On trust management in vehicular ad hoc networks: A comprehensive review

Abstract

Security issues have always posed a major threat and challenge to the Internet of Things (IoTs), especially the vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANETs), a subcategory of IoTs in the automotive field. The traditional methods to solve these ever-growing security issues in VANETs are mainly cryptography-based. As an effective and efficient complement to those solutions, trust management solutions and reputation models have been widely explored to deal with malicious or selfish vehicle intrusion and forged data spoofing, with the aim of enhancing the overall security, reliability, trustworthiness, and impartiality of VANETs. For the integrity of the article, this survey begins with providing the background information of VANETs, including the basic components and general architecture. Then, many attacks in VANETs are investigated, analyzed, and compared to understand the functional relevance of the following trust and reputation methods. Various approaches offer various countermeasures against these types of attacks. At the same time, the latest development of emerging technologies such as blockchain, software-defined network, and cloud computing opens up new possibilities for more and more promising trust and reputation management models and systems in VANETs. After that, the survey reviews the most important trust and reputation models and schemes which are widely mentioned in the literature based on our developed technique-based taxonomy, in contrast to the popular “entity-centric, data-centric, hybrid” taxonomy in the field, to adapt to the recent technological development of these management schemes in VANETs. Finally, discussions and speculations on the future direction of research into the trust and reputation management in VANETs are presented.

1 Introduction

As a critical component of intelligent transportation system (ITS), VANET is regarded as a key solution to reduce and eliminate existing energy consumption and traffic congestion problems by generating and disseminating messages about road conditions, such as traffic jams during rush hours, temporary road congestions, urgent road accidents, and short-term roadside repair at intersections. Many efforts have been spent on the development of such systems in VANETs delivering reliable and secure messages among vehicles, such as safety message sharing (Xu et al., 2004), traffic view systems (Nadeem et al., 2004), cooperative collision warning (Elbatt et al., 2006), and secure crash reporting (Rahman and Hengartner, 2007). Moreover, some car manufacturers like GM have even rolled out proprietary algorithms to collect the position, speed and course of nearby cars and issue a warning to the driver when a crash is imminent (GM, 2016).

Essentially, VANETs (Mejri et al., 2014) are wireless ad-hoc networks of which nodes consist of vehicles equipped with on-board units (OBUs) and fixed road-side units (RSUs), as depicted in Figure 1. In VANETs, vehicles can exchange data and messages with other vehicles (V2V, Vehicle-to-Vehicle), or with RSUs (V2I, Vehicle-to-Infrastructure/I2V, Infrastructure -to- Vehicle), or with pedestrians walking on the street (V2P, Vehicle-to-Person/V2H, Vehicle-to-Human) (see Table 1).

FIGURE 1

Each in-motion vehicle and the corresponding RSUs simultaneously form a temporary self-organizing network. The VANET allows vehicles and RSUs to periodically transmit their surrounding road conditions (such as road congestion, accident condition, and traffic lights) and vehicle conditions (such as vehicle direction, location, and speed) to other vehicles within their communication ranges through a multi-hop mode, which can not only help improve road safety, but also have an effect on guiding the traffic flow. OBUs are employed by vehicles to communicate and exchange messages with other vehicles and RSUs, like their vehicles’ GPS location data, acceleration or deceleration information, brake information, etc.

1.1 Previous surveys

Trust is a multidisciplinary concept and has been well-studied from different perspectives for several decades. In the mobile Internet era, research on trust, especially trust management in distributed scenarios gains more and more attention from both academia and industry. Many survey papers that classify and summarize trust management papers have emerged in quite a few research fields, such as MANETs, IoTs, SNS (Social Networking Services), and also VANETs. We used the following query strings on IEEE Xplore Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, and DBLP. com:

• {“trust” or “reputation”} + {“survey” or “review” or “challenges” or “overview”} + {“VANET” or “VANETs” or “internet of vehicles” or “vehicular network” or “vehicular ad hoc network”}

And we combined the searched papers and excluded some irrelevant papers, and finally we obtained about 16 strongly correlated survey papers (from 2011 to the writing of this paper), as shown in Figure 2. Among all these papers, the paper titled “A survey of trust management in the Internet of Vehicles” (Hbaieb et al., 2022) is the most well-written and comprehensive one. The paper systematically summarizes and reviews several topics including the notion of trust, the existing surveys about vehicular security, the security and trust attacks and challenges in vehicular contexts, the most relevant approaches related to trust management in VAENTs, and the trust enabling technologies like blockchain, cloud, and SDN. Mikavica and Kostic-jubisavljevic (2021) surveyed recent blockchain-based trust model advancements in VANETs. Overall, this survey paper is one of the few overview articles focusing on one particular aspect as the topic of discussion.

FIGURE 2

Similar to other survey papers, the main objective of this survey is to categorize, analyze, and synthesize the research papers on trust management in VANETs, in order to present a summary of the research works done in this area (cf.Table 2). By filling in the gaps and providing the most recent VANETs advancements while keeping it self-explanatory, this survey can prevent overlap with existing surveys. Different from the popular “entity-centric, data-centric, hybrid” taxonomy chosen by most survey papers in this field of research, we chose the most intuitive taxonomy, i.e., a technique-based classification method. To the best of our knowledge, this may be the first survey paper that chooses this particular classification method. In addition to this point, the paper also gives a comparatively comprehensive summarization of security attacks in VANETs.

1.2 Survey organization

In this survey, we aim to provide a systematic review of recent advancements on trust and reputation management in the field of VANET. The organization of the survey is presented in Figure 3 with a top-down layout. Section 1 gives a brief introduction of the background information and the comparison with the previous surveys. Following that, in Section 2, we discuss several forms of attacks in VANETs, and then in Section 3, we rapidly introduce the notion of trust and reputation management and explain why it is useful for addressing VANET security issues. Section 4 presents the intrinsic challenges towards VANET scenarios. Afterwards, in Section 5, we classify the different types of trust and reputation models and schemes we have identified in the literature, and elaborate the trust and reputation management solutions from a technological perspective in more detail. Finally, we discuss future research directions on trust management in Section 6. Section 7 concludes the paper in a nutshell.

FIGURE 3

2 Types of attacks in VANETs

In order to combat many realistic threats in the intricate vehicular scenarios, trust and reputation-based mechanisms have emerged in VANETs. Vehicles can be easily vulnerable to illegal information injection, malicious messages, falsification, and node impersonation, both inside and externally, due to the enormous volume and very dynamic topology of VANETs. We must first recognize the potential attack types and their behaviors exist in VANETs, so as to comprehend the security issues and remedial measures against them (Sumra et al., 2011a). In terms of privacy, security, and trust, these attacks will make it extremely difficult to develop secure VANET schemes. As a result, in this section we provide a taxonomy of security attacks and problems in VANETs, as shown in Table 3. Also, Figure 4 presents a clear taxonomy of security attacks in an intuitive way.

FIGURE 4

The above-listed attacks may affect the normal operation of VANETs and many methods are proposed to tackle these attacks in an efficient way. Among these, cryptography-based solutions play an important role in solving traditional security problems, however, due to the intrinsic characteristics of VANETs, these solutions will not suffice to deal with all the attacks. Therefore, the importance of the concept of trust management is obvious. Security problems like fake messages and dishonest users will exceed the capabilities of traditional cryptography-based solutions (Hussain et al., 2021). The goal of incorporating trust is to detect malicious entities and their deceptive information, actively encourage those entities with good behavior and honesty, and prevent dishonest and selfish behaviors among entities. In the next section, for the purpose of the integrity of the survey, we will briefly introduce trust and reputation management, as a fundamental basis for later discussion.

3 Trust and reputation management

Trust is a fundamental tool in human life. It enables people to communicate, coordinate, collaborate, and protect themselves. As equivalents in virtual world, trust and reputation have been discussed, studied, and applied in many other fields, such as P2P network, IoTs, Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), and Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs), even in deployed hardware environments. In order to understand the trust and reputation management approaches presented in this survey, we introduce the basic concepts surrounding trust and reputation management in this section. In addition, through the rest of the survey, we will use the words parties, participants, entities, nodes, or peers interchangeably, as we will do with messages, information, and contents.

3.1 Trust, distrust, and reputation

Trust and reputation are two closely related terms, which often appear in the literature in twin at the same time. At the earliest, they are rooted in sociology and psychology, despite the fact that we are not concerned and interested in their origins.

Trust is defined as the degree to which one party is willing to participate in a given action with a given partner, considering the risks and incentives involved. A trust relationship always involves two entities: the trustor and the trustee. The trustor is the party who gives the trust, and the trustee is the party who accepts the trust. The trustor, based on his observation of the trustee, makes a trust decision on the balance between risk and trust in the trustee, and authorizes participation in a binary manner. The opposite of trust is distrust. Sometimes, mistrust also describes the extent to which the trustor does not trust the trustee.

Trust may have many binary attributes or properties of entities, such as direct vs indirect, subjective vs objective, local vs global, symmetric vs asymmetric, historical vs current, static vs dynamic (cf.Figure 5). Many methods proposed in the literature are built up around these attributes.

FIGURE 5

Reputation lays the foundation for establishing trust relationships and adopting trust management. In terms of modeling and computing, trust is a more complex concept than reputation.

3.2 Trust value, trust degree, and trust metrics

In order to calculate the degree of trust towards a trustee by a trustor, the trust itself must be quantifiable and computable. When the model assumes whether a trustee is trusted or not, i.e., the model treats the trust in a binary mode, the corresponding trust value will be 1 (trust) or 0 (not trust). When the model calculates the probability or belief that the trustee can be trusted, the trust value for the trustee will be represented as a continuous value or a discrete value between 0 and 1, to represent the degree of trust from completely distrust, partial trust, till to full trust.

Trust metrics are metric parameters used in trust evaluation, according to different design aspects (such as knowledge, node properties, proximity, environment factors, etc.) and design purposes (such as accuracy, dynamicity, scalability, etc.). For example, in proximity-based metrics, the main deployed parameters are time, location, and the distance of the desired entities.

3.3 Trust modeling and trust computation

FIGURE 6

3.4 Trust management

Systems that support these components are considered as trust management systems, for example, well-known PolicyMaker (Blaze et al., 1996) and KeyNote (Blaze et al., 1998) (PolicyMaker is the predecessor of KeyNote).

As mentioned above, trust management has traditionally been represented as a unified method for specifying and interpreting security policies, credentials, and relationships. Now, the concept of trust management broadly refers to a general-purpose trust mechanism that calculates and re-calculates the trust value based on past successful transactions between entities in network systems.

