 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Security and quality of service (QoS) codesign in cooperative mobile ad hoc networks
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking volume 2013, Article number: 188 (2013)
Abstract
Cooperative communication has been considered as a promising technique to improve communication quality of service (QoS) in wireless networks, including mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). Due to their unorganized and decentralized infrastructure, cooperative MANETs (COMANETs) are vulnerable to attacks initiated on relays. Although encryption and authentication protocols may prevent compromised data transmission when a selected relay is attacked, their cost is high. In this paper, we propose a gametheoretic approach to quantitatively analyze the attack strategies of the attacker so as to make a rational decision on relay selection and the authentication parameter adaptation to reach a tradeoff between security and QoS in COMANETs. Simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed approach for security and QoS codesign in COMANETs.
1 Introduction
Cooperative communication has been considered as a promising technique to improve quality of service (QoS) in wireless networks through the cooperation of users. The idea behind cooperative communication is that singleantenna mobile nodes in a multiuser scenario can share their antennas in a manner that creates a virtual multipleinput and multipleoutput (MIMO) system [1]. Transmitting independent copies of the signal generates diversity and can effectively combat the deleterious effects of fading. Particularly, selecting the most suitable relay among available relays can achieve selection diversity in cooperative communications [2–4]. This promising technique has been considered in the IEEE 802.16j standard and is expected to be integrated into future 3GPP cellular networks [5].
While cooperative communication brings significant benefits, it also raises serious security issues. Particularly, mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) with cooperative communications (COMANETs) [6] present significant challenges to secure routing, key exchange, key distribution and management, as well as intrusion detection and protection. For example, it is possible for malicious nodes to join the network and relay unsolicited information to a rogue destination, thereby compromise the network. It is also possible for some nodes to act in a selfish manner to conserve their own energy and not cooperate and relay information from other nodes, thereby discouraging cooperation.
Although encryption and authentication protocols can prevent compromised data transmission when the selected relay is attacked, these measures consume scarce bandwidth and reduce system throughput. It would be desirable to choose only trustworthy nodes as relays and only authenticate the packets through the nodes that are prone to attack. To achieve this goal, we would need to design a quantitative approach to analyze the actions of the attackers so as to make appropriate decisions on relay selection and the extent that encryption and authentication protocols are required.
Gametheoretic approaches have been proposed to improve network security [7]. Game theory addresses problems in which multiple players with contradictory incentives or goals compete with each other; thus, it can provide a mathematical framework for modeling and analyzing decision problems. In game theory, one player’s outcome depends not only on her/his decisions, but also on those of her/his opponents’ decisions. Similarly, the success of a security scheme depends not only on the actual defense strategies, but also on the actions taken by the attackers.
In this paper, we propose a quantitative decisionmaking approach that is based on game theory and takes both security and QoS in terms of throughput into consideration. To the best of our knowledge, using a game theoretical approach to jointly study security and QoS issues for MANETs with cooperative communications has not been considered in existing works. We propose a dynamic Bayesian gametheoretic approach to enable a node to make strategic decisions on relay selection and authentication parameter adaptation. A Bayesian game is a game in which the information about the characteristics of other players is incomplete [8]. A node in the network can update its beliefs in the maliciousness of relays according to the record of attack history. It does not need to authenticate all packets because there exists a possibility that the selected relay will not be attacked by the attacker. Compared with the approach proposed in [9] that authenticates all the packets without considering the possibility that the selected relay is cooperative, the proposed gametheoretic approach only authenticates the packets through the nodes prone to attack. Therefore, the proposed scheme can avoid unnecessary consumption of system resources and leads to a better system performance in terms of system throughput, which is shown in the simulationresults.
We use an adaptive and lightweight protocol for both hopbyhop and endtoend authentications (ALPHA) [10], which is based on hash chains and Merkle trees, i.e., a tree of hashes. We take an integrated design approach to optimize the number of messages (or leaves) in the Merkle tree (an important parameter in the authentication scheme) and relay selection (an important process for QoS provisioning in cooperative communication networks). We will show that security schemes have significant impacts on the QoS in terms of throughput of MANETs, and our proposed scheme can improve the system throughput of MANETs with cooperative communications compared to the existing approach [7] that authenticates all packets.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the related work. The proposed gametheoretic approach is presented in Section 3. Simulation results and discussions are given in Section 4. Finally, we conclude this paper in Section 5.
2 Related work
2.1 Cooperative communication
Cooperative communication allows singleantenna mobiles to reap some of the benefits of MIMO systems. The fundamental idea behind cooperative communication is that singleantenna mobiles in a multiuser scenario can share their antennas in a manner that creates a virtual MIMO system. It is wellknown that the mobile wireless channel suffers from fading; in another word, signal attenuation can vary significantly over the course of a given transmission. Transmitting independent copies of the signal generates diversity and can effectively combat the deleterious effects of fading. Particularly, spatial diversity is generated by transmitting signals from different locations, thus allowing independently faded versions of the signal to arrive at the receiver [11, 12]. Cooperative communication generates spatial diversity in a new and interesting way. As illustrated in Figure 1, in which a node represents a mobile device with one antenna, two nodes are communicating with the same destination. Each node has one antenna and cannot individually realize spatial diversity. However, it is possible for one node to receive the information sent from the other, in which case, it could forward received information along with its own information to the destination. Since the fading path from two nodes is statistically independent, spatial diversity is achieved [13].
In this study, we consider the mobile ad hoc networks, in which users may increase their effective quality of services through cooperation. Each wireless user is assumed to transmit data as well as function as cooperative relay to forward received data from its partners.
2.2 Opportunistic relaying
The proposed gametheoretic approach in this paper adopts a proactive opportunistic relaying process. As the name implies, opportunistic relaying selects the best relay according to different relay selection criteria among all candidate relays to forward the signal between the source and the destination [14]. An opportunistic relaying process consists of two time slots. In the first time slot, the source broadcasts the signal which could be heard by all relay nodes in its radio coverage and the destination; in the second time slot, if the signal received by the selected relay node could be decoded successfully, it would be forwarded to the destination; the destination then combines the received signal from the source and selected relay to recover the information sent from the source. The source selects the best relay before transmitting the data from the source to the destination [15]. There is no requirement on all intermediate relays to listen to the source’s broadcasting except for the selected relay; thus, power or energy spent by unselected relays on listening to the channel and receiving the message sent by the source is saved. There are three proactive diversity schemes: fixed selective decodeandforward (FSDF) with direct link combining, FSDF without direct link combining, and smart selective decodeandforward [16].
2.3 Security in cooperative wireless communication networks
It is evident that cooperative communication brings significant benefit in improving the communication quality of wireless communication networks. Cooperative wireless communication was originally designed with the assumption that all the nodes involved always help each other and cooperate in a socially efficient manner. However, assumption on complete cooperation is broken by the facts that there exist relays that are attacked by the network attackers and misbehave for selfish or malicious intentions.
Thus, it is acknowledged that security is one of the main concerns for cooperative communication. Various security issues show the importance of data integrity checking and the need to have recognized reliable relationship amongst the different nodes in cooperative wireless communication networks. Authentication is a process that involves in a communication process between an authenticator and supplicant to identify the identity of the supplicant [17–19]. Sometimes a trusted third party might be involved in an authentication process. Therefore, authentication is important, with the consequent need to know exactly who we are talking to and make sure that the message received from a node is exactly the message that had been sent by that node. Authentication, therefore, supports privacy, confidentiality, and access control by verifying and validating the received message. All nodes in the cooperative wireless communication networks should be able to carry out the authentication and act as authenticator and supplicant fromtime to time.
The authors of [20] make a survey that focuses on nodetonode authentication for wireless communication networks and classifies authentication taxonomy based on the type of credentials. Credentials can be classified into two classes: identitybased and contextbased. Identitybased credentials can be further classified into encryptionbased and nonencryptionbased.
