NADSA: A Novel Approach for Detection of Sinkhole Attacks Based on RPL Protocol in 6LowPAN Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sinkhole attack is one of the most damaging threats in the Internet of Things (IoT). It deceptively attracts neighboring nodes and initiates malicious activity, often disrupting the network when combined with other attacks. This study proposes a novel approach, named NADSA, to detect and isolate sinkhole attacks. NADSA is based on the RPL protocol and consists of two detection phases. In the first phase, the minimum possible hop count between the sender and receiver is calculated and compared with the sender’s reported hop count. The second phase utilizes the number of DIO messages to identify suspicious nodes and then applies a fuzzification process using RSSI, ETX, and distance measurements to confirm the presence of a malicious node. The proposed method is extensively simulated in highly lossy and sparse network environments with varying numbers of nodes. The results demonstrate that NADSA achieves high efficiency, with PDRs of 68%, 70%, and 73%; E2EDs of 81, 72, and 60 ms; TPRs of 89%, 83%, and 80%; and FPRs of 24%, 28%, and 33%. NADSA outperforms existing methods in challenging network conditions, where traditional approaches typically degrade in effectiveness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".