MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073037239 · doi:10.1109/wowmom.2010.5535004

Towards securing mintroute in wireless sensor networks

2010· article· en· W2073037239 on OpenAlexaff
Islam Hegazy, Reihaneh Safavi–Naini, Carey Williamson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity in Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkComputer scienceWireless sensor networkRouting protocolRelayBase stationNode (physics)Key distribution in wireless sensor networksProtocol (science)Vulnerability (computing)Routing (electronic design automation)WirelessWireless networkComputer securityEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), the sensor nodes rely upon a multi-hop routing protocol to relay their data to the base station. However, most WSN routing protocols are vulnerable to attacks in which a malicious node can disrupt the routes, drop, modify, or divert data away from the base station. In this paper, we use the ns-2 network simulator to demonstrate the vulnerability of the MintRoute protocol to link quality attacks by a malicious node. We then propose a novel "sequence number gap trick" as a lightweight means to test for and detect the presence of a malicious attacker. The simulation results show that judicious use of the sequence number gap trick provides robust detection of malicious nodes, preserving the data delivery capabilities of the WSN.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity in Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207