3.5 Reputation management

Reputation management and trust management have some internal connections, because they are usually designed to prevent similar security threats. Reputation management pays more attention to users’ ratings in specific communities, in order to build trust through recognized reputation. Internet giants such as Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay all have reputation systems that can rate material contents, visitors, and transactions. Reputation systems may be suffered by attacks of different goals and methods, as shown in Table 4.

4 Challenges of trust and reputation management in VANETs

In recent years, trust and reputation have been successfully applied in the research field of VANETs, as a tool to monitor the behaviors of diverse entities in VANETs, so as to alleviate the uncertainty and uncontrollability involved in interaction and collaboration, guard against the aforementioned potential insider and outsider attacks in VANETs, and finally, form a trustworthy vehicular environment to promote and ensure environmental safety.

5 Trust and reputation management models and schemes in VANETs

Since 2008, numerous trust and reputation models and schemes have been proposed (Raya et al., 2008; Serna et al., 2008; Serna et al., 2009). In the literature, there are several different types of trust and reputation taxonomies. The majority of articles classify VANET trust models into three categories: entity-centric, data-centric, and combined trust models (Zhang, 2011). Entity-centric trust models examine each vehicle as a separate entity and assess the entity’s trustworthiness. Rather than evaluating the entity itself, data-centric trust models assess the trustworthiness of data or messages delivered by vehicles. The combined trust models combine entity-centric and data-centric trust models to assess the trustworthiness of both vehicles and transmitted data simultaneously. Hussain et al. (2021) provided another classification of trust management schemes: subject trust, trust-based services, and trust’s origin. Entity-centric or content-centric trust is referred to as subject trust. Entity-centric trust follows the previous description and employs techniques such as encryption, game theory, and so on, but content-centric trust places a greater emphasis on the content and employs techniques such as data analytics, data statistics, watermarking, and so on. Trust-based services use trust values to provide services including trust-based routing, data aggregation, DDoS detection, and location privacy. The origin of trust assesses the value of trust based on its source, dividing it into three categories: direct trust, indirect trust, and aggregated trust. Since the concept of trust management was created, direct and indirect trust have been the most common types used in trust models. At the same time, the aggregated trust analyzes trust values based on direct and indirect trust. In this survey, however, we opted for the most intuitive and basic technique-based classification method, which is uncommon in most survey papers. The trust management models are divided into five categories: 1) Conventional techniques; 2) Network techniques; 3) Data techniques; 4) Situation and Location; 5) AI-based techniques. Cryptography, PKI-CA, fuzzy logic, and game theory are examples of conventional techniques that are commonly used in early trust management or reputation models in different study areas. Traditional networking strategies such as self-organization and emerging techniques such as 5G or fog/edge computing are used to address trust issues. Database approaches and other cutting-edge techniques, such as blockchain, are used in data-centric trust models. Situation and location methods are used to create trust models that consider spatial factors such as the surrounding environment and vehicle positions. It is also worth noting that these classifications are not mutually exclusive; some approaches may employ techniques classified in other categories. And we just include the most relevant trust and reputation management models here, and do not intend to include every single model given in the VANETs literature (cf.Figure 7).

FIGURE 7

5.1 Conventional techniques

The study of trust management in VANETs makes extensive use of conventional techniques like cryptography. The most significant of them are security-related techniques and concepts, such as cryptography, PKI-CA, and pseudonym. The application of fuzzy logic and game theory methodologies is also quite widespread in this field of research.

5.1.1 Security: Cryptography, PKI-CA, and pseudonym

Many attacks and their defensive measures have been extensively discussed in the VANETs literature. Cryptographic approaches (e.g., asymmetric and symmetric cryptography), PKI-CA, and identity-based procedures are all traditional security methods used for most security assaults. In VANETs, many contemporary trust management systems have also relied on these old methodologies to aid in the building and evaluation of trust (Pham and Yeo, 2018). Pure cryptography-based techniques have a number of flaws, including the fact that they only handle external threats and have very significant network overheads. As a result, the cryptography-based method is frequently utilized as an add-on to a complete trust management system. To protect VANET to a greater extent, Tangade et al. (2020) suggested a trust management strategy based on hybrid cryptography (TMHC). Asymmetric identity-based (ID-based) digital signatures and symmetric hash message authentication codes are included in the hybrid cryptography (HMAC). They analyzed the trust values of nodes in conjunction with reward points.

Many strategies using group signature to preserve driver privacy have been presented in the research field (Jiang et al., 2020; Yuanpan et al., 2020). The purpose of the group signature technique is to sign a communication on behalf of a group so that the members of the group can maintain their anonymity. Group signatures, like other digital signatures, can be publicly authenticated and can only be authenticated with a single group public key. It can also be used as a group symbol to represent the group’s primary functions and types.

To provide a more efficient anonymous authentication service for vehicles, Jiang et al. (2020) adds a region trust authority and uses group signature to accomplish anonymity and conditional privacy. In a reputation-based announcement technique, Chen et al. (2013) used group signature to secure privacy for messages and feedbacks. The reputation of the vehicle that sends the message determines the message’s reliability. The reputation is calculated and updated based on the feedback from other vehicles. However, in terms of communication and processing complexity, the technique only gives theoretical proofs. On the other hand, in real-world applications, centralized reputation management in VANETs is roughly unfeasible. Not only can the group signature system provide anonymity and traceability, but it can also provide unforgeability and forward security (Yuanpan et al., 2020).

A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a collection of roles, policies, and procedures for creating, managing, distributing, using, storing, and revoking digital certificates, as well as managing public-key encryption (cf.Figure 8). In PKI, CAs are in charge of issuing and managing long-term certificates. CAs are typically entrusted with maintaining the trust scores of vehicles in VANETs.

FIGURE 8

Raya and Hubaux (2007) presented a PKI-based public key certificate approach in 2007 that allows vehicles to store a large number of public-private key pairings and corresponding certificates. The approach produces certificate management issues by increasing communication and computational overheads. Wu et al. (2011) presented a technique called Roadside-unit Aided Trust Establishment (RATE) that intends to efficiently perform data-centric trust establishment in VANETs, making RATE suitable for a dynamically changing environment. To incorporate direct observable data with feedbacks, RATE uses an ant colony optimization technique.

Gómez Mármol and Martnez Pérez (2012) proposed TRIP, an original approach that attempts to quickly and accurately differentiate malevolent or selfish nodes distributing misleading or spurious messages using a set of design constraints tailored to VANETs. Li et al. (2013) described a system called Reputation-based Global Trust Establishment (RGTE) for sharing trust information in VANETs using dynamic thresholds depending on real-time reputation status.

Park et al. (2011) presented a Long-Term Reputation (LTR) model based on the repeated daily observation that the majority of people drive their automobiles locally for their daily commute, and that most vehicles have predefined constant daily trajectories. For these local vehicles, long-term reputation rankings are stored in roadside infrastructures.

The pseudonym approach is a type of anonymity and authentication scheme that preserves privacy. Public and private key pairs issued by PKI CAs are similar to pseudonyms. When an entity signs, it employs a unique pseudonym, which may be verified using the public key infrastructure (PKI) or identity-based cryptography (IBC) techniques.

Wang, Jin et al. (2016) combined trust management with the pseudonym technique, incorporating both service and feedback reputation. They proposed hidden-zone and k-anonymity strategies to guard against the reputation link attack during pseudonym changes. To resolve the tension between privacy preservation and reputation evaluation, Shibin and Nianmin (2019) presented a distributed trust framework for pseudonym-enabled privacy preservation in VANETs. The roadside unit gives the reputation label certificate (RLC) to every vehicle in its communication range in this framework to evaluate the message’s credibility. To reduce the heavy overhead of RSUs caused by frequent key generating and exchanging, Bellikar et al. (2018) proposed a three-tier architecture for pseudonym-based anonymous authentication (3TAAV) in VANETs, with one more layer named pseudonym server (PSS), rather than a two-tier architecture including vehicles and RSUs.

5.1.2 Fuzzy logic

Fuzzy logic is a science that studies fuzzy thinking, language form, and law utilizing multi-valued logic and the fuzzy set approach. In VANETs, fuzzy logic provides a plausible way to deal with uncertainty and assess data and source reliability (Jalalia and Aghaee, 2011; Guleng et al., 2019; Sumithra and Vadivel, 2019).

Guleng et al. (2019) proposed a fuzzy logic-based strategy for evaluating one-hop neighbors’ trust and dealing with vehicles’ complex and uncertain behavior. The strategy also includes a Q-learning approach for evaluating indirect trust of nodes that are not directly connected to a trustor node. A model called NB-FTBM, or Naive Bayesian Fuzzy Trust Boundary Model, was suggested by Sumithra and Vadivel (2019). Entity Identification (E-ID) and Entity Reputation are two modules in the NB-FTBM (E-RP). The entity identification score and entity reputation score of an entity can be swiftly determined using NB-FTBM. The trust border line is crossed by these scores. The entity is permitted to make the necessary decision for the information received based on this boundary level. In Ref Jalalia and Aghaee, (2011), Jalalia and Aghaee proposed a fuzzy reputation system to punish selfish behaviors and encourage packet forwarding. Each node in the model has a module called Forward Manager that keeps track of the number of received forwarding requests and the number of packets transferred so far. It also employs a module known as Fuzzy Reputation Manager to determine if each packet’s source node is selfish or not. Selfish source node packets are removed from the network.

5.1.3 Game theory

The interaction between formulated incentive structures is the focus of game theory. It is a mathematical theory and approach for investigating events involving struggle or competition. Individuals in the game’s prediction and actual conduct are studied in game theory, as are their optimization strategies. Game theory is often used by biologists to better explain and predict some evolutionary outcomes. Because it can be utilized as a useful tool for behavior analysis, game theory appears frequently in the VANET literature (Li et al., 2020).

Li et al. (2020) suggested a novel trust evaluation scheme for vehicles and RSUs based on the use of other vehicles to monitor actions during the content delivery process. The approach employs a bargaining game-based pricing model to encourage vehicles and RSUs to behave well in the network. Simultaneously, the proposed model is analyzed using a backward induction method. In VANETs, game theory can also be used to control reputation. Tian et al. (2019) used evolutionary game theory to simulate the dynamical evolution of malevolent users’ assaulting techniques as well as a reputation management scheme with numerous utility functions.