For nonencryption based identity credential, information is hashed using a oneway hash function and the key processed by the supplicant. Thus, this method is computationally efficient. To verify the supplicant’s identity, the authenticator must own the key used by the supplicant and know the oneway hash function used by the supplicant to regenerate the results that were disclosed by the supplicant as identity. Another form of hash based nonencryption identity credential uses a delayed key disclosure as in timed efficient stream losstolerant authentication (TESLA) [21], lightweight hopbyhop authentication protocol (LHAP) [22], hopbyhop efficient authentication protocol (HEAP) [23], and adaptive and lightweight protocol for hopbyhop authentication (ALPHA) [10]. TESLA is a broadcast authentication protocol based on loose time synchronization. However, hopbyhop authentication is not supported by TESLA. What is more, the computational overhead of TESLA is also high due to the existence of network latencies and redundant hash elements. LHAP bases on the principles of TESLA to carry out both packet authentication and hopbyhop authentication, wherein intermediate nodes authenticate all the packets received prior to forwarding them. However, LHAP also suffers from long latency and poor throughput and is not designed to prevent inside attacks. HEAP authenticates packets at every hop using modified hash message authentication codebased algorithm along with two keys and dropping any packet that originates from outsiders. However, HEAP still suffers from inside attack and could not provide endtoend authentication. ALPHA, which makes use of interactionbased hash chains and Merkle trees, provides both endtoend and hopbyhop authentication and integrity protection and overcomes the shortcomings of the aboveproposed protocols. Therefore, ALPHA is adopted as the authentication protocol in the proposed gametheoretic approach for security and QoS codesign in cooperative wireless communication networks.
3 Proposed gametheoretic approach
In this section, the proposed gametheoretic approach for security and QoS codesign in cooperative wireless communication networks is described in detail by setting up the system model and presenting the utility of the attacker brought by attacking target selection and the utility of the source brought by relay selection, Nash equilibrium of the proposed gametheoretic approach, and equations of system performance analysis.
3.1 Model description
The proposed gametheoretic approach focuses on twohop cooperative wireless communication networks, as illustrated in Figure 2, consisting of source, destination, four intermediate relays, and a slowfading channel that satisfies Rayleigh distribution. All of the relays are originally assumed to be cooperative, and the selected relay forwards the received information from the source to the destination. However, in reality, some relays are compromised by the attacker and do not do what they are supposed to do or do what they are not supposed to do.
In this paper, we represent the set of relays as $\mathcal{R}$. Attack on relays initiated by the attacker is independent from each other. The interactions between the attacker and the source are modeled as a noncooperative game since both the tendencies of the attacker and the source are to maximize their total utility through the strategic selection of attacking target and relay. The attacker selects the attacking probability distribution P = { p_{1},p_{2},…,p_{ K }} over all relays in $\mathcal{R}$, where p_{ i } is the probability of selecting R_{ i } as attacking target and K is the number of candidate relays in the radio coverage of the source. In each play of the game, the attacker chooses one relay to attack; thus, we have $\sum _{i}^{K}{p}_{i}=1$. For the source, it selects all candidate relays with a probability distribution Q = {q_{1},q_{2},…,q_{ K }}, where q_{ i } is the probability of selecting R_{ i } as relay. In each play of the game, the source chooses one relay from all candidate relays; thus, we have $\sum _{i}^{K}{q}_{i}=1$. We assume that each relay processes a combination of information and security assets denoted by α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }, i ∈ 1,2,…,K, which represents the loss of information and security assets when the attacker’s attacking target selection coincides the source’s relay selection. α_{ I } and α_{ S } represent the weights of information and security assets in the asset combination. The information asset of a relay depends on the mutual information, while the security asset of a relay depends on its role in the network. In practice, the information asset is evaluated by the mutual information which affects the system throughput of cooperative wireless communication networks, and the security asset is evaluated in the risk analysis using formal analysis before system deployment.
3.2 Dynamic Bayesian gametheoretic approach
The proposed dynamic Bayesian gametheoretic approach also consists of two players, the source which selects the best relay from all candidate relays that brings maximum utility and the attacker which selects relay as attacking target. The set of strategies of the source contains ‘Select’ and ‘Not select’. ‘Attack’ and ‘Not attack’ consist of the attacker’s strategies on relay R_{ i } when the attacker may choose relay R_{ i } to attack; otherwise, there is only one strategy when the attacker does not choose relay R_{ i } as attacking target, i.e., Not attack. Since the source is uncertain about the type of each relay, it holds an a priori belief ${\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$, $i=\{1,2,\dots ,K\}$ in the maliciousness of relay R_{ i } at the commence of each relay selection stage t_{ k }, $k=\{1,2,\dots \phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\}$. $1{\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$, i = {1,2,…,K}, k = {1,2,…}, represents the source’s prior belief in that relay R_{ i } is cooperative. We assume that the game in the proposed dynamic gametheoretic approach is played repeatedly every period t_{ k }, where k = 0,1…. We assume that the utility of players in each stage remain the same. We assume that each relay node processes a combination of information and security assets denoted by α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }. α_{ I } and α_{ S } represent the weights of information and security assets in the asset combination and vary in various networks.
If the selection of relay of the source and the selection of attacking target of the attacker coincide, the attacker will obtain utility α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }, while the source will lose the same amount of utility. Otherwise, the utility for the attacker and the source is (α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }) and α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }, respectively. Substitute α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i } by A_{ i }, Table 1 illustrates the utility matrix of attacker and source on relay R_{ i } with probability ${\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ being malicious at stage t_{ k }. In the matrix, a denotes the detection rate of the source, b denotes the false alarm rate, and 0 ≤ a,b ≤ 1. The cost of attacking for malicious node and monitoring for the source, C_{ a } and C_{ m }, are taken into consideration in our model and assumed proportional to the value set of relay R_{ i }, denoted by C_{ a }(α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }) and C_{ m }(α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }). C_{ f }(α_{ I }I_{ i } + α_{ S }S_{ i }) denotes the loss of the source caused by false alarm. Table 2 illustrates the utility matrix of attacker and source on relay R_{ i } with probability $1{\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ being cooperative at stage t_{ k }.
3.3 Bayesian updating rule on beliefs in the maliciousness of relays
In this section, we define a Bayesian updating rule on beliefs in the maliciousness of relays, which is based on the source’s initial beliefs and the source’s record of attacker’s attacking histories on relays [24, 25].
For a given relay R_{ i }, we define a sequence of random variables${T}_{i}^{{t}_{1}}$,${T}_{i}^{{t}_{2}},\dots $, where${T}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ characterizes the belief in the cooperativeness of relay R_{ i } at stage t_{ k }. For instance, suppose that at stage t_{ k },${M}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ packets have been sent by the source through selected relay R_{ i } to the destination, let${N}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ be the number of packets successfully forwarded by the selected relay R_{ i } to the destination, out of the${M}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ packets sent to the selected relay R_{ i } for forwarding at stage t_{ k }. Suppose a prior probability density function for${T}_{i}^{{t}_{k1}}$, denoted by${f}_{i}^{{t}_{k1}}(m,n,t)$, is known, the posterior probability density function${f}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}(m,n,t)$, given the number of received packets${M}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ and forwarded packets${N}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$, can be obtained as follows:
where${f}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}({N}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}=n\mid t,{M}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}=m)$ is called the likelihood function and defined as follows:
It can be shown that the posterior probability density function${f}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}(m,n,t)$ follows a Beta distribution. The Beta distribution with parameters a and b is defined as follows:
for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1. In particular, if
then given that${M}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}={m}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ and${N}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}={n}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$, we have
Therefore,${f}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}(m,n,t)$ is characterized by the parameters${a}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ and${b}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$, which are defined recursively as follows:
and
Therefore, belief in the maliciousness of relay R_{ i } at stage t_{ k } is
which could be calculated recursively through the record of A_{ i } and b_{ i }[26].
At the system initial stage t_{0}, there is no information for the cooperative wireless communication networks. Therefore, we assume that${T}_{i}^{{t}_{0}}$ has the uniform distribution over the interval [ 0, 1], i.e.,
which indicates the source’s indifference to the selected relay’s behavior at stage t_{0}.
3.4 Finding Nash equilibrium of the proposed gametheoretic approach
In cooperative wireless communication networks, both the attacker and the source have limited system resources, such as limited battery life and limited computational capacity; it is natural for the attacker to focus on attacking some targets that are more beneficial compared by initiating attack on others. We sort the targets according to their combination of information and security assets and divide the whole target set into three subsets: sensible, quasisensible, and nonsensible target sets according to the weight of each relay’s asset over the overall assets composed by all relays that belong to$\mathcal{R}$.
The sensible target set${\mathcal{R}}_{S}$, the quasisensible target set${\mathcal{R}}_{Q}$, and nonsensible target set${\mathcal{R}}_{N}$ are defined as follows:
where$\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right$ is the cardinality of${\mathcal{R}}_{S}$.
The cardinality of${\mathcal{R}}_{S}$ could be calculated as follows:

1.
If${\alpha}_{I}{I}_{K}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{K}>\frac{K(1{C}_{a})2a}{(1{C}_{a})\sum _{j=1}^{\left\mathcal{R}\right}\frac{1}{{\alpha}_{I}{I}_{j}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{j}}}$, then$\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right=K$ and$\left{\mathcal{R}}_{Q}\right=0$.

2.
If${\alpha}_{I}{I}_{K}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{K}\le \frac{K(1{C}_{a})2a}{(1{C}_{a})\sum _{j=1}^{\left\mathcal{R}\right}\frac{1}{{\alpha}_{I}{I}_{j}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{j}}}$,$\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right$ is determined by the following formulas:
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\alpha}_{I}{I}_{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right}>\frac{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right(1{C}_{a})2a}{(1{C}_{a})\sum _{j=1}^{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right}\frac{1}{{\alpha}_{I}{I}_{j}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{j}}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\\ {\alpha}_{I}{I}_{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right+1}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right+1}\le \frac{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}\right(1{C}_{a})2a}{(1{C}_{a})\sum _{j=1}^{\left{\mathcal{R}}_{S}\right}\frac{1}{{\alpha}_{I}{I}_{j}+{\alpha}_{S}{S}_{j}}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\end{array}\right.$$(11)
Quasisensible target set${\mathcal{R}}_{Q}$ consists of relay nodes whose assets are equal to
The first step in finding the Nash equilibrium of the proposed dynamic Bayesian gametheoretic approach used for modeling the interactions between the source and the attacker is to apply Harsanyi transformation that converts the incomplete information game into a normal form game. Given that the Harsanyi transformation is a standard concept in the game theory, we introduce it literally without introducing a mathematical formula concerning Harsanyi transformation [27]. For each relay, there are two possible types, malicious with probability${\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$ and cooperative with probability$1{\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}$. We combine the utility matrix of Table 1 and the utility matrix of Table 2 to obtain Table 3 whose components are expected utilities of malicious type relay and cooperative type relay. There are two combined attacking strategies for the attacker: Attack and Not attack*, and Not attack and Not attack*, in which Not attack* is the pure strategy of the attacker on cooperative relay.
Denote the total utility for the attacker and the source by${U}_{A}^{{t}_{k}}(P,Q)$ and${U}_{S}^{{t}_{k}}(P,Q)$ at stage t_{ k } as:
The attacker and the source select their strategies P^{∗} and Q^{∗} to maximize${U}_{A}^{{t}_{k}}(P,Q)$ and${U}_{S}^{{t}_{k}}(P,Q)$.
Similar to the Nash equilibrium obtained from the proposed static gametheoretic approach, it holds that
which can be shown by noticing the attacker’s total utility function${U}_{A}^{{t}_{k}}(P,Q)$: if$(12a{q}_{i}^{\ast}{C}_{a}){A}_{i}{\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}<0$, then the attacker has the incentive to change${p}_{i}^{\ast}$ to 0; if$(12a{q}_{i}^{\ast}{C}_{a}){A}_{i}{\mu}_{i}^{{t}_{k}}<(12a{q}_{j}^{\ast}{C}_{a}){A}_{j}{\mu}_{j}^{{t}_{k}}$, then the attacker is inclined to decrease${p}_{i}^{\ast}$ and increase${p}_{j}^{\ast}$; and if$(12a{q}_{j}^{\ast}{C}_{a}){A}_{j}{\mu}_{j}^{{t}_{k}}<(12a{q}_{k}^{\ast}{C}_{a}){A}_{k}{\mu}_{k}^{{t}_{k}}$, then the attacker obtains more utility by adding${p}_{i}^{\ast}$ to${p}_{k}^{\ast}$ and setting${p}_{i}^{\ast}$ equal to 0. Similarly, noticing the source’s total utility function${U}_{S}^{{t}_{k}}(P,Q)$, it holds that
To find the Nash equilibrium (P^{∗},Q^{∗}) of the proposed dynamic Bayesian gametheoretic approach, we need to reclaim that A_{ i } > A_{ j } if i > j and$\sum _{i}^{\left\mathcal{R}\right}{p}_{i}^{\ast}=\sum _{i}^{\left\mathcal{R}\right}{q}_{i}^{\ast}=1$.
From
we have
For the proposed dynamic Bayesian gametheoretic approach, Nash equilibrium (P^{∗},Q^{∗}) at stage t_{ k } is given as follows:
where
Nash equilibrium (P^{∗}, Q^{∗}) of the proposed static gametheoretic approach is the special case of the Nash equilibrium of the proposed dynamic Bayesian gametheoretic approach by setting μ_{ i } equal to 1, which assumes that all candidate relay nodes are completely malicious.
3.5 System performance analysis
In our model, the system security requirement is defined as the maximum percentage of packets forwarded to the destination through the selected relay that are compromised by the attacker if the attacker’s attacking target selection coincides with the source’s relay selection. Denote the utility brought by a successful attack on targeted relay R_{ i } as u_{ A }(p_{ i },q_{ i }). We assume that the attacker prefers selecting relay R_{ i } with the attacking probability${p}_{i}^{\ast}$ that maximizes u_{ A }(p_{ i },q_{ i }) as its attacking target; the attacker’s attacking target selection may coincide with the source’s relay selection. If the attacker’s selection coincides with the relay selection of the source, then both identityauthentication and packetintegration checking processes are needed to guarantee a secured communication. However, when a decision on relay selection is made, the source could not make sure which relay is the target of the attacker except for a probability of being attacked, but the source could detect the attack initiated by the attacker on relays. Therefore, with the satisfaction of the system security requirement, the source would not necessarily authenticate all packets, according to the possibility that packets forwarded by the selected relay are not compromised by the attacker because the source’s relay selection is different from the attacker’s attacking target selection. Since not all the packets sent by the source are needed to be authenticated, compared with the stringent authentication relay selection method [28], which authenticates all transmitted packets, the proposed gametheoretic approach provides a quantitative approach to calculate the authentication probability based on the attacker’s attacking probabilities on relays and system security requirement and to avoid the unnecessary consumption of system resources.
