## 4 Proposed Solution
### Packet Transmission at Source Node
A fixed node mobility of 5 s pause time and node speed of 10 m/s is applied. A strategically placed single blackhole node is considered to possibly interrupt all traffic taken into consideration for simulation. First, the PDF of AODV and ESTA in the presence of a varying number of nodes and different network sizes is analyzed. Based on the results captured in Figures 13 and 14, in a small area, apparently due to high density of the nodes, the performance of ESTA is almost equal to the AODV. However, with the introduction of a blackhole node, the PDF of ESTA remains almost stable, while the AODV PDF decreases considerably. Likewise, the same trend is visible in a large area, with the exception that, with low node density, the performance is comparatively bad. This happens because route formation is not successful in AODV or ESTA. Figure 5:6 Throughput for varying % of Blackhole nodes and mobility. Figure 5:7 PDF for varying nodes in a small area. Second, for this scenario the focus is average end-to-end delay for the first data packet delivery. Results in Figures 15 and 16 shows that the delay in the case of AODV is always lower than the ESTA, irrespective of the network area or the number of nodes. However, the ESTA shows exceptional behavior in a particular case where the network is attacked by a strategically placed blackhole node. Similar behavior was noticed for ESTA in a bigger network area with no malicious node having exceptionally high delay and exceptionally low delay in the presence of blackhole nodes. Likewise, the delay in the case of ESTA is also high due to the inclusion of a wait period for the multiple route gather phase. Figure 5:8 Time delay for varying nodes in a large area. Figure 5:9 PDF for varying nodes in a large area. \[t>\text{NetTraversalTime: GW}_{\text{Status}}=1 \tag{6}\]0 Time delay for varying nodes in a small area. Third, the throughput of AODV and ESTA, and the results are captured in Figures 17 and 18. In the case of a small area and a good node density, the throughput of AODV and ESTA is quite high, but, in the case of AODV with the inclusion of a blackhole node, the performance degraded. Similarly, for a larger network area and good node density, the performance is good. However, with low node density, the throughput for both protocols is very low. ## 7 Comparative Analysis

Based on the simulation results presented above, the proposed solution performs well in different scenarios with varying conditions and in presence of malicious nodes. Though it is not possible to perform a simulation based comparison of the proposed solution with other existing security framework as their implementation for NS-3 simulator are not available. But, based on the review of the existing works and results of the simulation of proposed framework a comparative analysis is presented. As compared to SAODV [9] the proposed ESTA does need to have prior knowledge of all public certificates of the participating nodes, only the communicating nodes need to exchange the certificates as and when required, which saves a lot of memory and saves resources that would be required to handle the certificates in case of bigger networks. Furthermore, during the route formation phase, the additional

\[t>\text{NetTraversalTime: GW}_{\text{Status}}=1 \tag{6}\]1 Throughput for varying nodes in a small area. \[t>\text{NetTraversalTime: GW}_{\text{Status}}=1 \tag{6}\]2 Throughput for varying nodes in a large area. computations being done by the nodes, though, provide a safe path but consumes a lot of resources. Whereas, in ESTA, no precautions are taken into consideration during this phase, which saves the resources of the intermediate nodes but at a cost of delay and some certain amount of performance degradation due to selection of corrupt path having malicious nodes which are anyways routed out later due to their non-performance, which leads to trust value degradation.