Mehdi et al. (2017) presented a game theory-based trust model for VANETs. With respect to the following parameters: majority opinion, betweenness centrality, and node density, the suggested model devises an attacker and defender security game to discover and counter the attacker/malicious nodes. The game matrix, which holds the cost (payoff) values for each potential action-reaction combination, determines the game’s outcome. To determine the appropriate strategy for attacker and defender vehicles, the model uses Nash equilibrium.

5.2 Network techniques

The application of network techniques is inseparable for trust management in vehicular contexts due to its intrinsic distributed nature. Overall, the research in this field can be roughly divided into the following three directions: conventional networking techniques, cloud computing, and emerging network techniques.

5.2.1 Networking techniques: Self-organization

MANETs and VANETs both have self-organization and node movement as common features (Hamieh et al., 2009). Self-organizing models are better suited to VANETs’ distributed and highly dynamic environment. In self-organized models, each node assesses the target node’s trust value based on local knowledge gained from previous experiences and suggestions from neighbors over a short period of time.

For recognizing similar messages or vehicles, Yang (2013) employed a similarity mining technique called Trust and Reputation Management Framework based on the Similarity Mining Technique (TRMFS). For computing a vehicle’s recommendation-based reputation, similarities from different recommenders are employed as weights. Bamberger et al. (2010) proposed an Inter-vehicular Communication trust model based on Belief Theory (ICBT). The ICBT model focuses on an individual’s direct experiences rather than a system-wide reputation that would be dependent on a central unit. To respond to quickly changing conditions, infrastructure failure, and attacks, a Situation-Aware Trust (SAT) model has been developed in Ref Hong et al. (2008), which has three primary components: an attribute-based policy control model, a proactive trust model, and a social network. Zhiquan et al. (2016) split VANET trust models into two groups: infrastructure-based and self-organized approaches. Following an analysis of current models’ flaws, Liu proposed the Lightweight Self-Organized Trust (LSOT) model, which is devoid of super nodes or CAs, to make collusion attacks employing trust certificates-based evaluation and testing methods easier. In recommendation-based trust evaluation, the maximum local trust (MLT) method was included in LSOT to identify trustworthy recommenders.

5.2.2 Networking techniques: Routing

The unique characteristics of VANETs, such as centerless infrastructure, high mobility, and frequent network topology changes, create challenging and critical technical issues such as routing reliability, routing QoS, and link failure in order to avoid attackers for a variety of reasons, such as faked location, man-in-the-middle tampering, and malicious information (Chuan, 2012; Eiza & Ni, 2012; Sagar et al., 2012).

Eiza and Ni (2012) described a strategy for selecting the most reliable route to the destination from among all other routes based on link reliability. Chuan (2012) offered a comprehensive security for the geographic information routing protocol (GPSR) in order to effectively prevent malicious conduct, particularly tampering with the routing protocol or neighbor location table (NLT). Sagar et al. (2012) compared the performance of one proactive routing protocol, Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), and two reactive routing protocols, Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Dynamic MANET On-Demand (DYMO), using three performance parameters: PDR, effect of link duration over End-to-End Delay (E2ED), and Normalized Routing Overhead (NRO). Many jobs are aimed at determining the best routing protocol for delivering data to destination nodes on time and with flawless packet exchange. Ahmed et al. (2018) presented a security-aware routing strategy called VANSec, and it was compared to existing techniques in terms of Trust Computation Error (TCE), E2ED, Average Link Duration (ALD), and NRO. TROPHY (Trustworthy VANET ROuting with grouP autHentication keYs) is a system proposed by Pedro et al. (2018). Using the WAVE architecture and the patented routing technique, the Service-Based Layer-2 Routing Protocol, the collection of protocols can manage the authentication of routing messages in a VANET under extremely demanding timing conditions, capable of securing the dissemination of routing information. Using Bayesian theory and fuzzy logic theory, Xia et al. (2018) presented a trust-based multicast routing system (TMR). Slama et al. (2018) presented the AIMD (Additive Increase Multicative Decrease) algorithm with the TCSR (Trusted Cryptographic Secure Routing) protocol. In VANETs, delay reduction is crucial for vehicle routing. In terms of the trust calculation, route selection, minimum message reachable time (MMRT) calculation, and route decision, Sataraddi and Kakkasageri (2019) proposed a trust-based minimum delay routing algorithm to achieve high trust and minimal routing delay. Regarding the trust between vehicles and MMRT, Sataraddi and Kakkasageri (2020) tried to build a trust- and delay-based routing for hybrid communication in sparse VANET to minimize network assaults by hostile nodes. Some recent VANET routing research has focused on actual services and applications. Ref Shaik and Ratnam, (2022) is similar in that it focuses on infotainment services like as video streaming and emergency message distribution. Energy and Mobility Aware Routing Protocol (EM-ARP) is a suggested protocol for improving infotainment services on VANETs by minimizing delay and energy usage. EM-ARP chooses Cooperative Relay Vehicles (CRVs) dynamically based on battery power and node mobility in the destination direction. Three essential criteria, such as Link Expiration Time (LET), Hop Count, and Congestion along the path, are used to estimate route selection. Venitta Raj and Balasubramanian, (2021) provided a Similarity-based Trustworthy Routing algorithm that incorporates social factors for determining the appropriate forwarder for executing trustworthy routing. To improve the updating process of trust value, the algorithm uses two approaches: Acknowledgment during Encounter Strategy (AES) and Game-theoretic Broadcasting Strategy (GTBS). Zhiquan et al. (2020) proposed a trust cascading-based emergency message dissemination (TCEMD), which incorporates entity-oriented trust values (which are evaluated and updated by leveraging the trust certificates and are carried in the messages) into data-oriented trust evaluation in an efficient manner.

5.2.3 Cloud computing: Vehicular cloud

Cloud computing technologies are popular in VANETs because they can adapt to some of the network’s fundamental qualities, such as high mobility, decentralization, and quick and ephemeral interaction (Bitam et al., 2015). For example, Qin et al. (2012) proposed VehiCloud to address unstable inter-vehicle communications and expand mobile devices’ limited processing capabilities.

Hatzivasilis et al. (2019) proposed MobileTrust, a hybrid trust paradigm that allows for safe resource sharing. Using cloud computing and 5G technologies, MobileTrust can provide a secure trust foundation with global scalability. Chen and Wang (2017) proposed a cloud-based trust management paradigm for vehicular social networks. The authors presented a layered trust management technique that takes advantage of efficient physical resource use (e.g., computation, storage, and communication costs) and investigated its implementation in a VSN scenario based on a three-layer cloud computing architecture.

Vehicular cloud (VC) is a new VANET paradigm in which cloud computing and features are used to improve applications and services (Hussain et al., 2021), and vehicular cloud computing (VCC) is required to operate as service infrastructure in VANETs and vehicular social networks (VSN). The administration of trust between entities is critical and more difficult than in a standard VANET (Yan et al., 2013).

Because most VC trust models can’t accurately describe the uncertainty, Sun et al. (2016) proposed a membership cloud-based trust model for T-CPS (Transportation Cyber-Physical System) VC, which considers the trust uncertainty of fuzziness and randomness in vehicle interactions and uses membership cloud to describe the uncertainty in unified formats. It also includes an algorithm for calculating cloud droplets and trust evaluation values pooled. The general architecture of VCC has been studied by Bitam et al. (2015). The paper also looked into the use of cloud computing in vehicle networks. Furthermore, the paper explored a variety of VCC-supported transportation services, including security and privacy, energy efficiency, resource management, and interoperability. RA-VTrust (Reputation-based Adaptive Vehicular Trust Model) was proposed in ref (Lee and Bae, 2014) for quickly evaluating the competency of a vehicular cloud service based on numerous trust attributes mined from evidence utilizing rough sets. J. Shen et al. (2019) introduced the CATE (Cloud-Aided Trustworthiness Evaluation Scheme) model, which uses session key generation to guarantee lightweight trustworthiness level confirmation. The uploaded region information in IPNs must be encrypted and signed by a group of vehicles in the same region (Incompletely Predictable vehicular ad hoc Networks). The trust mechanisms can assist VC manage resource scheduling more successfully. Wang J. et al. (2021) investigated the DI-Trust (Trust Model Based on Dynamic Incentive Mechanism) trust mechanism, which focuses on the following scenario: a parking lot with static vehicle nodes.

5.2.4 Cloud computing: Vehicular social cloud

The Vehicular Social Network (VSN), as shown in Figure 9, also known as SIoV, is a new ITS trend influenced by SIoT- and cloud-based VANETs (Vegni, & Loscrí, 2015; Sun et al., 2016; Iqbal et al., 2019). Human behaviors and social traits have a significant impact on VANET applications, leading to the classification of vehicular communication as a social network of vehicles. Yang and Wang (2015) were among the first to focus on trust in VSNs, introducing the core theory of trust management in a VSN context.

FIGURE 9

In most VSN trust management schemes, a vehicle cloud system serves as the social service provider (Bitam et al., 2015; Chen and Wang, 2017). Chen and Wang (2017) proposed a layered trust management technique based on a three-layer cloud computing architecture, and investigated its deployment in a VSN scenario. It is worth noting that the proposed model’s performance is modelled using a revolutionary formal compositional approach called Performance Evaluation Process Algebra (PEPA), which can represent systems with layered structures and complex behaviors effectively. Hussain et al. (2016) presented a hybrid trust establishment and management paradigm that comprises two trust management solutions for distinct mobile applications: email-based social trust and social network-based trust. In their research, Li and Song (2016) presented an attack-resistant trust management scheme called ART for vehicular networks to detect and handle malicious attacks as well as assess the trustworthiness of both data and mobile nodes of networks. The trustworthiness of nodes is measured in two ways in ART: functional trust and recommendation trust.

5.2.5 Cloud computing: Fog/Edge computing

Edge computing refers to an open platform integrating network, computing, storage and application core capabilities on the side close to the object or data source to provide nearest end services. Its application program is initiated on the edge side to produce faster network service response and meet the basic needs of the industry in real-time business, application intelligence, security and privacy protection. Edge computing is between physical entities and industrial connections, or at the top of physical entities. In VANETs, vehicles cannot support mass data storage and computing power, therefore, the computing tasks are usually been transferred to RSUs with strong computing and storage capabilities to alleviate the workload and storage through edge computing.

