Adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol with reinforced anomaly detection for IoT networks

Parameter	Value
Simulation tool	NS-3
Simulation area	1,000 m × 1,000 m
Number of nodes	100–500
Traffic type	CBR
Transmission range	250 m
MAC protocol	IEEE 802.15.4
Mobility model	Random waypoint
Attack types simulated	Blackhole, Sybil, rank, wormhole
Trust evaluation method	Direct & indirect trust, trust decay mechanism
Cryptographic security	ECC, one-time hash chains
Detection algorithm	GMM, decision tree

[i] CBR, constant bit rate; ECC, elliptic curve cryptography; GMM, Gaussian mixture model.

Table 2:

Comparative analysis

Metric	ATBSRP (proposed)	Muzammal et al. (2022a) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
PDR (%)	92.8	85.4	83.9	88.2	86.7
End-to-end delay (ms)	22.1	30.4	28.7	26.9	27.3
Throughput (kbps)	512	450	438	470	460
Routing overhead (%)	12.3	18.2	19.6	15.8	17.4
Detection accuracy (%)	96.5	90.2	87.8	91.5	89.3

[i] ATBSRP, adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol; PDR, packet delivery ratio.

Table 3:

Comparison of PDR with increasing malicious nodes

No. of malicious nodes	Proposed	Muzammal et al. (2022) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
0	98.2	95.1	94.3	96.0	94.8
10	95.6	90.8	88.9	92.3	89.7
20	92.8	85.4	83.9	88.2	86.7
30	89.7	81.6	78.2	83.5	80.9
40	86.3	76.2	72.5	79.0	75.6

[i] PDR, packet delivery ratio.

Table 4:

Comparison of end-to-end delay (ms) with increasing malicious nodes

No. of malicious nodes	Proposed	Muzammal et al. (2022) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
0	18.7	22.5	23.0	21.8	22.1
10	20.4	25.7	26.3	24.5	25.0
20	22.1	30.4	28.7	26.9	27.3
30	24.6	34.9	32.5	30.8	31.2
40	28.2	38.7	36.1	34.4	35.0

Table 5:

Comparison of throughput (kbps) with increasing malicious nodes

No. of malicious nodes	ATBSRP—proposed	Muzammal et al. (2022) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
0	540	510	500	520	505
10	530	480	470	495	485
20	512	450	438	470	460
30	489	420	410	440	430
40	460	390	375	405	395

[i] ATBSRP, adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol.

Table 6:

Comparison of detection accuracy (%) with increasing malicious nodes

No. of malicious nodes	Proposed	Muzammal et al. (2022) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
10	98.3	92.4	90.1	94.5	91.3
20	96.5	90.2	87.8	91.5	89.3
30	94.2	86.7	83.9	88.1	85.6
40	91.7	82.3	79.4	84.7	81.2

PDR analysis. ATBSRP, adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol; PDR, packet delivery ratio.

Delay analysis. ATBSRP, adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol.

Throughput analysis. ATBSRP, adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol.

Accuracy analysis. ATBSRP, adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol.

Table 7:

ECC performance evaluation

Key size (bits)	Encryption time (ms)	Decryption time (ms)	Key generation time (ms)
160	1.2	1.1	3.4
192	1.6	1.4	4.1
224	2.1	1.8	5.0
256	2.7	2.3	6.2

[i] ECC, elliptic curve cryptography.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijssis-2025-0032 | Journal eISSN: 1178-5608

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Submitted on: Jan 10, 2025

Published on: Jul 14, 2025

Published by: International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: Volume open

Keywords:

ATBSRP,

IoT,

Related subjects:

Introductions and overviews,

Engineering, other

© 2025 K. Sangeetha, K. Arulanandam, published by International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 18 (2025): Issue 1 (January 2025)

Adaptive trust-based secure routing protocol with reinforced anomaly detection for IoT networks

Figures & Tables

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Table 7:

Paradigm

My account

No. of malicious nodes	ATBSRP—proposed	Muzammal et al. (2022) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
0	540	510	500	520	505
10	530	480	470	495	485
20	512	450	438	470	460
30	489	420	410	440	430
40	460	390	375	405	395

No. of malicious nodes	ATBSRP—proposed	Muzammal et al. (2022) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
0	540	510	500	520	505
10	530	480	470	495	485
20	512	450	438	470	460
30	489	420	410	440	430
40	460	390	375	405	395

No. of malicious nodes	ATBSRP—proposed	Muzammal et al. (2022) [2]	Bang and Rao (2022) [3]	Singh et al. (2024) [4]	Jiang and Liu (2022) [5]
0	540	510	500	520	505
10	530	480	470	495	485
20	512	450	438	470	460
30	489	420	410	440	430
40	460	390	375	405	395