# New Detection Paradigms to Improve Wireless Sensor Network Performance under Jamming Attacks
## 4 Analysis of Results
With this type of simulation, we want to observe the behavior of both mechanisms in the best simulation scenario (Scenario 3), but in the worst case. One of the cases is a high packets loss in the network due to interference in the links or connections and disconnections of nodes. The other case is due to high traffic of information packets, which increases the overhead along the network and therefore, packet collisions. The previous cases cause that more packets are retransmitted, and the channel is constantly busy, so the CSMA retries also increase. In Figure 4, the first case is represented by packet loss (between 5 and 10% per link) in the links due to possible interference in the channel. Thus, links acquire simulated loss percentages so \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 3**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Position** & **Affected** & **False** & **Affected** & **False** & **Affected** & **False** \\  & **Area** & **Positives** & **Area** & **Positives** & **Area** & **Positives** \\ \hline Near & 100\% & 18\% & 75\% & 29\% & 100\% & 8\% \\ Middle & 100\% & 8\% & 100\% & 22\% & 100\% & 4\% \\ Far & 100\% & 8\% & 75\% & 39\% & 100\% & 4\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Detection of affected zone and false positives. that we measure if the attack made by the jammer node is camouflaged or not. We observe that the Extended Mechanism has a behavior of around 6% better resolution of the affected area with respect to the Connected Mechanism. In both approaches, it is possible to visualize the area in the presence of the jammer node; however, the Extended algorithm has a better definition. In Figure 5 network stress is achieved by sending high amount of traffic packets to the collector node (20 packets per second per node). In this figure we also seek to stress the network to observe if the attack of the jammer node is camouflaged due to the increase of values in the performance parameters thanks to the overhead that is being imposed on the network. The difference in the resolution of the area between the two studied mechanisms is 8%, with the Extended Mechanism being of better resolution with respect to the Connected Mechanism. These two figures show the simulations where the network is under high stress conditions and a possible attack could be camouflaged in this situation. Results show that in the presence of packet loss or high network traffic, considering Scenario 3 which is the most complete because it has detection and mitigation, the Extended Mechanism presents a resolution of the affected area 7% greater than in the Connected Mechanism. Another positive aspect of this analysis is that both proposed mechanisms in this work allow the detection of the affected area, where possibly, the jammer node will be under extreme conditions. The accuracy percentage of affected nodes correctly identified is 75% for the Extended Mechanism and 68% for the Connected Mechanism. Figure 4: Connected vs extended mode under maximum packet loss. Figure 3: Connected vs extended mechanisms over MPH protocol under the Scenario 3.