were conducted in a simulated network with
mobile nodes. The packet delivery ratio and the end-to-end
delay were measured with various numbers of attackers.
The attackers always follow routing protocols to get into
paths and then, as in the black hole attack, drop all data
packets delivered in the paths.
Figure a
shows the packet delivery ratios. Apparently,
since attackers cannot get into all paths, packets can be
recovered from the pieces delivered in the paths that do
not have attackers. The packet delivery ratios for SMT and
SSP can be higher than %, even when % of nodes are
attackers. In contrast, the deliver ratio for NSP is reduced
as the number of attackers grows.
Figure b
shows the
delays for SMT and SSP. In this comparison, SMT is bet-
ter than SSP. In SSP, a packet is delivered in a single path.
If the packet is dropped by an attacker, the packet may
be retransmitted in another path. The retransmission con-
tributes to the larger end-to-end delay. However, in SMT,
a packet is dispersed in multiple paths. If a part of the
packet is dropped, the packet may still be recovered from
the received parts and no retransmission is needed. Hence,
the delay of SMT is smaller than that of SSP.
|
| |
