## 4 The Proposed Method: SLP-E
### Protocol Execution Phase
#### 4.2.2 Scenario-2
Compared to other protocols, PSSLP has the highest entropy, although its value is lower than that of the suggested approach (SLP-E). This is because PSSLP's final routing phase is not entirely randomized. As opposed to SLP-E, which completely randomizes all of the routing phases, the source's position in the network relative to the BS's position is taken into account when routing decisions are made. When evaluating SLP-E's entropy in comparison to other network settings, it becomes evident that its performance excels at both the 200 and 550 levels. This distinction is attributed to the fact that in scenario-1 (the source node is nearby the BS), the packets from the source node undergo a fully randomized backward walk towards the intermediate node (IN). This is due to the fact that the IN is chosen from a higher quantity of randomly generated numbers in scenario-1, phase-1 (see Section 4 for details). In contrast, in scenario-2, a source node may be located in proximity to or at the network's edge. In this case, the selection of an intermediate node (IN) is either non-existent or entails generating only a limited number of random nodes for IN selection. SPR has a defined routing path with no entropy because it does not offer any privacy mechanisms. In all five SLP protocols, we see a somewhat

\[H_{11}=\frac{\frac{2R}{3}-d}{r_{s}\times p_{r}},\]0 Safety period. declining trend in entropy when the source is close to the network edge. Due to boundary effects and the network's geometry, this behavior is expected. The adversary's success rate is indicated by the metric capture ratio. As a result, the performance of the protocols improves as the magnitude of this parameter decreases. As seen in Figure 8, the suggested scheme's capture ratio is the lowest when compared to the SLP-R, SRR, and PRLPRW procedures. In contrast to PSSLP, SLP-E has a higher capture ratio. Increased NLT in SLP-E relative to PSSLP makes up for this loss. As the separation between the source and the sink grows, PRLPRW is essentially linear with a small decreasing tendency. As the separation between the source and the sink widens, the capture ratio metrics for SLP-R and SLP-E both show a decreasing trend, followed by an upward trend for the other positions of the source in the network. The capture ratio of SLP-E demonstrates superior performance at the 550 setting in comparison to other configurations. This is a result of our efforts to enhance both NLT and privacy uniformly, accomplished by the implementation of various restrictions, thus resulting in this trend. Moreover, it is evident that, on average, the capture ratio of SLP-E outperforms that of other protocols, except for PSSLP. Figure 9 displays the energy usage metric charts. Energy usage per packet per hop during packet transmitting and receiving was calculated using the energy models given in Section 6. It demonstrates that, when compared to all other existing schemes, including those without SLP, the proposed design SLP-E consumes the most energy. However, it should be noted that SLP-E uses more energy because it can transmit more packets to the BS than any other method. In comparison to the suggested strategy, the simulation is over faster when the attacker reaches the source in the SLP-R, SRR, PRLPRW, and PSSLP schemes. This confirms that fewer packets are sent in SLP-R, SRR, PRLPRW, and PSSLP, which further suggests that less energy is used. We utilize a different statistic called network lifetime (NLT) to assess the effectiveness of the proposed scheme's overall energy use. In terms of the network's lifespan, the NLT metric shows that SLP-E is more energy-efficient than SLP-R, PRLPRW, SRR, and PSSLP. It is observed that in SLP-E, trade-offs exist between energy usage metrics and privacy level. By definition, the energy consumption is the amount of energy used by each network node when sending and receiving a packet.