VEC (Vehicular Edge Computing) is a popular study subject as a new networking paradigm (Raza et al., 2019), in which service providers directly host services in close proximity to mobile vehicles for significant gains. In blockchain-based vehicular edge computing (BloVEC), Maskey et al. (2021) presented a reputation-based mining node selection (RbMNS) and employed an artificial neural network (ANN) to assess the reputation of the miner nodes. Huang et al. (2017) proposed a distributed reputation management solution (DREAMS) for secure and efficient vehicular edge computing and networks, in which VEC servers are used to carry out local reputation management activities for vehicles. Soleymani et al. (2020) provided a trust model based on plausibility, experience, and vehicle type to deal with erroneous, partial, and ambiguous data in both line of sight (LoS) and none-line of sight (NLoS) situations. The k-nearest neighbor (kNN) classification technique is used to determine the NLoS state, which includes parameters such as the Radio Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Packet Reception Rate (PDR), and the distance between two vehicle nodes. In VANETs, the Cuckoo filter is employed to protect secure communication between vehicles and edge nodes while avoiding massive data computing.

Fog computing, in which data, data processing, and applications are concentrated in devices at the network’s edge rather than being nearly entirely stored in the cloud, is a Cisco-proposed extension of cloud computing. The term “fog” comes from the well-known phrase “fog is a cloud that is closer to the ground."

Fog nodes have been used as coordinator resources in the trust evaluation process by Atwah et al. (2020). Event detection, cluster head selection, and misbehavior detection are some of the functions fog nodes can provide to relieve the burden on agents. Iqbal et al. (2019) examined existing trust management technologies that could be used in the Social Internet of Vehicles (SIoV), such as Blockchain-based and fog computing-based trust solutions. To deal with the dynamic nature of fog computing, trust management models can take advantage of its benefits for context management and job offloading. A novel bidding price-based transaction (BPT) mechanism for ensuring trusted Fog service transactions in rural areas was developed in Ref Dewanta & Mambo, (2019). Vehicles that use BPT do not need to interact with any trusted third parties in order to conduct fog computing transactions with other vehicles.

5.2.6 Emerging network techniques: 5G

5G (short for fifth-generation mobile communication technology) is a next generation broadband mobile communication technology with high rate, low delay, and massive connection capabilities (Khan et al., 2022). The network infrastructure for man-machine and object interconnection is the 5G communication facility.

Arif et al. (2020) suggested a paradigm for automotive ad-hoc network management that incorporates both 5G and Blockchain. Low latency communication provided by 5G improves both V2V and V2I connections, potentially increasing their trustworthiness. Instead of TCP/IP, Ortega et al. (2018) proposed content-centric networking (CCN) and permissioned blockchains, which allow for dynamic control of source reliability, as well as the integrity and validity of the information shared. VANETs based on CCN could theoretically be created using 5G network slicing without incurring additional deployment expenditures. Xie et al. (2019) implemented software-defined network (SDN) architecture into the 5G-VANET (Figure 10), allowing for global data gathering and network control to provide real-time IoT services on transportation monitoring and reporting.

FIGURE 10

5.2.7 Emerging network techniques: SDN

Through the separation of control and forwarding, the notion of SDN is adopted to concentrate the control logic of switching devices in the network on one computer device, bringing new ideas to improve the ability of network management and configuration. The separation of the control and data planes, as well as open programmability, are key features of SDN. According to current study, SDN can handle the time-varying nature of VANETs at a significantly reduced cost due to simplified hardware, software, and maintenance, as well as large-scale unified abstraction optimization (Xie et al., 2019; Mao et al., 2021).

Mao et al. (2021) established a hierarchical hybrid trust management architecture using an efficient flow forwarding mechanism of the RSU close to the controller in the Software-Defined Vehicular Network (SDVN), with the goal of overcoming the problems of high communication delay and low recognition rate of malicious nodes. To provide a uniform policy and global administration for the 5G-VANET, Xie et al. (2019) used a centralized SDN controller with OpenFlow protocol to control RSUs and gNBs (5G base stations) using high-capacity fiber optic backhaul lines. Qafzezi et al. (2021) designed and compared two Fuzzy-based Systems for Assessment of Nearby Vehicle Processing Capabilities (FS-ANVPC1 and FS-ANVPC2) to identify the processing capability of neighboring vehicles in Software Defined Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (SDN-VANETs). In a layered Cloud-Fog-Edge architecture, the model uses cloud computing, fog computing, and edge computing, as well as SDN, to make up the edge computing resources.

5.3 Data techniques

In the study area of trust management in VANETs, the use of data approaches, particularly blockchain, has gained popularity recently.

5.3.1 Data techniques: Blockchain

Blockchain, which was originally created for crypto-currency exchange in financial transactions, provides a distributed append-only public record that does not require a central authority (N. Satoshi, 2019). Due to the inherent characteristics of blockchain (M. Atzori, 2017), there has been a lot of study in trust management for various distributed frameworks using blockchain to achieve high security agreement levels and decentralized governance in recent years (Figure 11). Table 5 summarizes the current advancement in blockchain-based trust management systems in VANETs since 2016 based on relevance. Following that, we’ll look at some noteworthy research findings in the subject of VANETs.

FIGURE 11

Lu et al. (2018a); Lu et al. (2018b) presented a blockchain-based anonymous reputation system (BARS) to enable distributed trust management, with the goal of protecting vehicle privacy. BARS gives the LEA (Law Enforcement Authority) with the responsibility of registering, monitoring, and evaluating the reputation scores of each vehicle. Meanwhile, BARS provides blockchain to record all of CA’s actions without disclosing sensitive vehicle information. BARS incorporates a trust model that relies on the sender’s reputation based on both direct prior encounters and indirect judgments about the sender to improve the trustworthiness of messages. Yang et al. (2019) introduced the BTEV framework, which consists primarily of a two-pass threshold-based event validation mechanism and a two-phase sequential blockchain transaction. Xie et al. (2019) developed a blockchain-based security framework to support vehicular IoT applications, such as real-time cloud-based video reporting and vehicular message trust management. Patel et al. (2019) presented “VehicleChain”, a protocol that integrates blockchain with elliptic curve cryptography to increase VANET security without raising processing expenses. Insider, server spoofing, modification, man-in-the-middle, plaintext, replay, and impersonation are all attacks that the VehicleChain can defend against.

5.3.2 Data techniques: Virtual currency

In VANETs, virtual currency is employed as a motivator to encourage cooperation and identify selfish nodes. However, there are only a few examples where the trust or reputation mechanism is solely based on virtual currency.

Li and Wu (2009) introduced FRAME, a virtual currency-based approach for enhancing collaboration in vehicular networks. Their incentive program is based on the number of direct sprays and the amount of time a node keeps a packet.

To combat selfish behavior, Caballero-Gil et al. (2009) used a virtual currency scheme. When a packet arrives at its destination, each node involved in the forwarding process should report its contribution to the source node. The total of each node in the forwarding tree’s partial contributions is used to compute the final contribution. Based on the ultimate contribution and the number of relay nodes, each intermediate node will be rewarded.

5.4 Situation and Location

Information about situation and location is intricately linked to user privacy, which is crucial for the extensive application of VANETs. However, according to our search results, there are not many research findings that pertain to this research topic.

5.4.1 Situation and Location: Situational awareness

Situational awareness is the ability to comprehend the environment and effectively forecast and respond to future difficulties. The Situation-Aware Trust Paradigm (SAT) (Hong et al., 2008) is a situation-aware model for establishing trust in vehicular networks.

S-Aframe (Zhiquan et al., 2016) is an agent-based multilayer framework with context-aware semantic service (CSS) to support the development and deployment of context-aware applications for vehicular social networks (VSNs) formed by in-vehicle or mobile devices used by drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. The framework architecture is made up of three layers: framework service layer, software agent layer, and owner application layer. It is built on top of the operating systems of mobile devices.

Oluoch (2016) proposed a reputation strategy in which each receiving vehicle asks other cars in its communication range for their opinion on the sending vehicle’s trustworthiness, and then uses conditional probability to identify hostile peers.

5.4.2 Situation and Location: Location privacy preserving

Many VANET services and applications rely on location data, which necessitates anonymity to safeguard a driver’s privacy, as well as identity and traceability for deeper application.

To ensure location privacy, Ref Yu Chih et al. (2011) and Yu Chih and Chen, (2012) provided a secure broadcast authentication protocol and beacon-based trust management system, and Dempster-Shafer theory was used to merge event message trustworthiness with vehicle trustworthiness from numerous vehicles.

The SLOW technique is defined in Ref Levente et al. (2009) as being based on the assumptions that if pseudonyms are changed at an inopportune time or location, frequent pseudonym changes cannot ensure location privacy. The main notion is that when a vehicle’s speed falls below a certain level, it should not transmit heartbeat messages and should change pseudonym for each such silent interval. This does not have to happen in a specific physical area (i.e., a static mix zone).

5.4.3 Situation and Location: Mix zones

The Mix Zone technique is a special type of real-time location privacy preserving mechanism used in VANETs that can break location exposure continuity and prevent attackers from linking beacons while altering the vehicle’s pseudonym (cf.Figure 12). Vehicles can alter their pseudonyms in mix zones, which are pre-determined areas.

FIGURE 12

Ying and Makrakis (2015) presented RPCLP (Reputation-based Pseudonym Change for Location Privacy), which motivates users (even those who are selfish) to gain reputation “credit” by changing their pseudonym. Sun et al. (2015) explain how to deploy mix-zones optimally in a large metropolis and provide a statistics-based criteria for evaluating a mix-effectiveness zone’s and selecting mix-zone candidates based on privacy needs. In addition, the paper presents a cost-effective mix-zone deployment scheme that ensures that cars in each location can travel through an effective mix-zone in a specific amount of time. Hou et al. (2021) presented two categories of Mix-Zone tracking methods based on basic BP (Back Propagation) and tailored artificial neural networks, both of which may considerably increase the tracking result while revealing the Mix-Zone privacy preserving level more realistically.

5.5 AI

In recent years, several fields have incorporated artificial intelligence approaches, and the research field of trust management can be improved by making further use of recent advancements in AI. AI approaches can be used to create trust management models for VANETs to help with the design of safety and non-safety applications for moving vehicles.

5.5.1 AI: Old-school machine learning and clustering

Old-school machine learning algorithms like SVM (Support Vector Machine), LR (Logistic Regression), KNN, and RF (Random Forest) were widely used before the invention of deep learning. Machine learning methods are commonly employed in VANETs to detect misbehavior (Zhang C. et al., 2018; Bangui et al., 2022; Ercan et al., 2022), such as Wormhole Attacks, Position Falsification Attacks, and intrusion detection, among other things. To assure the identification and elimination of malicious vehicles from the network, approaches combining trust models and traditional machine learning algorithms have gradually increased in the literature (Siddiqui et al., 2019; El-Sayed et al., 2020; Gyawali et al., 2020; Jordan et al., 2020).

