Trust and Mobility-Based Protocol for Secure Routing in Internet of Things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Internet of Things (IoT), the de facto Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) is susceptible to several disruptive attacks based on its functionalities and features. Among various RPL security solutions, a trust-based security is easy to adapt for resource-constrained IoT environments. In the existing trust-based security for RPL routing attacks, nodes' mobility is not considered or limited to only the sender nodes. Similarly, these trust-based protocols are not evaluated for mobile IoT environments, particularly regarding RPL attacks. Hence, a trust and mobility-based secure routing protocol is proposed, termed as SMTrust, by critically analysing the trust metrics involving the mobility-based metrics in IoT. SMTrust intends to provide security against RPL Rank and Blackhole attacks. The proposed protocol is evaluated in three different scenarios, including static and mobile nodes in an IoT network. SMTrust is compared with the default RPL objective function, Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF), SecTrust, DCTM, and MRTS. The evaluation results indicate that the proposed protocol outperforms with respect to packet loss rate, throughput, and topology stability. Moreover, SMTrust is validated using routing protocol requirements analysis to ensure that it fulfils the consistency, optimality, and loop-freeness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".