Denote the probability of message authentication as p_{ a }. To satisfy system security requirement p_{ s }, we have$0\le (1{p}_{a})\xb7{p}_{i}^{\ast}\le {p}_{s}$ by selecting relay R_{ i } as relay with probability${p}_{i}^{\ast}$ being attacked by the attacker.
3.5.1 Outage probability and capacity
In the proposed gametheoretic approach, denote I_{ i } as the maximum value between the mutual information of direct communication I_{ DC } and the minimal value between${I}_{S{R}_{i}}$, the mutual information between the source and the selected relay R_{ i }, and I_{ MRC }, the mutual information sum of source destination and relay R_{ i } destination [29]. We define SNR as the average signaltonoise ratio from the source node to the destination node [16]. I_{DC} is given by:
and${I}_{S{R}_{i}}$ is given by:
where$\left{h}_{{\mathit{\text{SR}}}_{i}}\right$ is the channel between the source and relay R_{ i }. Given the halfduplex constraint in cooperative wireless communication networks which means a relay could not transmit and receive signal simultaneously, the factor$\frac{1}{2}$ mirrors the two time slots for relaying. I_{MRC} is given by:
where h_{SD} is the channel between the source and the destination and$\left{h}_{{R}_{i}D}\right$ is the channel between the selected relay R_{ i } and the destination.
Suppose the data transmission rate between the source and the destination is r, the outage probability${P}_{\text{out}}^{{I}_{i}}$is defined as the probability that the mutual information I_{ i } between the source and the destination through relay R_{ i } is lower than the transmission data rate r, i.e.,${P}_{\text{out}}^{{I}_{i}}=P\{{I}_{i}<r\}$, which characterizes the probability of transmission data loss.
In the case of the proposed gametheoretic approach, the outage probability is defined as follows:
from which we can obtain,
where ω equals to exp(2 lnv  (lnv)^{2}γ) and v equals to$\text{exp}(\frac{{2}^{r}1}{\gamma})$.${d}_{S{R}_{i}}$ denotes the distance between the source and selected relay R_{ i },${d}_{{R}_{i}D}$ denotes the distance between selected relay R_{ i } and the destination, and γ denotes the average transmitted SNR between any nodes.
The outage capacity${C}_{\u03f5}^{I}$ is defined as the largest data transmission rate r that can be supported if the outages are allowed to occur with a certain probability ϵ, which is the probability that the transmission cannot be decoded with negligible error probability. Solving${P}_{\text{out}}^{{I}_{i}}=\u03f5$, we have v_{ ϵ }. Thus, we have
Outage capacity is used instead of Shannon capacity in slowfading channel since the slowfading channel is different from the additive white Gaussian noise channel as delay constraints on the order of channel coherence time.
3.5.2 Bit error rate
Bit error rate (BER) is the percentage of bits that has errors relative to the total number of bits sent in a transmission. The endtoend BER, is given by:
where${P}_{\text{out}}^{S{R}_{i}}$ is the outage probability of the link from the source to the selected relay R_{ i }[30],${P}_{e}^{\text{DC}}$ is the probability of error in direct communication form source to destination over Rayleigh channel, and${P}_{e}^{\text{div},i}$ is the probability that an error occurs in combined transmission from the source to the destination through the selected relay R_{ i }.${P}_{\text{out}}^{S{R}_{i}}$ is given as follows:
is given by:
is given as follows:
where$\overline{{\gamma}_{\text{DC}}}$ denotes the SNR between the source and the destination and$\overline{{\gamma}_{{R}_{i}D}}$ denotes the SNR between the selected relay R_{ i } and the destination.
3.5.3 System throughput
We derive the throughput for partial authentication process with ALPHAM protocol [10] and modify it to cover both direct communication and sourcerelaydestination communication. Furthermore, we formulate the throughput equations for both selectiverepeat [31] and GoBackN [32] automatic repeat request retransmission schemes by taking the error rate into consideration.
The payload for packets with authentication is given as follow:
where S_{payload} is the amount of payload that can be transmitted with a single presignature, n is the number of data blocks at the bottom of the Merkle tree, S_{packet} is the size of packet, and S_{ h } is the hash output [10].
The payload for packets without authentication is
Generally, throughput is defined as the payload divided by the total time used for processing and transmitting the payload. In our case, the total time spent on payload processing and transmitting consists of two parts: T_{1}, the time for the initial presignature process between the source and the destination, and T_{2}, the time for the actual authenticated and nonauthenticated message transmission and delivery. The general throughput T could then be defined as:
The values for the time parameters in T_{1} and T_{2} vary according to two communication paths, direct communication and sourcerelaydestination, which are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
The message sequence charts that show the transmission of message from the source to the destination and acknowledgment between the destination and the source with and without the use of relay are shown in Figure 3.
The parameters presented in Tables 4 and 5 are explained as follows:

t_{ prop1 } is the propagation time for the S_{ 1 } packet from the source to the destination or the propagation time for the A_{ 1 } packet sent from the destination to the source. In the case of direct communication, t_{ prop1 }is given by$\frac{{d}_{\text{SD}}}{c}$, where d_{ SD } is the distance between the source and the destination and c is the speed of light. In the case of sourcerelaydestination, this consists of the time for the S_{ 1 } packet sent from the source to the selected relay R_{ i } and from the selected relay R_{ i } to the destination or for the A_{ 1 } packet sent from the destination to the selected relay R_{ i } and from the selected relay R_{ i } to the source, which is given by the sum of$\frac{{d}_{S{R}_{i}}}{c}$ and$\frac{{d}_{{R}_{i}D}}{c}$.

t_{ prop2 } is the propagation time for the S_{ 2 } packet from the source to the destination or for the A_{ 2 } packet from the destination to the source. In the case of direct communication, this is given by$\frac{{d}_{\text{SD}}}{c}$. In case of sourcerelaydestination, this consists of the propagation time for the S_{ 2 } packet from the source to the selected relay R_{ i } and from the selected relay R_{ i } to the destination or for the A_{ 2 } packet from the destination to the selected relay R_{ i } and from the selected relay R_{ i } to the source, which is given by the sum of$\frac{{d}_{S{R}_{i}}}{c}$ and$\frac{{d}_{{R}_{i}D}}{c}$.

t_{ f1 } is the packet transmission time for the S_{ 1 } packet, which is given by$\frac{{u}_{\mathrm{f}1}}{r}$. u_{ f1 } is the number of bits in the S_{ 1 } packet, and r is the data transmission rate.

t_{ f2 } is the packet transmission time for the S_{ 2 } packet, which is given by$\frac{{u}_{f2}}{r}$. u_{ f2 } is the number of bits in the S_{ 2 } packet, and r is the data transmission rate.

t_{ ack1 } is the packet transmission time for the A_{ 1 } packet, which is given by$\frac{{u}_{\mathit{\text{ack}}1}}{r}$. u_{ ack1 } is the number of bits in the A_{ 1 } packet, and r is the data transmission rate.

t_{ ack2 } is the packet transmission time for the A_{ 2 } packet, which is given by$\frac{{u}_{\mathit{\text{ack}}2}}{r}$. u_{ ack2 } is the number of bits in the A_{ 2 } packet, and r is the data transmission rate.