These trust models mainly rely on the accumulation of both direct and indirect observations and evict the malevolent vehicles in accordance with a specific threshold defined on this composite trust value. By using machine learning approaches to identify misbehaving nodes based on false position attacks, Jordan et al. (2020) seek to analyze the parameters utilized for the computation of trust metrics. In Ref Siddiqui et al. (2019), a hybrid trust management heuristic based on machine learning called Poster was proposed. Poster computes the aggregate trust score for identifying and removing rogue vehicles from a vehicular network using machine learning. El-Sayed et al. (2020) proposed a novel entity-centric trust framework using artificial neural networks (to self-train the vehicular nodes) and decision tree classification (to develop rules for trust calculation). At the same time, the model calculates the trust using a variety of roles and distance-based metrics like Euclidean distance. To improve the identification of internal attacks and to guarantee the dependability of both cars and communications, Gyawali et al. (2020) have developed a reputation-based MDS (Misbehavior Detection System) based on machine learning. The Dempster-Shafer (DS)-based feedback combination uses the reputation score of each vehicle as a belief value, and the reputation update and revocation are based on a beta distribution.

Clustering algorithms are widely used in the VANET trust model study as a type of traditional machine learning technique. Cluster algorithms are frequently used in VANETs to choose the node with the highest trust value as the cluster leader among all groups of entities for the purpose of receiving additional data requests. A network architecture that is appropriate for effective communication can be achieved with the help of appropriate clustering algorithms (Gaber et al., 2018; Oubabas et al., 2018; Mahmood et al., 2019; Zhang C. et al., 2022).

Oubabas et al. (2018) put forward a method for choosing the reliable cluster heads in the event that a malicious or hacked node is elected as the cluster head. In contrast to other schemes that use a static trust function, the approach uses a new adaptive trust function to evaluate the data trust between nodes according to the reported event’s requirement in terms of trust severity. A timer is also used to reduce the control traffic during a clustering process by removing the competition between nodes to become cluster-heads. A bio-inspired and trust-based cluster head selection strategy for WSN used in ITS applications has been artistically proposed by Gaber et al. (2018). The Bat Optimization Algorithm (BOA) is used to pick the cluster heads based on three parameters: residual energy, trust value, and the number of neighbours. The trust level for each node is computed. Mahmood et al. (2019) presented a hybrid trust management strategy that uses intermittent elections to select the cluster head and proxy cluster head based on a composite measure (i.e., trust values assigned to the cars along with their resource availability). Zhang C. et al. (2022) described a variant of the cluster head selection problem, i.e., how to choose a suitable and trustworthy head vehicle while maintaining the privacy of user cars in a vehicle platoon when the vehicles join the vehicle platoon. To help potential user vehicles avoid choosing the malevolent head vehicles, a recommendation method known as TPPR is provided. Pseudonyms and the Paillier cryptosystem are used to protect the anonymity of the vehicles. A trust-based anomaly detection system for intelligent vehicles on the road was put forward by Yang et al. (2016), while also taking leader-based detection and the usefulness of RSUs into account. In order to guarantee robustness and fairness in the detection process, a central reputation arbitrator is proposed as a distributed supervisor. A reputation-based weighted clustering protocol (RWCP) for VANETs has been proposed in Ref Joshua et al. (2019) that takes into account each node’s reputation as well as the position, velocity, number of close vehicles, direction, and number of vehicles. The various RWCP control settings are optimized using the Multi Objective Firefly Algorithm (MOFA).

5.5.2 AI: Deep learning

Deep learning algorithms, particularly deep reinforcement learning algorithms, have received a lot of attention recently and are being used in VANETs (Zhang D. et al., 2018; Tangade et al., 2019; Gyawali et al., 2021; Zhang D. et al., 2022). The Deep Reinforcement Learning algorithm combines the perception ability of deep learning with the decision-making capacity of reinforcement learning and is used extensively coupled with trust or reputation models in VANETs (Zhang D. et al., 2018; Gyawali et al., 2021). A typical deep reinforcement learning based trust management scheme is shown in Figure 13. In this scheme, the local authority functions as an agent who not only gathers feedback but also chooses the best reputation policy, by interacting with the vehicular environment. Using the prior reputation policy, the average amount of true messages, and the typical reputation score of malicious vehicles, the local authority can estimate the current condition. The local authority can then decide on the action, or reputation policy, in order to maximize the reward based on the optimal policy.

FIGURE 13

A software-defined trust based deep reinforcement learning framework (TDRL-RP) that integrates a deep Q-learning algorithm into a logically centralized SDN controller has been proposed by Zhang D. et al. (2018). The trust model is created to assess neighbors’ packet-forwarding behaviors, and the SDN controller is utilized as an agent to learn the highest routing path trust value of a VANET environment. A unique software-defined trust based VANET architecture (SD-TDQL) has been developed in another study by Zhang D. et al. (2022), in which the centralized SDN controller serves as a learning agent to obtain the most advantageous communication link policy utilizing a deep Q-learning strategy. In a joint optimization problem, which is treated as a Markov decision process with state space, action space, and reward function, the trust of each vehicle and the reverse delivery ratio are taken into account. The anticipated transmission count (ETX) statistic measures the effectiveness of the communication link for connected vehicles. The dynamic reputation update policy developed by Gyawali et al. (2021) uses deep reinforcement learning to estimate the average amount of true messages by combining vehicle feedbacks with DS theory on VEC servers. To encourage cars to submit genuine feedback and prevent them from taking advantage of weak or strong reputation update methods, VEC uses deep reinforcement learning to establish the best reputation update policy. Tangade et al. (2019) proposed a Deep Neural Network (DNN)-based driver classification and trust computation (DL-DCTC) method that can distinguish fraudulent and non-fraudulent message/driver during V2V interactions and generate reward-points depending on driver behaviors.

While safeguarding their unique data sets, VANETs can employ federated learning (FL) to cooperatively train and update a shared machine learning model. By using a consensus approach in the blockchain, Otoum et al. (2020) provided a FL framework along with blockchain techniques to decentralize the shared machine learning models on end devices without any centralized training of the data or coordination.

6 Future directions for trust management in VANETs

7 Conclusion

Since secure communication assures accurate information transmission among vehicles in VANETs, many researchers, especially those in the security research field, are interested in improving the security of VANETs. This survey provides a succinct summary of recent developments in the field of trust and reputation management in VANETs in a technique-based taxonomy, which is different from many other surveys in the field of research. The survey begins by outlining the current attack types in VANETs and outlining the key issues that surround trust management in VANETs. In the survey, the current trust management models are divided into five categories: 1) Traditional techniques, 2) Network techniques, 3) Data techniques, 4) Situation and Location, and 5) AI-based models. Each trust management model in its category handles many aspects of trust difficulties from its own perspective, and can be utilized as a reference model for solutions to models of other categories. In addition to this, this kind of classification offers a unique opportunity for researchers and practitioners in this research field to scrutinize problems from a purely technical perspective. Although numerous models and schemes have been put forward for various objectives, there are still difficulties and significant problems that need to be overcome. In order to ensure higher levels of trust in the vehicular environment with a balanced trade-off in terms of security, QoS, performance, and privacy, the VANET research community may be expected to broadly research and apply hybrid schemes combining various variations of currently available technical solutions in the future.

We think that by providing new perspectives and studies in the area of trust and reputation management in VANETs, our work will help other researchers and professionals better understand the most recent research developments and directions in VANETs and establish clear research goals for themselves.

References

• 1

  AadI.HubauxJ. P.KnightlyE. W. (2004). “Denial of service resilience in ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the 10th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, 202–215.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AhmadF.FranqueiraV. N. L.AdnaneA. (2018). Team: A trust evaluation and management framework in context-enabled vehicular ad-hoc networks. IEEE Access6, 28643–28660. 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2837887

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AhmadF.KurugolluF.KerracheC. A.SezerS.LiuL. (2021). Notrino: A novel hybrid trust management scheme for internet-of-vehicles. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.70 (9), 9244–9257. 10.1109/tvt.2021.3049189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AhmedS.RehmanM. U.IshtiaqA.KhanS. U.AliA.BegumS. (2018). VANSec: Attack-Resistant VANET security algorithm in terms of trust computation error and normalized routing overhead. J. Sens.2018, 6576841. 10.1155/2018/6576841

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Al-kahtaniM. S. (2012). “Survey on security attacks in vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs),” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems, 1–9. 10.1109/ICSPCS.2012.6507953

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  ArifM.BalzanoW.FontanellaA.StranieriS.WangG.XingX. (2020). “Integration of 5G, VANETs and blockchain technology,” in 2020 IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), 2007–2013. 10.1109/TrustCom50675.2020.00275

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ArsalanA.RehmanR. A. (2018). “Prevention of timing attack in software defined named data network with VANETs,” in International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT), 247–252. 10.1109/FIT.2018.00050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AtwahR. J.FlocchiniP.NayakA. (2020). “Towards smart trust management of VANETs,” in 2020 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), 1–5. 10.1109/CCECE47787.2020.9255766

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AtzoriM. (2017). Blockchain-based architectures for the internet of things: A survey. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ.2017.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AyobiS.WangY.RabbaniM.AliD.JelodarH.HuangH.et al (2020). A lightweight blockchain-based trust model for smart vehicles in VANETs. SpaCCS2020, 276–289.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BaiadR.OtrokH.MuhaidatS.BentaharJ. (2014). “Cooperative cross layer detection for blackhole attack in VANET-OLSR,” in 2014 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), 863–868. 10.1109/IWCMC.2014.6906469

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BambergerW.SchlittenlacherJ.DiepoldK. (2010). “A trust model for intervehicular communication based on belief theory,” in Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom ’10) (Minneapolis, Minn, USA: IEEE), 73–80.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BanguiH.GeM.BuhnovaB. (2022). A hybrid machine learning model for intrusion detection in VANET. Computing104 (2022), 503–531. 10.1007/s00607-021-01001-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BellikarG.BhatiaA.HansdahR. C.SinghS. (2018). “3TAAV: A three-tier architecture for pseudonym-based anonymous authentication in VANETs,” in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN 2018) (Chiang Mai, Thailand: IEEE Computer Society), 420–425.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BiswasS.MišićJ.MišićV. (2012). “DdoS attack on WAVE-enabled VANET through synchronization,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 1079–1084. 10.1109/GLOCOM.2012.6503256

