MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151501043 · doi:10.1109/icniconsmcl.2006.202

Study of Different Types of Attacks on Multicast in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

2006· article· en· W2151501043 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkComputer scienceMulticastMobile ad hoc networkEavesdroppingComputer securityNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security is an essential requirement in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). Compared to wired networks, MANETs are more vulnerable to security attacks due to the lack of a trusted centralized authority, easy eavesdropping, dynamic network topology, and limited resources. The security issue of MANETs in group communications is even more challenging because of the involvement of multiple senders and multiple receivers. In this paper, we present a simulationbased study of the impacts of different types of attacks on mesh-based multicast in MANETs. We consider the most common types of attacks, namely rushing attack, blackhole attack, neighbor attack and jellyfish attack. Specifically we study how the processing delay of legitimate nodes, the number of attackers and their positions affect the performance metrics of a multicast session such as packet delivery ratio, throughput, end-to-end delay, and delay jitter. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that studies the vulnerability and the performance of multicast in MANETs under various security threats.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Ad Hoc NetworksFrench-language works237,207