Performance Analysis of Resilient Autonomous Navigation under Adversarial Attacks
Implementation plan:
———————————
Scenario-1 (Without Attack):
—————————————-
Step 1: Initially, we construct a network consisting of 5 – Vehicles, 5 – gNodeB, 1 – router, 1 – Server.
Step 2: Next, we Implement the on-board unit component (Camera, Lidar, Radar, and GPS receiver) into the network without attack
Step 3: Finally, plot performance for the following metrics:
3.1: Number of Vehicles vs. Packet Delivery Ratio (%)
3.2: Number of Vehicles vs. Latency (ms)
3.3: Number of Vehicles vs. Throughput (Mbps)
3.4: Time (ms) vs. State of Sensor
Scenario-2 (With Attack):
————————————-
Step 1: Initially, we construct a network consisting of 5 – Vehicles, 5 – gNodeB, 1 – router, 1 – Server.
Step 2: Next, we Implement the on-board unit component (Camera, Lidar, Radar, and GPS receiver) into the network without attack
Step 3: Then, Implement the attack on the on-board unit component.
Step 4: Finally, plot performance for the following metrics:
4.1: Number of Vehicles vs. Packet Delivery Ratio (%)
4.2: Number of Vehicles vs. Latency (ms)
4.3: Number of Vehicles vs. Throughput (Mbps)
4.4: Time (ms) vs. State of Sensor
4.5: Successful attacks (%) vs. Attacked Sensors
Scenario-3 (After RDO):
———————————
Step 1: Initially, we construct a network consisting of 5 – Vehicles, 5 – gNodeB, 1 – router, 1 – Server.
Step 2: Next, we Implement the on-board unit component (Camera, Lidar, Radar, and GPS receiver) into the network without attack
Step 3: Then, Implement the attack on the on-board unit component.
Step 4: Next, implement a robust Resilient Distributed Optimization (RDO) Algorithm for the V2V communication on the on-board unit component which is being attacked.
Step 5: Finally, plot performance for the following metrics:
5.1: Number of Vehicles vs. Packet Delivery Ratio (%)
5.2: Number of Vehicles vs. Latency (ms)
5.3: Number of Vehicles vs. Throughput (Mbps)
5.4: Time (ms) vs. State of Sensor
5.5: Successful attacks (%) vs. Attacked Sensors
Software requirements:
———————————
[+] Development tool: Omnet++ 4.6 or above
[+] Development OS: Ubuntu or Windows 10
Note:-
———
[1] If the above plan does not satisfy your requirement, please provide the processing details, like the above step-by-step.
[2] Please note that this implementation plan does not include any further steps after it is put into implementation.
[3] If the above plan satisfies your requirement please confirm with us.
[4] We make simulation type processes only, not a real-time process.
| Technology | Ph.D | MS | M.Tech |
|---|---|---|---|
| NS2 | 75 | 117 | 95 |
| NS3 | 98 | 119 | 206 |
| OMNET++ | 103 | 95 | 87 |
| OPNET | 36 | 64 | 89 |
| QULANET | 30 | 76 | 60 |
| MININET | 71 | 62 | 74 |
| MATLAB | 96 | 185 | 180 |
| LTESIM | 38 | 32 | 16 |
| COOJA SIMULATOR | 35 | 67 | 28 |
| CONTIKI OS | 42 | 36 | 29 |
| GNS3 | 35 | 89 | 14 |
| NETSIM | 35 | 11 | 21 |
| EVE-NG | 4 | 8 | 9 |
| TRANS | 9 | 5 | 4 |
| PEERSIM | 8 | 8 | 12 |
| GLOMOSIM | 6 | 10 | 6 |
| RTOOL | 13 | 15 | 8 |
| KATHARA SHADOW | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| VNX and VNUML | 8 | 7 | 8 |
| WISTAR | 9 | 9 | 8 |
| CNET | 6 | 8 | 4 |
| ESCAPE | 8 | 7 | 9 |
| NETMIRAGE | 7 | 11 | 7 |
| BOSON NETSIM | 6 | 8 | 9 |
| VIRL | 9 | 9 | 8 |
| CISCO PACKET TRACER | 7 | 7 | 10 |
| SWAN | 9 | 19 | 5 |
| JAVASIM | 40 | 68 | 69 |
| SSFNET | 7 | 9 | 8 |
| TOSSIM | 5 | 7 | 4 |
| PSIM | 7 | 8 | 6 |
| PETRI NET | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| ONESIM | 5 | 10 | 5 |
| OPTISYSTEM | 32 | 64 | 24 |
| DIVERT | 4 | 9 | 8 |
| TINY OS | 19 | 27 | 17 |
| TRANS | 7 | 8 | 6 |
| OPENPANA | 8 | 9 | 9 |
| SECURE CRT | 7 | 8 | 7 |
| EXTENDSIM | 6 | 7 | 5 |
| CONSELF | 7 | 19 | 6 |
| ARENA | 5 | 12 | 9 |
| VENSIM | 8 | 10 | 7 |
| MARIONNET | 5 | 7 | 9 |
| NETKIT | 6 | 8 | 7 |
| GEOIP | 9 | 17 | 8 |
| REAL | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| NEST | 5 | 10 | 9 |
| PTOLEMY | 7 | 8 | 4 |