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BitamS.MelloukA.ZeadallyS. (2015). VANET-cloud: A generic cloud computing model for vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun.22 (1), 96–102. 10.1109/mwc.2015.7054724

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BittlS.GonzalezA. A.MyrtusM.BeckmannH.SailerS.EissfellerB. (2015). “Emerging attacks on VANET security based on GPS Time Spoofing,” in 2015 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS), 344–352. 10.1109/CNS.2015.7346845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BlazeM.FeigenbaumJ.KeromytisA. D. (1998). KeyNote: Trust management for public-key infrastructures. Berlin, Heidelberg: International Workshop on Security Protocols Springer.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  BlazeM.FeigenbaumJ.LacyJ. (1996). “Decentralized trust management,” in Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press), 164–173.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BragagnoloM. C.MessaiN.ManamanniN. (2019). “Attack detection in a cluster divided consensus network,” in Proceedings of the 18th Eur. Control Conf. (ECC), Jun. 2019, 1091–1096.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Caballero-GilP.Molina-GilJ.Hernandez-GoyaC.Caballero-GilC. (2009). “Stimulating cooperation in self-organized vehicular networks,” in APCC’09 Proceedings of the 15th Asia-Pacific conference on Communications, 2009.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ChenC.WangX.HanW.ZangB. (2009). “A robust detection of the sybil attack in urban VANETs,” in Proceedings of the 29th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 270–276. 10.1109/ICDCSW.2009.48

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  ChenL.LiQ.MartinK.NgS. (2013). “A privacy-aware reputation-based announcement scheme for VANETs,” in IEEE 5th International Symposium on Wireless Vehicular Communications (WiVeC), 1–5.

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  ChenX.WangL. (2017). A cloud-based trust management framework for vehicular social networks. IEEE Access5, 2967–2980. 10.1109/access.2017.2670024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  ChuanD. (2012). Towards a trusted vehicular routing in VANET. Inf. Technol. Convergence, Secure Trust Comput. Data Manag.2012, 103–117.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ChukwuochaC.ThulasiramanP.ThulasiramR. K. (2021). Trust and scalable blockchain-based message exchanging scheme on VANET. Peer. Peer. Netw. Appl.14, 3092–3109. 10.1007/s12083-021-01164-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  DewantaF.MamboM. (2019). “Trust establishment for vehicular fog computing service in rural area,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, PerCom workshops (Kyoto, Japan: IEEE), 882–887.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  DhamgayeA.ChavhanN. (2013). Survey on security challenges in VANET. Int. J. Comput. Sci.2, 88–96.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  EizaM. H.NiQ. (2012). “A reliability-based routing scheme for vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) on highways,” in 2012 IEEE 11th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, 1578–1585. 10.1109/TrustCom.2012.53

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  El-SayedH.ChaqfehM.El-KassabiH.SerhaniM. A.AlexanderH. (2019). Trust enforcement in vehicular networks: Challenges and opportunities. IET Wirel. Sens. Syst.9, 237. 10.1049/iet-wss.2018.5211

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  El-SayedH.IgnatiousH. A.KulkarniP.BouktifS. (2020). Machine learning based trust management framework for vehicular networks. Veh. Commun.25, 100256. 10.1016/j.vehcom.2020.100256

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  ElbattT.GoelS. K.HollandG.KrishnanH.ParikhJ. (2006). “Cooperative collision warning using dedicated short range wireless communications,” in VANET’06: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, 1–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  ErcanS.AyaidaM.MessaiN. (2022). Misbehavior detection for position falsification attacks in VANETs using machine learning. IEEE Access10 (2022), 1893–1904. 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3136706

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  GaberT.AbdelwahabS.ElhosenyM.HassanienA. E. (2018). Trust-based secure clustering in WSN-based intelligent transportation systems. Comput. Netw.146, 151–158. 10.1016/j.comnet.2018.09.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  GillaniM.UllahA.NiazH. A. (2018). “Trust management schemes for secure routing in VANETs-a survey,” in 12th International Conference on Mathematics, Actuarial Science, Computer Science and Statistics, MACS (Karachi, Pakistan: IEEE), 1–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  GM (2016). Threat assessment algorithm. Available at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/acas/acas-fieldtest/.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Gómez MármolF.Martínez PérezG. (2012). Trip: A trust and reputation infrastructure-based proposal for vehicular ad hoc networks. J. Netw. Comput. Appl.35 (3), 934–941. 10.1016/j.jnca.2011.03.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  GuetteG.DucourthialB. (2007). “On the Sybil attack detection in VANET,” in 2007 IEEE International Conference on Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems, 1–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  GulengS.WuC.ChenX.WangX.YoshinagaT.JiY. (2019). Decentralized trust evaluation in vehicular internet of things. IEEE Access7, 15980–15988. 10.1109/access.2019.2893262

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  GyawaliS.QianY.HuR. Q. (2021). Deep reinforcement learning based dynamic reputation policy in 5G based vehicular communication networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.70 (6), 6136–6146. 10.1109/TVT.2021.3079379

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  GyawaliS.QianY.HuR. Q. (2020). Machine learning and reputation based misbehavior detection in vehicular communication networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.69 (8), 8871–8885. 10.1109/TVT.2020.2996620

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  HamiehA.Ben-OthmanJ.MokdadL. (2009). “Detection of Radio interference attacks in VANET,” in GLOBECOM 2009: 2009 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 1–5. 10.1109/GLOCOM.2009.5425381

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  HanL.HanD.LiD. (2021). Behavior analysis and blockchain based trust management in VANETs. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput.151 (2021), 61–69. 10.1016/j.jpdc.2021.02.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  HanL.HanD.LiD. (2020). Fabric-iot: A blockchain-based access control system in IoT. IEEE Access8 (2020), 18207–18218. 10.1109/access.2020.2968492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  HaoY.TangJ.ChengY. (2011). “Cooperative sybil attack detection for position based applications in privacy preserved VANETs,” in 2011 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference – GLOBECOM 2011, 1–5. 10.1109/GLOCOM.2011.6134242

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  HatzivasilisG.SoultatosO.IoannidisS.SpanoudakisG.DemetriouG.KatosV. (2019). MobileTrust: Secure knowledge integration in VANETs. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst.4 (3), 1–25. 10.1145/3364181

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  HbaiebA.AyedS.ChaariL. (2022). A survey of trust management in the Internet of Vehicles. Comput. Netw.203, 108558. 10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108558

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  HongX.HuangD.GerlaM.CaoZ. (2008). “SAT: Situation-aware trust architecture for vehicular networks,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture, MobiArch’08, USA, 31–36.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  HouL.YaoN.LuZ.ZhanF.LiuZ. (2021). Tracking based mix-zone location privacy evaluation in VANET. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.70 (10), 10957–10969. 10.1109/TVT.2021.3109065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  HuY. C.PerrigA.JohnsonD. B. (2003). Packet leashes: A defense against wormhole attacks in wireless networksTwenty-second annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications. IEEE INFOCOMIEEE Soc.3, 1976–1986. 10.1109/INFCOM.2003.1209219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  HuangX.YuR.KangJ.ZhangY. (2017). Distributed reputation management for secure and efficient vehicular edge computing and networks. IEEE Access5, 25408–25420. 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2769878

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  HussainR.LeeJ. Y.ZeadallyS. (2021). Trust in VANET: A survey of current solutions and future research opportunities. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.22 (5), 2553–2571. 10.1109/tits.2020.2973715

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  HussainR.NawazW.LeeJ. Y.SonJ.SeoJ. T. (2016). A hybrid trust management framework for vehicular social networks. Proc. Cso Net.2016, 214–225.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  InedjarenY.MaachaouiM.ZeddiniB.BarbotJ. P. (2021). Blockchain-based distributed management system for trust in VANET. Veh. Commun.30, 100350. 10.1016/j.vehcom.2021.100350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  IqbalR.ButtT. A.AfzaalM.SalahK. (2019). Trust management in social Internet of Vehicles: Factors, challenges, blockchain, and fog solutions. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw.15 (1), 155014771982582. 10.1177/1550147719825820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  JalaliaM.AghaeeN. G. (2011). A fuzzy reputation system in vehicular ad hoc networks. Procedia Comput. Sci.5, 951–956. 10.1016/j.procs.2011.07.134

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  JavaidU.AmanM. N.SikdarB. (2019). “DrivMan: Driving trust management and data sharing in VANETs with blockchain and smart contracts,” in 2019 IEEE 89th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Spring), 1–5. 10.1109/VTCSpring.2019.8746499

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  JiangY.GeS.ShenX. (2020). AAAS: An anonymous authentication scheme based on group signature in VANETs. IEEE Access8, 98986–98998. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2997840

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  JordanM.ParedesC. I.Aguilar-IgartuaM. (2020). “Detection of position falsification attacks in VANETs applying trust model and machine learning,” in MSWiM '20: 23rd International ACM Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems, 9–16.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  JoshuaC. J.DuraisamyR.VaradarajanV. (2019). A reputation based weighted clustering protocol in VANET: A multi-objective firefly approach. Mob. Netw. Appl.24, 1199–1209. 10.1007/s11036-019-01257-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  KerracheC. A.CalafateC. T.CanoJ. C.LagraaN.ManzoniP. (2016). Trust management for vehicular networks: An adversary-oriented overview. IEEE Access4, 9293–9307. 10.1109/access.2016.2645452

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  KhanA. S.BalanK.JavedY.TarmiziS.AbdullahJ. (2019). Secure trust-based blockchain architecture to prevent attacks in VANET. Sensors19 (22), 4954. 10.3390/s19224954

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  KhanM. A.KumarN.MohsanS. A. H.KhanW. U.NasrallaM. M.AlsharifM. H.et al (2022). Swarm of UAVs for network management in 6G: A technical review. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manage.2022, 3213370. 10.1109/TNSM.2022.3213370

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  KudvaS.BadshaS.SenguptaS.HungM. L.KhalilI.AtiquzzamanM. (2021). A scalable blockchain based trust management in VANET routing protocol. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput.152, 144–156. 10.1016/j.jpdc.2021.02.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  LeeE. J.BaeI. H. (2014). A reputation-based adaptive trust management system for vehicular clouds. TRIDENTCOM2014, 77–86.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  LeventeB.HolczerT.WeimerskirchA.WhyteW. (2009). “Slow: A practical pseudonym changing scheme for location privacy in VANETs,” in Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC) (Tokyo, Japan: IEEE).

