A Novel Fuzzy Logic-Based Scheme for Malicious Node Eviction in a Vehicular Ad Hoc Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study focuses on a AI-based trust level scheme for excluding malicious nodes which focused on important topic. However, the paper is very brief and many details related to methodology, simulation, and the results are missing. I have some suggestions to improve the paper as follows:

- It is not clear what is the main goal of this study. The main objectives of this study must be defined in introduction, properly. The title must reflect the objectives of the study. It is not clear how the objective are related to AI-based trust level scheme for excluding malicious nodes.
- Similarly, the proposed method is not clear. Try to add a figure to include the details of the proposed method in section 3. Try to show how your proposed method enhance trust level for excluding malicious nodes.

- Add more details about the simulation in section 3.

- How do you conclude that end-to-end delay is improved by up to 60%. Please elaborate further and compare the results of your proposed method with other existing studies. Then, you can claim that you improved end-to-end delay.
- Conclusion is too general. Please discuss the findings and contributions based on your results. Then add the main concluding remarks that you found after completing this study. Finally, add the limitations of your study and the future direction.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank the reviewers for their diligent and thorough reading of this paper, as well as their intelligent comments and helpful suggestions, which helped to improve its quality. We are pleased to notify you that we have updated the manuscript in response to the reviewers' recommendations. We believe that the updated manuscript is in much better shape after incorporating the feedback. We appreciate the reviewer's forthright comments: we recognized that some crucial paragraphs of the original article lacked clarity, with ambiguities that led to reader misunderstandings. We have now updated the manuscript's organization and included more paragraphs. More accurate mathematical formulas, we agree, clarify the description. The references have been updated in the new version. We have finally completed a thorough editing and formatting process. This update, we believe, improves the manuscript's readability. The reviewer's comments are addressed in detail below.

 

We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in your esteemed journal. For the reviewers' convenience, we have followed their comments by our response in Times New Roman font. The uploaded a copy of the original manuscript marked with all the changes made during the revision process. The new text is highlighted. Please see the attached file.

 

 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Security in VANET is an exciting yet challenging research area. This paper claimed to propose a unique security strategy to enhance communication security in VANET, minimise the effects of malicious nodes and improve resource utilisation. Further, the authors evaluated the proposed method and showed the improvements using graphs.

In general, the paper is formatted and logically structured with the latest references. However, some of the recommendations and corrections are as follows for further improvements.

1.       In the title, the first term is "AI-based"; however, the scheme is a "trust-based approach". Therefore, justification is required to use the Fuzzy Logic approach in the context of AI. Furthermore, the authors have used the word "AI" only once in the whole paper, while from the title, one can anticipate that there will be some discussion and relevance to AI in the proposed approach; however, it is missing.

2.       The quantitative measures of improvements for the performance evaluation of comparison should be included to show how much improvement has been achieved in terms of percentage.

3.       The INTRODUCTION section is very poorly written. The issue/challenge at hand is not adequately explained, and the motivation is missing. Also, if the space of the Journal permits, some background information about the VANET and security challenges within it must be included for more clarity.

4.       In the introduction section, the authors mentioned, "In VANET, multiple USERS are allowed to dynamically ..." Therefore, the term "user" must be replaced with "NOTE" throughout the paper.

5.       RELATED WORK:

                                 i.            This section discussed the related work; however, proper critical analysis of the available solutions is missing. Furthermore, the authors have stated the solution but did not mention their limitations and weakness, proving that the related work requires significant revision.

                               ii.            Include the most relevant and latest schemes (Malik, A. et al., (2022) An Efficient Dynamic Solution for the Detection and Prevention of BHA in VANETs) for comparison purposes.

6.       NETWORK OVERVIEW: In this section, the authors must state what this section is about and what they are explaining. Is this the proposed work/strategy? CONFUSED.

7.       Similarly, there are papers in which similar schemes are proposed. Then where is your contribution or what is the difference between authors and their work? i.e.,

                                 i.            [1] Na Fan et al. (2019), "On trust models for communication security in VANETs."

                               ii.            [2] Alkhalidy, M., et al. (2022), "A New Scheme for Detecting Malicious Nodes in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks Based on Monitoring Node Behavior"

                             iii.            [3] Krishnan, R. P., & Kumar, A. R. P. (2021), "A collaborative strategy for detection and eviction of Sybil attacker and Sybil nodes in VANET". International Journal of Communication Systems, 34(3).

