0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
8 vizualizări4 pagini
In this paper we proposed an efficient trust
computation method for identifying and allowing the nodes
based on trust measures. Most of our approaches works on
statistical measures like trust computations (i.e. Direct and
indirect trust computations) these approaches are not optimal,
because anonymous user may not have(or use) same set of
characteristics as previous connection. In this paper we are
proposing an efficient trust computation method apart from
the traditional trust computation method ,this approach based
on classification for analyzing the nodes or user when connects
to the network.
In this paper we proposed an efficient trust
computation method for identifying and allowing the nodes
based on trust measures. Most of our approaches works on
statistical measures like trust computations (i.e. Direct and
indirect trust computations) these approaches are not optimal,
because anonymous user may not have(or use) same set of
characteristics as previous connection. In this paper we are
proposing an efficient trust computation method apart from
the traditional trust computation method ,this approach based
on classification for analyzing the nodes or user when connects
to the network.
In this paper we proposed an efficient trust
computation method for identifying and allowing the nodes
based on trust measures. Most of our approaches works on
statistical measures like trust computations (i.e. Direct and
indirect trust computations) these approaches are not optimal,
because anonymous user may not have(or use) same set of
characteristics as previous connection. In this paper we are
proposing an efficient trust computation method apart from
the traditional trust computation method ,this approach based
on classification for analyzing the nodes or user when connects
to the network.
An Efficient TCM Supervised Learning Approach With Nave Bayesian Classifier Naveen Gosu 1 , Vakacharla Durga prasada rao 2 , N. Tulasi Radha 3
M.Tech Scholar 1 , Associate Professor 2 , Associate Professor 3 1 Dept of CSE Pydah College Of Engineering And Technology, Boyapalem A.P 2,3 Dept of CSE &IT, Kaushik College Of Engineering, Boyapalem, AP
Abstract:- In this paper we proposed an efficient trust computation method for identifying and allowing the nodes based on trust measures. Most of our approaches works on statistical measures like trust computations (i.e. Direct and indirect trust computations) these approaches are not optimal, because anonymous user may not have(or use) same set of characteristics as previous connection. In this paper we are proposing an efficient trust computation method apart from the traditional trust computation method ,this approach based on classification for analyzing the nodes or user when connects to the network. I. INTRODUCTION A wide variety of networked computer systems (such as the Grid, the Semantic Web, and peer-to-peer systems) can be viewed as multi-agent systems (MAS) in which the individual components act in an autonomous and flexible manner in order to achieve their objectives [1]. An important class of these systems is those that are open; here defined as systems in which agents can freely join and leave at any time and where the agents are owned by various stakeholders with different aims and objectives. Fromthese two features, it can be assumed that in open MAS: (1) the agents are likely to be unreliable and self interested; (2) no agent can know everything about its environment; and (3) no central authority can control all the agents. Despite these many uncertainties, a key component of such systems is the interactions that necessarily have to take place between the agents. Moreover, as the individuals only have incomplete knowledge about their environment and their peers, trust plays a central role in facilitating these interactions [1- 4]. Specifically, trust is here defined as the subjective probability with which an agent a assesses that another agent b will performa particular action, both before a can monitor such action and in a context in which it affects its own action (adapted from[4]). Generally speaking, trust can arise from two views: the individual and the society level. The former consists of agent as direct experiences frominteractions with agent b and the various relationships that may exist between them (e.g. owned by the same organization, relationships derived from relationships between the agents owners in the real life such as friendship or relatives, relationships between a service provider agent and its registered consumer agents). The latter consists of observations by the society of agent bs past behavior (here termed its reputation). These indirect observations are aggregated in some way to define agent bs past behavior based on the experiences of all the participants in the system.[5][6][7]. Given its importance, a number of computational models of trust and reputation have been developed (see Section 4), but none of themare well suited to open MAS. Specifically, given the above characteristics, in order to work efficiently in an open MAS, a trust model needs to possess the following properties:
1. It should take into account a variety of sources of trust information in order to have a more precise trust measure (by cross correlating several perspectives) and to cope with the situation that some of the sources may not be available. 2. Each agent should be able to evaluate trust for itself. Given the no central authority nature of open MAS, agents will typically be unwilling to rely solely on a single centralized trust/reputation service. 3. It should be robust against possible lying fromagents (since the agents are self-interested). II. RELATED WORK A wide variety of trust and reputation models have been developed in the last few years (e.g. [1], [4] [5][7][9][10]This section reviews a selection of notable models and shows how computational trust models have evolved in recent years with a particular emphasis on their applicability in open MAS Specifically that derive trust using certificates, rules, and policies. Second, surveys the popular trust models that follow the centralized approaching which witness observations are reported to a central authority. Finally notable models that follow the decentralized approach in which no central authority is needed for trust evaluations. From now on, for the convenience in referring agents, we call the agent evaluating the trustworthiness of another the evaluator, or agent a; and the agent being evaluated by a the target agent, or agent b. As can be seen in the previous section, trust can come from a number of information sources: direct experience, witness information, rules or policies. However, due to the openness of a MAS, the level of knowledge of an agent about its environment and its peers may vary greatly International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 10 - Oct 2013
during its life cycle. Therefore, at any given time, some information sources may not be available, or adequate, for deducing trust. For example, the following situations may (independently) happen:
An agent may never have interacted with a given target agent and, hence, its experience cannot be used to deduce how trustworthy the target agent is. An agent may not be able to locate a witness for the target agent (because of a lack of knowledge about the target agents society) and, therefore, it cannot obtain witness information about that agents behaviors.