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  LiB.LiangR.ZhuD.ChenW.LinQ. (2021). Blockchain-based trust management model for location privacy preserving in VANET. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.22 (6), 3765–3775. 10.1109/TITS.2020.3035869

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  LiF.GuoZ.ZhangC.LiW.WangY. (2021). ATM: An active-detection trust mechanism for VANETs based on blockchain. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.70 (5), 4011–4021. 10.1109/TVT.2021.3050007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LiJ.XingR.SuZ.ZhangN.HuiY.LuanT. H.et al (2020). Trust based secure content delivery in vehicular networks: A bargaining game theoretical approach. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.69 (3), 3267–3279. 10.1109/tvt.2020.2964685

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  LiW.SongH. (2016). ART: An attack-resistant trust management scheme for securing vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.17 (4), 960–969. 10.1109/tits.2015.2494017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  LiX.LiuJ.LiX.SunW. (2013). “RGTE: A reputation-based global trust establishment in VANETs,” in Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCoS ’13) (Xi’an, China: IEEE), 210–214.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LikM.MohtashemiM.HalberstadtA. (2002). A computational model of trust and reputation in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences IEEE.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  LiuX.HuangH.XiaoF.MaZ. (2020). A blockchain-based trust management with conditional privacy-preserving announcement scheme for VANETs. IEEE Internet Things J.7 (5), 4101–4112. 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2957421

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  LuZ.LiuW.WangQ.QuG.LiuZ. (2018b2018). A privacy-preserving trust model based on blockchain for VANETs. IEEE Access6, 45655–45664. 10.1109/access.2018.2864189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  LuZ.QuG.LiuZ. (2019). A survey on recent advances in vehicular network security, trust, and privacy. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.20 (2), 760–776. 10.1109/tits.2018.2818888

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  LuZ.WangQ.QuG.LiuZ. (2018a). Bars: A blockchain-based anonymous reputation system for trust management in VANETs. TrustCom/BigDataSE2018, 98–103.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  LuoB.LiX.WengJ.GuoJ.MaJ. (2020). Blockchain enabled trust-based location privacy protection scheme in VANET. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.69 (2), 2034–2048. 10.1109/TVT.2019.2957744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  MaZ.Richard YuF.JiangX.BoukercheA. (2020). “Trustworthy traffic information sharing secured via blockchain in VANETs,” in DIVANet '20: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Design and Analysis of Intelligent Vehicular Networks and Applications, 33–40.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  MahmoodA.ButlerB.ZhangW. E.ShengQ. Z.SiddiquiS. A. (2019). “A hybrid trust management heuristic for VANETs,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, PerCom Workshops (Kyoto, Japan: IEEE), 748–752.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  MahmoodA.ShengQ. Z.Ali SiddiquiS.SagarS.ZhangW. E.SuzukiH.et al (2021). When trust meets the internet of vehicles: Opportunities, challenges, and future prospects. CIC2021, 60–67.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  MaoM.PengY.HuT.ZhangZ.LuX.LeiJ. (2021). Hierarchical hybrid trust management scheme in SDN-enabled VANETs. Mob. Inf. Syst.2021, 7611619. 10.1155/2021/7611619

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  MaskeyS. R.BadshaS.SenguptaS.KhalilI. (2021). Reputation-based miner node selection in blockchain-based vehicular edge computing. IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag.10 (5), 14–22. 10.1109/MCE.2020.3048312

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  MehdiM. M.RazaI.HussainS. A. (2017). A game theory based trust model for vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs). Comput. Netw.121, 152–172. 10.1016/j.comnet.2017.04.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  MejriM. N.Ben-OthmanJ.HamdiM. (2014). Survey on VANET security challenges and possible cryptographic solutions. Veh. Commun.1 (2), 53–66. 10.1016/j.vehcom.2014.05.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  MikavicaB.Kostic-LjubisavljevicA. (2021). Blockchain-based solutions for security, privacy, and trust management in vehicular networks: A survey. J. Supercomput.77 (9), 9520–9575. 10.1007/s11227-021-03659-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  MovahediZ.HosseiniZ.BayanF.PujolleG. (2016). Trust-distortion resistant trust management frameworks on mobile ad hoc networks: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials18 (2), 1287–1309. 10.1109/comst.2015.2496147

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  NadeemT.DashtinezhadS.LiaoC.IftodeL. (2004). Trafficview: Traffic data dissemination using car-to-car communication. Sigmob. Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev.8 (3), 6–19. 10.1145/1031483.1031487

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  OluochJ. (2016). “A distributed reputation scheme for situation awareness in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs),” in IEEE International Multi-disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (San Diego, CA, USA: IEEE).

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  OrtegaV.BouchmalF.MonserratJ. F. (2018). Trusted 5G vehicular networks: Blockchains and content-centric networking. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag.13 (2), 121–127. 10.1109/mvt.2018.2813422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  OtoumS.Al RidhawiI.MouftahH. T. (2020). “Blockchain-supported federated learning for trustworthy vehicular networks,” in GLOBECOM 2020 – 2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2020, 1–6. 10.1109/GLOBECOM42002.2020.9322159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  OubabasS.AoudjitR.RodriguesJ. J.TalbiS. (2018). Secure and stable vehicular ad hoc network clustering algorithm based on hybrid mobility similarities and trust management scheme. Veh. Commun.13, 128–138. 10.1016/j.vehcom.2018.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  ParkS.AslamB.ZouC. C. (2011). “Long-term reputation system for vehicular networking based on vehicle’s daily commute routine,” in Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC ’11), Las Vegas, Nev, USA, 436–441.

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  ParnoB.PerrigA. (2005). Challenges in securing vehicular networks. College Park, MD, USA: Proc. Workshop HotNets-IV, 1–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  PatelA.ShahN.LimbasiyaT.DasD. (2019). “VehicleChain: Blockchain-based vehicular data transmission scheme for smart city,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), 661–667. 10.1109/SMC.2019.8914391

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  PathanA. S. K. (2011). Security of self-organizing networks: MANET, WSN, WMN, VANET. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press, Auerbach, 200.

  • Google Scholar

• 96

  PathreA.AgrawalC.JainA. (2013). “A novel defense scheme against DDOS attack in VANET,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks (WOCN), 1–5. 10.1109/WOCN.2013.6616194

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  PedroC.ZúqueteA.SargentoS. (2018). TROPHY: Trustworthy VANET routing with group authentication keys. Ad Hoc Netw.71, 45–67. 10.1016/j.adhoc.2017.12.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  PhamT. N. D.YeoC. K. (2018). Adaptive trust and privacy management framework for vehicular networks. Veh. Commun.13, 1–12. 10.1016/j.vehcom.2018.04.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  PremasudhaB. G.Ravi RamV.MillerJ.SumaR. (2016). A review of security threats, solutions and trust management in VANETs. Int. J. Next-Generation Comput.7 (1).

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  QafzeziE.KevinB.AmpriritP.IkedaM.MatsuoK.LeonardB. (2021). A fuzzy-based approach for resource management in SDN-VANETs: Effect of trustworthiness on assessment of available edge computing resources. J. High. Speed Netw.27 (1), 33–44. 10.3233/jhs-210650

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  QinY.HuangD.ZhangX. (2012). “VehiCloud: Cloud computing facilitating routing in vehicular networks,” in 2012 IEEE 11th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, 1438–1445. 10.1109/TrustCom.2012.16

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  RaghavR. S.DanuR.RamalingamA.Krishna KumarG. (2013). Detection of node impersonation for emergency vehicles in VANET. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol.02 (12).

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  RahmanS.HengartnerU. (2007). “Secure vehicle crash reporting in vehicular Ad hoc networks,” in SecureComm 2007, 443–452.

  • Google Scholar

• 104

  RayaM.AzizA.HubauxJ. (2006). “Efficient secure aggregation in VANETs,” in VANET’06: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, 67–75.

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  RayaM.HubauxJ. (2007). Securing vehicular ad hoc networks. J. Comput. Secur.15 (1), 39–68. 10.3233/JCS-2007-15103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  RayaM.HubauxJ. (2005b). “Security aspects of inter-vehicle communications,” in Proceedings of the 5th Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC), Ascona, Switzerland, March 2005.

  • Google Scholar

• 107

  RayaM.HubauxJ. (2005a). “The security of vehicular ad hoc networks,” in SASN '05: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Security of ad hoc and sensor networks, 11–21.

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  RayaM.PapadimitratosP.GligorV.HubauxJ. P. (2008). “On datacentric trust establishment in ephemeral ad hoc networks,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2008. The 27th Conference on Computer Communications, 1238–1246.

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  RazaS.WangS.AhmedM.AnwarM. R. (2019). A survey on vehicular edge computing: Architecture, applications, technical issues, and future directions. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput.2019, 3159762. 10.1155/2019/3159762

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  SagarS.JavaidN.KhanZ. A.SaqibJ.BibiA.BoukS. H. (2012). “Analysis and modeling experiment performance parameters of routing protocols in MANETs and VANETs. in ”2012 IEEE 11th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, 1867–1871. 10.1109/TrustCom.2012.89

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  SakizF.SenS. (2017). A survey of attacks and detection mechanisms on intelligent transportation systems: VANETs and IoV. Ad Hoc Netw.61, 33–50. 10.1016/j.adhoc.2017.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  SataraddiM. J.KakkasageriM. S. (2020). Hybrid routing protocol for VANETs: Delay and trust based approach. J. High Speed Netw.26 (4), 275–290. 10.3233/jhs-200644

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  SataraddiM. J.KakkasageriM. S. (2019). “Trust and delay based routing for VANETs,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommunications Systems (ANTS 2019) (Goa, India: IEEE), 1–6. 10.1109/ANTS47819.2019.9118159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  SatoshiN. (2019). Bitcoin—open source P2P money. Available at: https://bitcoin.org/en/.

  • Google Scholar

• 115

  SernaJ.LunaJ.MedinaM. (2009). Geolocation-based trust for vanet’s privacy. J. Inf. Assur. Secur.4, 432–439.

  • Google Scholar

• 116

  SernaJ. M.JesusL.ManelM. (2008). “Geolocation-based trust for vanet’s privacy,” in 2008 The Fourth International Conference on Information Assurance and Security, 287–290.

