## 7 Concluding Remarks  
In this paper, to ensure the security of WSNs beginning in the deployment phase, BIOSARP was enhanced through the incorporation an encryption mechanism that was originally applied in SRTLD to take advantage of the best features of both schemes. This approach was taken because BIOSARP achieves superior data packet routing performance compared with SRTLD, whereas the SRTLD encryption mechanism provides better communication security with minimal processing time. Under the enhanced BIOSARP (E-BIOSARP), the data to be transmitted are fragmented and only some of the important packet header fields are encrypted instead of the complete packet to save processing time and battery power. As a result, if malicious nodes and/or adversaries capture a secure packet, they cannot read the packet's movement or its destination, which ensures network integrity and confidentiality. In addition, E-BIOSARP is capable of providing countermeasures against selective forwarding, brute-force or exhaustive key search, spoofing, eavesdropping, replaying or altering of routing information, cloning, acknowledgment spoofing, HELLO flood attacks, and Sybil attacks. The performance of E-BIOSARP was analyzed by varying the number of malicious nodes in the network. Overall, E-BIOSARP demonstrated improved performance compared with SRTLD and ESPA, and the simulation results confirm the efficiency of the proposed mechanism. Because of the encryption process, E-BIOSARP provides better security compared with BIOSARP while incurring only a minimal performance penalty because of the additional processing time required for encryption. Future work will address the enhancement of the security mechanism with additional rounds of  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Packet Rate (Packets/s)** & **E-BIOSARP** & **ESPA** & **Difference** \\ \hline
12 & 99.7 & & \\
48 & 98.9 & 97 & 1.9 \\
88 & 96.9 & 94.3 & 2.6 \\
150 & 96.5 & 93.5 & 3 \\
250 & 95 & 89 & 6 \\
300 & 94.5 & 87.5 & 7 \\
460 & 93.4 & 81 & 12.4 \\
636 & 91.7 & 71 & 20.7 \\
785 & 89 & & \\
**Average** & & & **7.6571429** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Energy consumption comparison.  
Figure 14: Average remaining energy.  
encryption, and we will test different variations of E-BIOSARP in a real-time experimental WSN test bed for further analysis.  
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through international research group project (No. IRG14-07B). The work of [PERSON] was supported by Visiting Professor Program at King Saud University, by the _Instituto de Telecomunicacoes_, Next Generation Networks and Applications Group (NetGNA), Portugal, and by National Funding from the FCT--_Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia_ through the UID/EEA/50008/2013 Project.  
[PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] conceived and designed the experiments. [PERSON] performed the experiments. [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] analyzed the data. [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] contributed materials and analysis tools. [PERSON] and [PERSON] designed the algorithm and experimental methods. [PERSON] programmed and compiled the data. [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] wrote the paper. All authors read, revised and approved the final manuscript.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.