The current set of rules to determine the level of trust is not applicable for the target Agent.
In such scenarios, trust models that use only one source of information will fail to provide a trust value of the target agent. For that reason, FIRE adopts a broader base of information than has hitherto been used for providing trust- related information. Although the number of sources that provide trust-related information can be greatly varied from application to application, we consider that most of themcan be categorized into the four main sources as follows:
Direct experience: The evaluator uses its previous experiences in interacting with the target agent to determine its trustworthiness. This type of trust is called Interaction Trust.
Witness information: Assuming that agents are willing to share their direct experiences, the evaluator can collect experiences of other agents that interacted with the target agent.
Such information will be used to derive the trustworthiness of the target agent based on the views of its witnesses. Hence this type of trust is called Witness Reputation.
Role-based rules: Besides an agents past behaviors (which is used in the two previous types of trust), there are certain types of information that can be used to deduce trust. These can be the various relationships between the evaluator and the target agent or its knowledge about its domain (e.g. norms, or the legal systemin effect). For example, an agent may be preset to trust any other agent that is owned, or certified, by its owner; it may trust that any authorized dealer will sell products complying to their companys standards; or it may trust another agent if it is a member of a trustworthy group.4 Such settings or beliefs (which are mostly domain-specific) can be captured by rules based on the roles of the evaluator and the target agent to assign a predetermined trustworthiness to the target agent. Hence this type of trust is called Role-based Trust.
Third-party references provided by the target agents: In the previous cases, the evaluator needs to collect the required information itself. However, the target agent can also actively seek the trust of the evaluator by presenting arguments about its trustworthiness. In this paper, such arguments are references produced by the agents that have interacted with the target agents certifying its behaviors. However, in contrast to witness information which needs to be collected by the evaluator, the target agent stores and provides such certified references on request to gain the trust of the evaluator. Those references can be obtained by the target agent (assuming the cooperation of its partners) from only a few interactions, thus, they are usually readily available. This type of trust is called Certified Reputation.
Apart fromthese traditional trust computation methods we are introducing an efficient and novel approach for calculating the trust of the agent or node in multi agent systems. III. PROPOSED WORK Now a days identifying the unauthorized user in network is still an important research issue during the peer to peer connections. Networks are protected using many firewalls and encryption softwares. But many of themare not sufficient and effective. Most trust computation systems for mobile ad hoc networks are focusing on either routing protocols or its efficiency, but it fails to address the security issues. Some of the nodes may be selfish, for example, by not forwarding the packets to the destination, thereby saving the battery power. Some others may act malicious by launching security attacks like denial of service or hack the information. The ultimate goal of the security solutions for wireless networks is to provide security services, such as authentication, confidentiality, integrity, anonymity, and availability, to mobile users. This paper incorporates agents and data mining techniques to prevent anomaly intrusion in mobile adhoc networks. Home agents present in each system collects the data from its own systemand using data mining techniques to observed the local anomalies. The Mobile agents monitoring the neighboring nodes and collect the information fromneighboring home agents to determine the correlation among the observed anomalous patterns before it will send the data. This systemwas able to stop all of the successful attacks in an adhoc networks and reduce the false alarmpositives. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 10 - Oct 2013
In our approach we proposes an efficient classification based approach for analyzing the anonymous users and calculates the trust measures based on the training data with the anonymous testing data. Our architecture contributes with the following modules like Analysis agent, Neighbour hood node, Classifier and data collection and preprocess as follows 1) Analysis agent Analysis agent or Home Agent is present in the system and it monitors its own system continuously. If an attacker sends any packet to gather information or broadcast through this system, it calls the classifier construction to find out the attacks. If an attack has been made, it will filter the respective system from the global networks. 2) Neighboring node - Any system in the network transfer any information to some other system, it broadcast through intermediate system. Before it transfer the message, it send mobile agent to the neighboring node and gather all the information and it return back to the system and it calls classifier rule to find out the attacks. If there is no suspicious activity, then it will forward the message to neighboring node. 3) Data collection - Data collection module is included for each anomaly detection subsystemto collect the values of features for corresponding layer in an system. Normal profile is created using the data collected during the normal scenario. Attack data is collected during the attack scenario. 4) Data preprocess - The audit data is collected in a file and it is smoothed so that it can be used for anomaly detection. Data preprocess is a technique to process the information with the test train data. In the entire layer anomaly detection systems, the above mentioned preprocessing technique is used For the classification process we are using Bayesian classifier for analyzing the neighbor node testing data with the training information. Bayesian classifier is defined by a set C of classes and a set A of attributes. A generic class belonging to C is denoted by c j and a generic attribute belonging to A as A i .Consider a database D with a set of attribute values and the class label of the case. The training of the Nave Bayesian Classifier consists of the estimation of the conditional probability distribution of each attribute, given the class. In our example we will consider a synthetic dataset which consists of various anonymous and non anonymous users node names, type of protocols and number of packets transmitted and class labels ,that is considered as our feature set C(c 1, c c ,c n) for training of system and calculates overall probability for positive class and negative class and then calculate the posterior probability with respect to all features ,finally calculate the trust probability.