t_{proc1} is the processing time at the source and the destination for S_{1} and A_{1} packets in direct communication, which includes the Merkle tree generating time for S_{1} packet at the source and the acknowledgment Merkle tree for A_{1} packet at the destination along with processing at the selected relay R_{ i } in sourcerelaydestination.

t_{proc2} is the processing time at the source and the destination for S_{2} and A_{2} packets in direct communication, along with processing time at the selected relay R_{ i } in sourcerelaydestination.
Wireless channels have high error rates due to multipath fading which characterizes mobile radio channels. However, many networks require that the error rates should be significantly small. In addition to the poor channel quality, the design of wireless communication systems is complicated by the rapidly changing quality of the radio channel [33]. To increase the apparent quality of a communication channel, two distinct approaches are used:

Forward error correction which employs errorcorrecting codes to combat bit errors which are due to channel imperfections by adding redundancy, such as henceforth parity bits, to information packets before they are transmitted. This redundancy is used by the receiver to detect and correct errors that are introduced in the transmission process.

Automatic repeat request (ARQ) wherein only error detection capability is provided and no attempt to correct any packets received in error is made. Packets received in error are retransmitted by the sender.
In the throughput analysis, ARQ retransmission is incorporated, and the following is a brief review of three typical ARQ retransmission schemes [34].

Stop and wait (SW) ARQ. When using the SW ARQ scheme, the sender transmits a packet only when all previously transmitted packets have been successfully acknowledged by the receiver. Hence, when using SW ARQ scheme, the sender, after transmitting a packet, waits for its acknowledgment. Once its acknowledgment has been received, the next packet is transmitted. However, if an acknowledgment does not arrive until a timeout timer expires, the packet is retransmitted by the sender. Therefore, in SW ARQ, there is never more than a single packet that is unacknowledged at any given instant of time. Since the sender does not use the available channel during time intervals, it waits for an acknowledgment and the maximum data transfer rate that can be supported is limited. This limits cases where the SW ARQ protocol can be employed. Huge buffer is needed to buffer unacknowledged packets.

Selective repeat (SR) ARQ. Unlike SW ARQ, when using SR ARQ, packets are transmitted continuously by the sender. As before, the receiver acknowledges each successfully received packet by transmitting an ACK bearing the sequence number of the packet being acknowledged. If an acknowledgment is not received for a packet before the expiration of the timeout, the packet is retransmitted. Once a packet has been retransmitted, the sender resumes transmission of packets from where it is left off, i.e., if a is the packet with the largest sequence number that has been transmitted, packet with sequence number a + 1 is transmitted next. Here, we assume that no other timers have expired in the meantime. Since the SR ARQ protocol is employed, packets are continuously being transmitted and the inefficiency associated with SW ARQ is eliminated. Observe that when SR ARQ is employed, packets can be accepted out of sequence. Hence, packets received out of sequence have to be buffered and sequenced before they can be delivered.