8.       In Section 3.2, the authors missed the value of the β threshold.

9.       Similarly, keeping in view the high speed of vehicles and the fast dynamic nature of the network topology, while considering the criteria for computing the trust level for a node in VANET, would the authors be able to detect the malicious node with minimum delay and routing overhead? An explanation is required.

10.   The criteria for computing the received signal strength and comparing it with the estimated signal strength from RSU. How does a node know that it is a particular node's signal?

11.   The same collaborative-trust assessment scheme is proposed by Shahid Sultan et al., (2021), a Collaborative-trust approach toward malicious node detection in vehicular ad hoc networks. Then how is your proposed scheme different from their proposed scheme?

12.   In equation 2, what does it mean by "0.W"?

13.   In Section 3.2.2, what and how does a node ith will decide that jth node is good or bad. Again, the content and technique are not clear.

14.   Where is the initial value of 2 assigned by an RSU to a node, somewhere in equation (6)?

15.   In Section 3.2.3, what are the rewards in a particular time interval and how the RSU or other nodes organise or store them? Also, let if a new vehicle joins the network, and if it is really a malicious node, then what will be the actions of your proposed scheme for detecting it.

16.   Why did you include the fuzzy logic technique? Where is your detection mechanism, and how will a node be declared malicious?

17.   In Section 4, you need to compare your findings with the most relevant and state-of-the-art schemes existing in related work.

18.   Similarly, why did you use MatLab? Why not SUMO, NS-2, NS-3, etc., that provide a more realistic environment for vehicular networks evaluation?

19.   The paper does not clearly state that the proposed scheme detects what type of malicious node? As you mentioned in Section 4, "Our scheme excludes malicious nodes that keep misbehaving in the VANET…". Then what will happen in the case of a malicious node that only drops the packets?

20.   The purpose and answer of why for each performance evaluation metric with formula should be included, along with a figure illustration of the simulation findings.

 

LANGUAGE AND CORRECTNESS OF WRITING – There are, off-course many grammatical and spelling mistakes at many places in the manuscript. More careful proofreading is highly recommended.

 

REFERENCES – References are UpToDate; however, some of the most relevant literature has been advised to include for further improvement. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank the reviewers for their diligent and thorough reading of this paper, as well as their intelligent comments and helpful suggestions, which helped to improve its quality. We are pleased to notify you that we have updated the manuscript in response to the reviewers' recommendations. We believe that the updated manuscript is in much better shape after incorporating the feedback. We appreciate the reviewer's forthright comments: we recognized that some crucial paragraphs of the original article lacked clarity, with ambiguities that led to reader misunderstandings. We have now updated the manuscript's organization and included more paragraphs. More accurate mathematical formulas, we agree, clarify the description. The references have been updated in the new version. We have finally completed a thorough editing and formatting process. This update, we believe, improves the manuscript's readability. The reviewer's comments are addressed in detail below.

 

We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in your esteemed journal. For the reviewers' convenience, we have followed their comments by our response in Times New Roman font. The uploaded a copy of the original manuscript marked with all the changes made during the revision process. The new text is highlighted. Please see the attached file.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved the paper according to the comments. I suggest to proof read the paper once more before publication and check the references. I found some extra spaces in the references (for example reference 24).
All the best.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of the concerns recommended and have improved the paper. However, the following changes and recommendations (which are not properly addressed in your revision) need to be incorporated for further improvements.

 

1. A proper name of the proposed model/scheme is still missing. It is strongly recommended that for clarity and identification a proper name with a clear context should be used for the model. The name the scheme will help the readers to understand the context and goal of the scheme/model. The authors should also have a separate section with the proposed name of the scheme which discusses its different components, operations, and functions etc.
2. A figure/diagram of the proposed framework or model should be included to help understanding the whole picture and concept. For instance, you can pictorially illustrate that how your model works step-wise or phase-wise etc.
3. The quantitative measures of improvements for the performance evaluation of comparison should be included in the abstract and conclusion sections to show the readers how much improvement has been achieved in terms of percentage (%).
4. The table of parameters newly added by the authors has many flaws, first, the MAC protocol used by VANET is not IEEE 802.11b, also see the units of each parameter and add some additional parameters such as beacon message size, radio propagation model, the total area for simulation, total simulation time, communication protocol, vehicles speed, etc. Similarly double check each parameter for avoiding further complications. 
5. Revise the keywords. It should be relevant and must reflect the work undertaken.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx