Article Preview
TopA lot of works have been done by researchers in securing the vehicular communication against the DDoS attacks(Liu, Liu, Sun, Zhao, & You, 2018; Maheshwari, Krishna, & Brahma, 2014; Poongodi & Bose, 2015; Rampaul, Patial, & Kumar, 2016; Rupareliya, Vithlani, & Gohel, 2016), (Ali, Hassan, & Li, 2019; Arif, Wang, Zakirul Alam Bhuiyan, Wang, & Chen, 2019; Mokhtar & Azab, 2015; Samara, Al-Salihy, & Sures, n.d.; Shringar Raw, Kumar, & Singh, 2013; Vakil et al., 2012).The security resolutions for VANETs involve two main modules (Kumar & Dutta, 2016):
Preventions based on cryptography Techniques: Though, these methods are not much successful from protecting the network from the internal attacks when the malicious vehicles have the legal encryption and decryption keys and can use them for miscellaneous actions.
Detection based on intrusion detection system (IDS): Here, the detection mechanism is used as a next method of defense. The main goal of IDS is to hold abnormal activities in the action before they carry out the real damage to resources. Some of the examples include watchdogs (Rupareliya et al., 2016), bloom filters (Verma, Hasbullah, & Kumar, 2013) etc.
Hubaux et. al (Hubaux, Čapkun, & Luo, 2004) discussed the different vulnerabilities in smart vehicles. The authors also identified DoS attacks as the most dangerous types of attacks. According to the authors, there was no technical solution to address this problem at the time.
Raya et. al (Raya & Hubaux, 2005) discussed why vehicle networks need to be secured. They also proposed a security architecture with public key cryptography to protect VANET's privacy. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this document was the first attempt to address the safety of VANETs.