GoBackN (GBN) ARQ. When GBN ARQ is employed, packets are transmitted continuously as in SR ARQ. However, the receiver accepts packets only in the order in which they were transmitted. Packets received out of sequence are discarded and not acknowledged. Since the receiver accepts packets only in sequence, after a timeout, the sender retransmits the packet that timed out and all packets with sequence numbers that follow the one that was retransmitted. Hence, each time a timeout occurs, all packets that are yet to be acknowledged are retransmitted. It is important to observe that GBN ARQ attempts to combine the desirable features of SR and SW ARQs, i.e., packets are transmitted continuously, as in SR ARQ, without the need to buffer outofsequence packets and there is no resequencing overhead.
To incorporate the error control schemes into our throughput equation, we expand the general throughput equation by including the error rate. Define the packet error rate P_{ c } as the probability that the received packet with the length of S_{packet} bits contains no error as${P}_{c}={(1{P}_{e}^{{I}_{i}})}^{{S}_{\text{packet}}}$. Let T_{SR} denote the modified throughput with SR ARQ, which is given as follows:
Concerning the GBN ARQ, the throughput equation is further modified to allow the retransmission of an error frame along with all frames that have been transmitted until the time a negative acknowledgment is received from the destination. Thus, the modified throughput with GBN ARQ, denoted by T_{GBN}, is given as:
where W_{ s } is the window size which is calculated by dividing the product of the data rate of the transmission channel and the reaction time by the packet size.
3.5.4 Optimizing the number of messages
Besides strategically selecting relay, the source also needs to determine the optimal number of messages once its relay is selected. For various packet sizes S_{packet} and authentication probability p_{ a }, the optimal value of the number of messages n that results in the highest throughput is denoted as n^{∗}. The optimal number of messages for selected relay R_{ i } is driven from:
where n ∈ {1,2,…} for the selected relay R_{ i }.
4 Simulation results and discussions
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed gametheoretic approach for security and QoS codesign in cooperative wireless communication networks through extensive simulations using matrix laboratory (MATLAB, Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA). All simulations are executed on a laptop featured with Windows 7 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA), Intel Core Duo 2.1 GHz CPU (Santa Clara, CA, USA), 2GB memory, and MATLAB R2010b. As illustrated in Figure 4, we set up a network topology with the source and the destination located 1,000 m apart in two separate corners and four relays randomly located between the source and the destination in an area of 1,000 × 300m^{2}. We set the transmission data rate equal to 1 Mbps, path loss exponent equal to 3.5, and fixed outage probability equal to 0.01.
Similar to [35], firstly, we consider a network with emphasis on system security, e.g., military network, where there are tight confidential requirements. In this network, the security asset weights heavier than the information asset and the combined asset is much higher than the attack monitoring cost, e.g., α_{ I } < α_{ S } and C_{ a },C_{ m },C_{ f } ≪ 1. We set C_{ a } = C_{ m } = 0.01 and C_{ f } = 0.01. Terminals in military network usually own highperformance attack monitoring equipments and powerful processing capability; thus, we set a = 0.9 and b = 0.05.
Secondly, a network with loose emphasis on system security is considered, e.g., commercial WLAN. In this network, the information asset weights heavier than the security asset and the related attacking and attack monitoring cost is relatively high, i.e., α_{ I } > α_{ S }, and we set C_{ a } = C_{ m } = 0.1 and C_{ f } = 0.3. The terminals in the commercial network are not as efficient as those in the military network; thus, we set a = 0.6 and b = 0.2.
In both networks, there are four relays with normalized information and security assets: A_{ i } = (5  i) · 0.25, i = {1,2,3,4}. Tables 6 and 7 show the N E(P^{∗},Q^{∗}) of the proposed static gametheoretic approach obtained using analytical results. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, both the attacker and the source focus only on the relays in the sensible target set, which bring them more utility.
The setup of the parameters is a nontrivial task for the proposed scheme. In constructing these parameters, we assume that most network properties can be made known, which should be realistic in practical networks, where initial planning and network management is an a priori requirement.
The attacker would choose the relay that brings maximum attacking utility as its attacking target. According to the obtained Nash equilibrium, the attacker in the military network is prone to select relay 3 as its attacking target. However, in the real network, the attacking target is selected randomly by the attacker. To simulate the randomness of attacker’s selection on attacking target, we generate random numbers r^{′} that satisfy 01 uniform distribution and set following attacking target selection standard, e.g., if (i  1) ∗ 0.25 ≤ r^{′} < i ∗ 0.25, i = {1,2,3,4}, relay i is selected as attacking target.
In this section, we discuss dynamic beliefs in the maliciousness of relays according to the attacker’s attacking histories on relays and dynamic total utility of the source brought by its dynamic beliefs in the maliciousness of relays. At each stage, the source updates its belief in maliciousness of the selected relay according to its record of attacker’s attack on the selected relay. At each stage, if the selected relay by the source is also selected by the attacker as attacking target, packets sent to the destination through the selected relay are considered compromised and could not be used by the destination to recover the original information sent by the source; otherwise, packets sent through the selected relay arrive at the destination without being compromised and could be used by the destination to recover the original information.
Figure 5 shows the simulation results of dynamic change of attacking target of the attacker and the dynamic change of the selected relay of the source for the first 20 consecutive stages of the proposed dynamic gametheoretic approach.
Figures 6 and 7 show the dynamic belief change of the source in the maliciousness of relays 1 and 4, respectively. The source updates its beliefs in the maliciousness of relays according to its record of attacker’s attack on relays. At the commence of simulations, the source’s beliefs in the maliciousness of all relays are unbiased; in another word, belief in the maliciousness and cooperativeness is 50:50. Between every two consecutive stages, the source monitors the attacking target selection of the attacker. If the selected relay by the source is not the attacking target, then the source increases its belief in the cooperativeness of the selected relay; if the selected relay is selected as attacking target, then the source increases its belief in the maliciousness of the selected relay; otherwise, other relays are neither selected as relay by the source nor are selected as attacking target by the attacker, and the source’s beliefs in the maliciousness or cooperativeness of other relays stay unchanged.
As shown in Figure 5, at stage 1, the observed attacking target is relay 4, and the relay selected by the source is relay 1. At this stage, the attacking target does not coincide with the selected relay. Therefore, the source’s belief in the maliciousness of relay 1 decreases, the source’s belief in the maliciousness of relay 4 increases, and the source’s beliefs in the maliciousness of relays 2 and 3 stay unchanged. Simulation results in Figures 6 and 7 keep consensus with the above analysis. Figure 8 shows the comparison of the total utility of the source in the military and commercial networks in the first 20 stages. The source in the military network has lower monitoring cost C_{ m } and false alarming cost C_{ f }; thus, when each relay is assigned the same amount of combined information and security assets, the total utility obtained by the source in the military network is higher than the total utility obtained by the source in the commercial network.
In this section, we discuss the impact of dynamic belief update in the maliciousness of relays on system throughput and compromising probability of the proposed dynamic gametheoretic approach, which enables the source update its beliefs in the maliciousness of relays based on the attacker’s attacking histories on selected relays. Numerous simulations are executed to draw reliable results concerning the impact of dynamic beliefs in the maliciousness of relays on throughput and compromising probability.
Compromising probability comparison between the military and commercial networks is shown in Figure 9. From Figure 9, we can see that the compromising probability of the military network is smaller than that of the commercial network. Since the security requirement of the military network is more stringent than the security requirement of the commercial network, the authentication probability of the military network is higher than the authentication probability of the commercial network. Figure 10 shows the throughput comparison between the military and commercial networks. From Figure 10, we can see that the system throughput of the commercial network is higher than that of the military network due to the higher authentication probability of the military network.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, we have proposed a game theoretical approach for security and QoS codesign in MANETs with cooperative communications. With the consideration of system throughput and system security requirement, the proposed game theoretical approach enables the system to strategically select its relay by dynamically updating its belief in the maliciousness of relays according to its record of attacks. Simulation results have been presented to show the effectiveness of the proposed dynamic gametheoretic approach. Future work is in progress to consider multihop/multirelay cooperative communications in MANETs.
References
 1.
Ganesan G, Li Y: Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio  part II: multiuser networks. IEEE Trans Wireless Commun 2007, 6: 22142222.
 2.
Wei Y, Yu FR, Song M: Distributed optimal relay selection in wireless cooperative networks with finitestate Markov channels. IEEE Trans Veh. Tech. 2010, 59: 21492158.
 3.
Guan Q, Yu FR, Jiang S, Leung V: Capacityoptimized topology control for MANETs with cooperative communications. IEEE Trans Wireless Commun 2011, 10: 21622170.
 4.
Guan Q, Yu FR, Jiang S, Leung VCM, Mehrvar H: Topology control in mobile ad hoc networks with cooperative communications. IEEE Wireless Comm 2012, 19: 7479.
 5.
Hoymann C, Chen W, Montojo J, Golitschek A, Koutsimanis C, Shen X: Relaying operation in 3GPP LTE: challenges and solutions. IEEE Comm. Mag 2012, 50: 156162.
 6.
Scaglione A, Goeckel D, Laneman J: Cooperative communications in mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2006, 23: 1829.
 7.
Gueye A, game theoretical approach to communication security A: PhD thesis. University of California at Berkeley 2011.
 8.
Basar T, Olsder GJ: Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory (Classics in Applied Mathematics). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia; 1999.
 9.
Ramamoorthy R, Yu FR, Tang H, Mason P, Boukerche A: Joint authentication and quality of service design in cooperative communication networks. Comput. Comm 2012, 35(5):597607. 10.1016/j.comcom.2011.07.010
 10.
Heer T, Gotz S, Morchon OG, Wehrle K: ALPHA: an adaptive and lightweight protocol for hopbyhop authentication. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM CoNEXT Conference, Madrid, 9–12 December 2008. ACM, New York; 2008:123.
 11.
Jiang J, Thompson JS, Sun H: A singularvaluebased adaptive modulation cooperation scheme for virtualMIMO systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech 2011, 60(6):24952504.
 12.
Jiang J, Thompson JS, Sun H, Grant PM: Performance assessment of virtual multipleinput multipleoutput systems with compressandforward cooperation. IET Commun 2012, 6(11):14561465. 10.1049/ietcom.2011.0169
 13.
Nosratinia A, Hunter TE, Hedayat A: Cooperative communication in wireless networks. IEEE Commun. Mag 2004, 42(10):7480. 10.1109/MCOM.2004.1341264
 14.
Bletsas A, Shin H, Win MZ: Cooperative communications with outageoptimal opportunistic relaying. IEEE Trans, Wireless Commun 2007, 6(9):34503460.
 15.
Bletsas A, Shin H, Win MZ: Cooperative diversity with opportunistic relaying. In Proceedings of IEEE WCNC06, Las Vegas, 3–6 April 2006. IEEE, Piscataway; 2006:10341039.
 16.
Woradit K, Quek T, Suwansantisuk W, Win M, Wuttisittikulkij L, Wymeersch H: Outage behavior of selective relaying schemes IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2009, 8: 38903895.
 17.
Liu J, Yu FR, Lung CH, Tang H, Optimal combined intrusion detection and biometricbased continuous authentication in high security mobile ad hoc networks: IEEE Trans, Wireless Commun. 2009, 8(2):806815.
 18.
Bu S, Yu FR, Liu P, Manson P, Tang H: Distributed combined authentication and intrusion detection with data fusion in highsecurity mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans, Veh. Tech 2011, 60: 10251036.
 19.
Yu FR, Tang H, Mason P, Wang F: A hierarchical identity based key management scheme in tactical mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans Net. Serv. Manag 2010, 7: 258267.
 20.
Aboudagga N, Refaei MT, Eltoweissy M, Dasilva LA, Quisquater JJ: Authentication protocols for ad hoc networks: taxonomy and research issues. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Quality of service and security in wireless and mobile networks, Montreal, October 2005. ACM Press, New York; 2005:96104.
 21.
Perrig A, Canetti R, Tygar JD, Song D: The TESLA broadcast authentication protocol,. RSA Laboratories, Cambridge; 2002.
 22.
Zhu S, Xu S, Setia S, Jajodia S: LHAP: a lightweight hopbyhop authentication protocol for adhoc networks. In 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, Providence, 19–22 May 2003. IEEE, Piscataway; 2003:749749.
 23.
Akbani R, Korkmaz T, Raju GVS: HEAP: a packet authentication scheme for mobile ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Netw 2008, 6: 11341150. 10.1016/j.adhoc.2007.11.002
 24.
Zouridaki C, Mark BL, Hejmo M: A quantitative trust establishment framework for reliable data packet delivery in MANETs. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Workshop on Security of Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks (SASN), Alexandria, 7–10 November 2005. ACM, New York; 2005:110.
 25.
Buchegger S, Boudec JYL: A robust reputation system for mobile adhoc networks. Proceedings of P2PEcon 2003
 26.
Dijkstra EW: Recursive programming. Numerische Mathematik 1960, 2: 312318. 10.1007/BF01386232
 27.
Paruchuri P, Pearce JP, Marecki J, Tambe M, Ordonez F, Kraus S: Playing games for security: an efficient exact algorithm for solving Bayesian Stackelberg games. In 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems. Estoril, Portugal; 12–16 May 2008:895902.
 28.
Ramamoorthy R, Yu FR, Tang H, Mason P: Combined authentication and quality of service in cooperative comunication networks. In 2010 IEEE/IFIP 8th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing (EUC), Hong Kong, 11–13 December 2010. IEEE, Piscataway; 2010:566571.
 29.
Win MZ, Member S, Winters JH: Virtual branch analysis of symbol error probability for hybrid selection/maximalratio combining in Rayleigh fading. IEEE Trans. Commun 2001, 49: 19261934. 10.1109/26.966069
 30.
Herhold P, Zimmermann E, Fettweis G: A simple cooperative extension to wireless relaying. In International Zurich Seminar on Communications (IZS). IEEE, Piscataway; 2004:3639.
 31.
Kim JG, Krunz M: Delay Analysis of Selective Repeat ARQ for a Markovian Source Over a Wireless Channel. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol 1999, 49: 19681981.
 32.
Kurose JF, Ross KW: Computer Networking: A TopDown Approach. Addison Wesley, Boston; 2007.
 33.
Liu H, Ma H, Zarki ME, Gupta S: Error control schemes for networks: an overview. Mob. Netw. Appl 1997, 2: 167182. 10.1023/A:1013676531988
 34.
Lin S, Costello D, Miller M: Automaticrepeatrequest errorcontrol schemes. IEEE Commun. Mag 1984, 22(12):517.
 35.
Liu Y, Comaniciu C, Man H: A Bayesian game approach for intrusion detection in wireless ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Game Theory for Communications and Networks 2006 (GameNets ’06). ACM, New York; 2006.
Author information
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Yu, F.R., Tang, H., Bu, S. et al. Security and quality of service (QoS) codesign in cooperative mobile ad hoc networks. J Wireless Com Network 2013, 188 (2013) doi:10.1186/168714992013188
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Security; Quality of service; Game theory; MANETs