ResearchTrend.AI
  • Papers
  • Communities
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Pricing
Papers
Communities
Social Events
Terms and Conditions
Pricing
Parameter LabParameter LabTwitterGitHubLinkedInBlueskyYoutube

© 2025 ResearchTrend.AI, All rights reserved.

  1. Home
  2. Papers
  3. 2006.09293
6
91

An agent-based self-protective method to secure communication between UAVs in unmanned aerial vehicle networks

3 June 2020
Reza Fotohi
E. Nazemi
Fereidoon Shams Aliee
    AAML
ArXivPDFHTML
Abstract

UAVNs (unmanned aerial vehicle networks) may become vulnerable to threats and attacks due to their characteristic features such as highly dynamic network topology, open-air wireless environments, and high mobility. Since previous work has focused on classical and metaheuristic-based approaches, none of these approaches have a self-adaptive approach. In this paper, the challenges and weaknesses of previous methods are examined in the form of a table. Furthermore, we propose an agent-based self-protective method (ASP-UAVN) for UAVNs that is based on the Human Immune System (HIS). In ASP-UAS, the safest route from the source UAV to the destination UAV is chosen according to a self-protective system. In this method, a multi-agent system using an Artificial Immune System (AIS) is employed to detect the attacking UAV and choose the safest route. In the proposed ASP-UAVN, the route request packet (RREQ) is initially transmitted from the source UAV to the destination UAV to detect the existing routes. Then, once the route reply packet (RREP) is received, a self-protective method using agents and the knowledge base is employed to choose the safest route and detect the attacking UAVs. The proposed ASP-UAVN has been validated and evaluated in two ways: simulation and theoretical analysis. The results of simulation evaluation and theory analysis showed that the ASP-UAS increases the Packet Delivery Rate (PDR) by more than 17.4, 20.8, and 25.91%, and detection rate by more than 17.2, 23.1, and 29.3%, and decreases the Packet Loss Rate (PLR) by more than 14.4, 16.8, and 20.21%, the false-positive and false-negative rate by more than 16.5, 25.3, and 31.21% those of SUAS-HIS, SFA and BRUIDS methods, respectively.

View on arXiv
Comments on this paper