Wireless Networks Protocols and Security: Routing Protocols Analysis

This report delves into the realm of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), exploring the characteristics of two prominent routing protocols: LEACH and PEGASIS. It meticulously examines their routing mechanisms, contrasting their approaches to data aggregation and network organization. The report then transitions to the critical aspect of security, identifying various attack vectors, such as Hello Flood and Wormhole attacks, and discussing their impact on the network's integrity. Furthermore, it proposes and analyzes potential defense mechanisms, including key-based trust management and authentication protocols, aimed at mitigating these threats. The report also includes a comparative analysis of the performance of LEACH and PEGASIS, considering factors such as energy efficiency, data transmission delays, and overall network stability. The study highlights the trade-offs associated with each protocol, providing insights into their suitability for different application scenarios. The conclusion emphasizes the significance of selecting appropriate protocols to balance energy conservation and network security in WSNs. The report is a comprehensive analysis of the topic.

Running head: WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
Wireless Networks protocols and Security
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors note

1WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
Introduction
Wireless Sensor Network is the emerging technology that are enabled by the collection
of sensor nodes with the limited amount of computing and processing resources available to it.
In most of the cases the WSNs (wireless sensor networks) are distributed in the hostile as well as
unfavorable environment [2]. In the different sections of this paper the features of the two main
protocols (LEACH and PEGASIS), their routing mechanisms, different types of attacks on them
are discussed. Furthermore, the impact and defense mechanisms that can help in securing the
Wireless Sensor Network which is also provided along with the performance evaluation between
the two protocols.
Part A
Routing Mechanism
LEACH
In the wireless sensor networks the LEACH protocols is one of the primitive protocols
that is a single hop protocol when contrasted with non-cluster-based protocol. When the nodes
are conveyed, group of sensors together shapes a cluster and a cluster head known as CH in each
cluster in order to gather data from the other member nodes. The protocol is actualized in
different rounds. Clusters are shaped powerfully and the cluster heads are chosen arbitrarily.
Every node in the cluster has equivalent likelihood to be chosen as CH which expects to adjust
the energy dissipation [1]. The remaining energy is checked continually by the sink until the
lifetime of the round is remained.

2WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
After every round, the CH in each cluster changes dependent on the choosing likelihood
which demonstrates that all the nodes in a cluster have similar opportunity in order to be a CH
independent of its remaining energy level. Equally likely CH election process gives rise to the
chance of choosing a CH with minimum amount of remaining energy level which will die out
rapidly when contrasted with the one with relative higher energy level node in the cluster [6].
PEGASIS
In case of PEGASIS protocols, the nodes will be composed with the goal that they
structure a chain inside the network, and the nodes will have need to communicate only with the
nearest neighbors and alternate in speaking with the base station. In fact, PEGASIS has two
primary targets. To start with, expanding the lifetime of every node by utilizing shared
procedures and accordingly enhance the lifetime of the developed chain for data transmission
using the nodes [4]. Also, allowing only the nearby nodes so that the bandwidth consumption in
the communication can be reduced.
While creating a chain with the nodes, the sensor nodes which are already connected in
the chain is not considered further for development of the rest of the chain for transmitting the
data. One node chosen as the leader node inside the network which in turn transmits the
aggregated data to the sink.
Sensor nodes gather information from the last nodes and aggregates it with its own
information and send to the following sensor nodes till it reaches the leader node. The leader
node determination in the chain is random and does not follow any rule [5]. Every node becomes
a leader node utilizing token passing strategy. At the point when any sensor node dies inside the
chain, then the sensor chain is revamped in a similar way by precluding the dead nodes.

3WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
Reduced energy consumption
For LEACH protocol it is appropriate when it is important to distribute the energy load
equally among the sensor nodes in the system and reduces the measure of used energy for data
transmission. The activity detail is as per the following. The chain can be figured in a brought
together way by the BS and communicate to all the nodes or be practiced by the sensor nodes
themselves utilizing a voracious calculation [5]. Since this chain calculation is done once, trailed
by numerous rounds of information correspondence, the vitality cost is little contrasted with the
vitality spent in the information assortment stage. The chain developing procedure begins with
the farthest hub from the BS. The nearest neighbor to this hub is the following hub on the chain.
On the other hand, for PEGASIS, it experiences the issue of time delay in transmission
of data. They are in this way not proper for constant applications in the current structure.
Different issues are insatiable chain development system and limit with respect to weight
balance.
Advantages and limitations
Advantages and limitations of LEACH
As the data aggregation is done by only few cluster heads thus leading to energy
efficiency and increasing the lifetime of wireless sensor network.
Limitations
In LEACH, the cluster heads are responsible for directly communicate with bases
stations that leads to increased power consumption for sending data to the BS compared to the
communication among the different cluster heads [3]. In this way the Cluster heads will deplete
its energy within little period of time of operation.

4WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
Advantages and limitations PEGASIS
Advantages
In case of PEGASIS protocol, it can be said that, it minimizes the required number of
messages in order to communicate with last node in the formed chain and to send the final one
message to base station, where as in case of the LEACH there are more than one message from
different cluster head nodes at the same time is sent to the base station [7]. In this way it
becomes energy efficient to deliver the final data to the base station.
Limitations
As the chain of the sensors may go a long way and thus it leads to the delayed delivery of data
packets to base station using the last leading node on the network.
If in an scenario the elected leader node inside network is placed at a significant distance from
the sink or base station then the leader node will consumes huge amount of energy which is not
helpful and leads to degradation of health of the network.
Part B
Security issues of routing protocols
One of the most important attacks on the above-mentioned attacks is the interception
which is an attack on confidentiality of the transited data [2]. The sensor network can be
undermined by an attacker in order to increase unapproved access to deployed sensor node or
information stored inside the odes.
External threats that may lead to the passive eavesdropping in order to get the data that is
being transmitted through the network, also as can stretch out to infusing counterfeit

5WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
information into the network in order to completely consume the resources and raise Denial of
Service (DoS) inside the network. While the internal threats are an approved member node of the
network which has gone rouge [6].
Passive attack that targets the nodes in order to investigate and analyze the transmitted
data traffic. This kind of attacks is simpler to carry out and can be carried out with efficient
receiver. Since, the attacker does not make any modification on the data. The expectation of the
attacker can be the information on classified data or the information on the noteworthy nodes in
the system by dissecting the routing data, to set up for an active attack on the sensor network.
Attacks on the routing protocols
Hello Flood Attacks: In different wireless sensor network protocols, uses the HELLO
data packets and makes the presumption that getting such a data packets from any node makes
the other node consider that the sender node is in radio range. An attacker to the wireless sensor
network can use any powerful transmitter in order to trick multiple nodes in accepting that,
they are neighbors of transmitting rouge node [7]. In the event that the attacker erroneously
communicates a better course than the base station, these nodes will try to reach and
communicate with transmission to the attacking node, notwithstanding many being out of radio
range as a general rule.
In the event that the protocol sends messages in the two headings over the connection
between the nodes, HELLO floods are forestalled when the attacker just has a ground-breaking
transmitter on the grounds that the protocol confirms the bidirectionality of the connection. In
spite of the fact that this does not forestall an undermined hub with a touchy collector and an
amazing transmitter from confirming itself to an enormous number of nodes in the system, a

6WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
perceptive base station might have the option to identify a HELLO flood is approaching [2].
Since such an attacker is required to confirm itself to each casualty before it can mount an attack,
a foe professing to be a neighbor of a strangely enormous number of the nodes will raise an alert.
WormHole Attack: In case of wormhole attack, an attacker gets bundles at one point in
the system, "burrows" them to another point in the system, and afterward replays them into the
system starting there. An aggressor barges in interchanges started by the sender, duplicates a
segment or an entire bundle, and accelerates sending the replicated data packets through a
particular wormhole burrow so that the replicated data packets shows up at the goal before the
first bundle which crosses through the typical courses [3]. Such a route to nodes can be made by
a few methods, for example, by sending the replicated bundle through a wired system and toward
the finish of the route to nodes transmitting over a remote channel, utilizing some wired
connection.
Countermeasure for the attacks
Key based trust management between the nodes: Use of the cryptographic keys in the
wireless network protocol implementation is considered as the essential prerequisite in order to
set up a secure sensor network. In this way that the attack on the different nodes and protocols.
Key based strategies can help in the scaled networks that can support hundreds or thousands of
nodes. [6]. The base station should have the information about the nodes in order to secure the
communication for acceptable key dissemination.
Authentication mechanism: Majority of the sensor-based applications and networks
requires security against spying, infusion and data packet modification. In this way the Base

7WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
stations can discriminate the outsider from the sensor nodes inside the network. There are other
similar likewise procedures that includes multicast or clustering methods.
Comparison of the performance of the Routing protocols
In LEACH protocol, it utilizes a TDMA/CDMA MAC so as to diminish the number of
data packet collisions at the time of routing them. As the data in this protocol is gathered in
concentrated way and is gathered intermittently for better communication between the nodes and
from nodes to base stations. Thus, this protocol is most valuable when there is a prerequisite for
consistent checking of the sensor network [5]. Any user may not require the entirety of the
information simultaneously. Thus, transmitting the information intermittently is pointless in light
of the fact that it depletes the restricted monitoring of the sensor nodes.
Chain of the nodes is framed with the use of greedy algorithm. In this manner, chain
shaped may not be of ideal length. There may exist long connections in the chain which result
into enormous vitality utilization in the chain.
If the system size is huge and sink lies from the sensor field, separation between the
pioneer hub and the sink increments numerous folds. In this manner, pioneer nodes devour
gigantic measure of vitality and the system become temperamental. In this way, PEGASIS
cannot used for systems.
Conclusion
As the energy required to operate and lifetime of the wireless are two significant
limitations in the development and deployment of the WSN protocol to control and manage the
data from the sensors. Selection of the suitable protocol which is energy efficient and effective
in directing network load in the system equitably is a difficult procedure. The LEACH protocol

8WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
guarantees an adaptive distribution of the network load yet have some confinements. With the
arbitrary CH choice, it has effectiveness in providing reliability that can expand the system
lifetime by controlling the energy dissipation inside the complete network.
Compared to the LEACH the PEGAIS is effective in transmission of data but with the
increased amount of the energy over long chains of sensor connection in WSN that have impact
on the nodes and networks lifetime.

9WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY
References
[1]"ENHANCEMENT OF LEACH PROTOCOL IN WSN", International Journal of Recent
Trends in Engineering and Research, pp. 161-165, 2018. Available:
10.23883/ijrter.conf.20171225.024.zevqi.
[2]"Survey on Node Replication Attacks in Static Wireless Sensor Network", International
Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering & Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 131-136, 2018.
Available: 10.21884/ijmter.2018.5049.q7xez.
[3]F. Naz, "Effect of multiple sink on the lifetime of multiple chain PEGASIS", Global Sci-Tech,
vol. 11, no. 1, p. 39, 2019. Available: 10.5958/2455-7110.2019.00006.5.
[4]"An Effective Review of Various Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor
Network", International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 284-286,
2017. Available: 10.21275/art20164070.
[5]R. Azizi, "Consumption of Energy and Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor
Network", Network Protocols and Algorithms, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 76, 2016. Available:
10.5296/npa.v8i3.10257.
[6]A. Jangra, "A Review on Different Routing Protocols on Wireless Sensor
Network", International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 149, no. 12, pp. 15-19, 2016.
Available: 10.5120/ijca2016911650.
[7]A. Somauroo and V. Bassoo, "Energy-efficient genetic algorithm variants of PEGASIS for 3D
Wireless Sensor Networks", Applied Computing and Informatics, 2019. Available:
10.1016/j.aci.2019.07.002.

10WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY

11WIRELESS NETWORKS PROTOCOLS AND SECURITY