Simulation and analysis performance of ad-hoc routing protocols under DDoS attack and proposed solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ad hoc networks, known as infrastructure-less networks, are composed of mobile nodes that connect without a centralized system controlling them. These networks have a wide range of potential applications, including emergency response, events, military operations, wireless access, and intelligent transportation. They can take on various forms, such as wireless sensor networks, wireless mesh networks, and mobile ad hoc networks. Because users in these networks can move around at any time, routing protocols must adapt to the constantly changing network layout. However, these networks are also susceptible to various security threats, including DDoS attacks. This paper aims to analyze the performance and impact of security attacks on the performance of reactive and proactive routing protocols in CBR connection patterns with different pause times. The analysis is provided in metrics such as throughput, packet loss, end-to-end delay, and load. The simulation results show that, on average, the OPNET Modeler simulator analyzed the performance results under DDoS attacks under voice and video traffic conditions. Furthermore, the paper explores the use of Honeypot intelligent agents as a solution to increase security by creating a dummy node to fool DDoS attackers. The results show that the OLSR protocol is most affected by DDoS attacks in terms of quality-of-service metrics such as packet loss, throughput, end-to-end delay, and load. The number of responses to the honeypot solutions differs for each protocol.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".