Algorithm to classify malicious agent Sample space: set of agent H=Hypothesis that X is an agent P(H/X) is our confidence that X is an agent P(H) is Prior Probability of H, ie, the probability that any given data sample is an agent regardless of its behavior P(H/X) is based on more information, P(H) is independent of X Estimating probabilities P(X), P(H), and P(X/H) may be estimated from given data Bayes Theorem
Steps Involved: 1. Each data sample is of the type X=(xi) i =1(1)n, where xi is the values of X for attribute Ai 2. Suppose there are mclasses Ci, i=1(1)m. X Ci iff P(Ci|X) >P(Cj|X) for 1 j m, ji i.e BC assigns X to class Ci having highest posterior probability conditioned on X The class for which P(Ci|X) is maximized is called the maximumposterior hypothesis. FromBayes Theorem 3. P(X) is constant. Only need be maximized. If class prior probabilities not known, then assume all classes to be equally likely ) ( ) ( ) | ( ) | ( X P H P H X P X H P International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) Volume 4 Issue 10 - Oct 2013
Otherwise maximize P(Ci) =Si/S Problem: computing P(X|Ci) is unfeasible! 4. Nave assumption: attribute independence P(X|Ci) =P(x1,,xn|C) =PP(xk|C) 5. In order to classify an unknown sample X, evaluate for each class Ci. Sample X is assigned to the class Ci iff P(X|Ci)P(Ci) >P(X|Cj) P(Cj) .
IV. CONCLUSION We proposed a novel and efficient trust computation mechanismwith naive Bayesian classifier by analyzing the new agent information with existing agent information, by classifying the feature sets or chatectertics of the agent. This approach shows optimal results than the traditional trust computation approaches REFERENCES [1] N.R. Jennings, An Agent-Based Approach for Building Complex Software Systems, Comm. ACM, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 35-41, 2001. [2] R. Steinmetz and K. Wehrle, Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications. Springer-Verlag, 2005. [3] Gnutella, http://www.gnutella.com, 2000. [4] Kazaa, http://www.kazaa.com, 2011. [5] edonkey2000, http://www.emule-project.net, 2000. [6] I. Foster, C. Kesselman, and S. Tuecke, The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable Virtual Organizations, Intl J. High Performance Computing Applications, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 200-222, 2001. [7] T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila, The Semantic Web,Scientific Am., pp. 35-43, May 2001. [8] D. Saha and A. Mukherjee, Pervasive Computing: A Paradigmfor the 21st Century, Computer, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 25-31, Mar. 2003. [9] S.D. Ramchurn, D. Huynh, and N.R. Jennings, Trust in Multi- Agent Systems, The Knowledge Eng. Rev., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-25, 2004. [10] P. Dasgupta, Trust as a Commodity, Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, vol. 4, pp. 49-72, 2000. [11] P. Resnick, K. Kuwabara, R. Zeckhauser, and E. Friedman, Reputation Systems, Comm. ACM, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 45-48, 2000. [12] A.A. Selcuk, E. Uzun, and M.R. Pariente, A Reputation-Based Trust Management System for P2P Networks, Proc. IEEE Intl Symp. Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGRID 04), pp. 251-258, 2004. [13] M. Gupta, P. Judge, and M. Ammar, A Reputation System for Peer-to-Peer Networks, Proc. 13th Intl Workshop Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV 03), pp. 144-152, 2003. [14] K. Aberer and Z. Despotovic, Managing Trust in a Peer-2-Peer Information System, Proc. 10th Intl Conf. Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 01), pp. 310-317, 2001. [15] L. Mui, M. Mohtashemi, and A. Halberstadt, A Computational Model of Trust and Reputation for E- Businesses, Proc. 35th Ann. Hawaii Intl Conf. System Sciences (HICSS 02), pp. 2431-2439, 2002.
BIOGRAPHIES
Naveen Gosu completed his mca (all saints pg college) and pursuing his mtech from pydah college of engineering and technology, boyapalem Visakhapatnam- 531163
Vakacharla Durga prasada rao completed his M.E. He is working as Associate Professor in Dept of CSE&IT in Kaushik college Of Engineering, Gambeeram, Vishakapatnam-531163
N. Tulasi Radha completed B.Tech in GITAM college of Engineering and M.Tech from JNTU college of Engineering, Kakinada. She working as Associate Professor in Dept of CSE&IT in Kaushik college Of Engineering, Gambeeram, Vishakapatnam-531163. Her interested areas are Network Security, Human Computer Interaction Data Mining and Ware housing & Data Structures.