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  ShaikS.RatnamD. V. (2022). A trust based energy and mobility aware routing protocol to improve infotainment services in VANETs. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.15 (1), 576–591. 10.1007/s12083-021-01272-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  SheikhM. S.LiangJ. (2019). A comprehensive survey on VANET security services in traffic management system. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput.2019, 2423915. 10.1155/2019/2423915

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  ShenJ.WangC.LaiJ. -F.XiangY.LiP. (2019). CATE: Cloud-aided trustworthiness evaluation scheme for incompletely predictable vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.68 (11), 11213–11226. 10.1109/TVT.2019.2938968

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  ShibinW.NianminY. (2019). A RSU-aided distributed trust framework for pseudonym-enabled privacy preservation in VANETs. Wirel. Netw.25 (3), 1099–1115. 10.1007/s11276-018-1681-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  SiddiquiS. A.MahmoodA.ZhangW. E.ShengQ. Z. (2019). “Poster: A machine learning based hybrid trust management heuristic for vehicular ad hoc networks,” in MobiCom '19: The 25th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, 1–3.

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  SlamaA.LenglizI.BelghithA. (2018). “TCSR: An AIMD trust-based protocol for secure routing in VANET,” in 2018 International Conference on Smart Communications and Networking (SmartNets 2018), 1–8. 10.1109/SMARTNETS.2018.8707389

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  SoleymaniS. A.AbdullahA. H.HassanW. H.Hossein AnisiM.GoudarziS.BaeeM. A. R.et al (2015). Trust management in vehicular ad hoc network: A systematic review. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw.2015, 146. 10.1186/s13638-015-0353-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  SoleymaniS. A.GoudarziS.AnisiM. H.KamaN.IsmailS. A.AzmiA.et al (2020). A trust model using edge nodes and a Cuckoo filter for securing VANET under the NloS condition. Symmetry12 (4), 609. 10.3390/sym12040609

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  SouissiI.Ben AzzounaN.BerradiaT. (2019). Trust management in vehicular ad hoc networks: A survey. Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput.31 (4), 230–243. 10.1504/ijahuc.2019.10022743

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  SumithraS.VadivelR. (2018). “An overview of various trust models for VANET security establishment,” in 2018 9th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 1–7.

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  SumithraS.VadivelR. (2019). “NB-FTBM model for entity trust evaluation in vehicular ad hoc network security,” in Ubiquitous communications and network computing. UBICNET 2019. Lecture notes of the institute for computer sciences, social informatics and telecommunications engineering. Editors KumarN.Venkatesha PrasadR. (Cham: Springer), Vol. 276.

  • Google Scholar

• 128

  SumraI. A.AhmadI.HasbullahH.bin Ab MananJ. -l. (2011a). “Behavior of attacker and some new possible attacks in Vehicular Ad hoc Network (VANET),” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), 1–8.

  • Google Scholar

• 129

  SumraI. A.MananJ. A. B.HasbullahH. (2011b). “Timing attack in vehicular network,” in Proceedings of the 15th WSEAS international conference on Computers, 151–155.

  • Google Scholar

• 130

  SunD.ZhaoH.Cheng.S. (2016). A novel membership cloud model-based trust evaluation model for vehicular ad hoc network of T-CPS. Secur. Comm. Netw.9 (18), 5710–5723. 10.1002/sec.1730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  SunY.ZhangB.ZhaoB.SuX.SuJ. (2015). Mix-zones optimal deployment for protecting location privacy in VANET. Peer. Peer. Netw. Appl.8, 1108–1121. 10.1007/s12083-014-0269-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  TangadeS.ManviS. S.HassanS. (2019). “A deep learning based driver classification and trust computation in VANETs,” in 2019 IEEE 90th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Fall), 1–6. 10.1109/VTCFall.2019.8891462

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  TangadeS.ManviS. S.LorenzP. (2020). Trust management scheme based on hybrid cryptography for secure communications in VANETs. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.69 (5), 5232–5243. 10.1109/TVT.2020.2981127

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  TianZ.GaoX.SuS.QiuJ.DuX.GuizaniM. (2019). Evaluating reputation management schemes of internet of vehicles based on evolutionary game theory. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.68 (6), 5971–5980. 10.1109/tvt.2019.2910217

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  VaibhavA.ShuklaD.DasS.SahanaS.JohriP. (2017). Security challenges, authentication, application and trust models for vehicular ad hoc network- A survey. Int. J. Wirel. Microw. Technol.7 (3), 36–48. 10.5815/ijwmt.2017.03.04

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  VegniV. M.LoscríV. (2015). A survey on vehicular social networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials17 (4), 2397–2419.

  • Google Scholar

• 137

  Venitta RajR.BalasubramanianK. (2021). RETRACTED article: Trust aware similarity-based source routing to ensure effective communication using game-theoretic approach in VANETs. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput.12, 6781–6791. 10.1007/s12652-020-02306-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  VermaK.HasbullahH.KumarA. (2013). Prevention of DoS attacks in VANET. Wirel. Pers. Commun.73 (1), 95–126. 10.1007/s11277-013-1161-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  WangC.ShenJ.LaiJ. F.LiuJ. (2021). B-TSCA: Blockchain assisted trustworthiness scalable computation for V2I authentication in VANETs. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput.9 (3), 1386–1396. 10.1109/TETC.2020.2978866

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  WangJ.ZhangM.GuX.WangT.WangJ.ChenL. (2021). Research of vehicular cloud storage resource management based on trust mechanism. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw.17 (3), 155014772110063. 10.1177/15501477211006346

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  WangJ.ZhangY.WangY.GuX. (2016). RPRep: A robust and privacy-preserving reputation management scheme for pseudonym-enabled VANETs. Int. J. Distributed Sens. Netw.2016, 6138251. 10.1155/2016/6138251

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  WangS.HeY. (2016). “A trust system for detecting selective forwarding attacks in VANETs,” in Big data computing and communications. BigCom 2016. Editors WangY.YuG.ZhangY.HanZ.WangG. (Cham: Springer), Vol. 9784. 10.1007/978-3-319-42553-5_32

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  WexP.BreuerJ.HeldA.LeinmullerT.DelgrossiL. (2008). “Trust issues for vehicular ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the 67th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring).

  • Google Scholar

• 144

  WuA.MaJ.ZhangS. (2011). “RATE: A RSU-aided scheme for data-centric trust establishment in VANETs,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM ’11) (Wuhan, China: IEEE), 1–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 145

  XiaH.ZhangS.LiB.LiL.ChengX. (2018). Towards a novel trust-based multicast routing for VANETs. Secur. Commun. Netw.2018, 7608198. 10.1155/2018/7608198

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  XieL.DingY.YangH.WangX. (2019). Blockchain-based secure and trustworthy internet of things in SDN-enabled 5G-VANETs. IEEE Access7, 56656–56666. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2913682

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  XuQ.MakT.KoJ.SenguptaR. (2004). “Vehicle-to-vehicle safety messaging in DSRC,” in VANET’04: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, Philadelphia, 19–28.

  • Google Scholar

• 148

  YaX.ShihuiZ.BinS. (2015). Trusted GPSR protocol without reputation faking in VANET. J. China Univ. Posts Telecommun.22 (5), 22–55. 10.1016/s1005-8885(15)60676-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  YanG.WenD.OlariuS.WeigleM. C. (2013). Security challenges in vehicular cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.14 (1), 284–294. 10.1109/tits.2012.2211870

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  YangN. (2013). A similarity based trust and reputation management framework for VANETs. Int. J. Future Generation Commun. Netw.6 (2), 25–34.

  • Google Scholar

• 151

  YangQ.WangH. (2015). Toward trustworthy vehicular social networks. IEEE Commun. Mag.53 (8), 42–47. 10.1109/mcom.2015.7180506

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  YangS.LiuZ.LiJ.WangS.YangF. (2016). Anomaly detection for internet of vehicles: A trust management scheme with affinity propagation. Mob. Inf. Syst.2016, 5254141. 10.1155/2016/5254141

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  YangY. T.Li-DerC.TsengC. W.TsengF. H.LiuC. C. (2019). Blockchain-based traffic event validation and trust verification for VANETs. IEEE Access7, 30868–30877. 10.1109/access.2019.2903202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  YingB.MakrakisD. (2015). “Reputation-based pseudonym change for location privacy in vehicular networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Jun. 2015, 7041–7046.

  • Google Scholar

• 155

  Yu ChihW.ChenY. M. (2012). “Efficient self-organized trust management in location privacy enhanced VANETs,” in International Workshop on Information Security Applications 2012.

  • Google Scholar

• 156

  Yu ChihW.ChenY. M.ShanH. L. (2011). “Beacon-based trust management for location privacy enhancement VANETs,” in 2011 13th Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  YuanpanZ.ChenG.GuoL. (2020). An anonymous authentication scheme in VANETs of smart city based on certificateless group signature. Complexity2020, 1378202. 10.1155/2020/1378202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  ZengC.WangY.LiangF.PengX. (2020). “Fengyi: Trusted data sharing in VANETs with blockchain,” in 2020 IEEE 25th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC), 11–20. 10.1109/PRDC50213.2020.00012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  ZhangC.ChenK.ZengX.XueX. (2018). Misbehavior detection based on support vector machine and dempster-shafer theory of evidence in VANETs. IEEE Access6, 59860–59870. 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2875678

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  ZhangC.ZhuL.XuC.SharifK.GuizaniM.LiuX.et al (2022). Tppr: A trust-based and privacy-preserving platoon recommendation scheme in VANET. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput.15 (2), 806–818. 10.1109/TSC.2019.2961992

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  ZhangD.YuF. R.YangR. (2018). “A machine learning approach for software-defined vehicular ad hoc networks with trust management,” in 2018 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 1–6. 10.1109/GLOCOM.2018.8647426

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  ZhangD.YuF. R.YangR.ZhuL. (2022). Software-defined vehicular networks with trust management: A deep reinforcement learning approach. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.23 (2), 1400–1414. 10.1109/TITS.2020.3025684

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  ZhangJ. (2011). “A survey on trust management for VANETs,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, 105–112.

  • Google Scholar

• 164

  ZhangJ. (2012). Trust management for VANETs: Challenges, desired properties and future directions. Int. J. Distributed Syst. Technol.3 (1), 48–62. 10.4018/jdst.2012010104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  ZhangL.XuJ. (2021). “Anonymous authentication scheme based on trust and blockchain in VANETs,” in algorithms and architectures for parallel processing. ICA3PP 2021, LNCS. Editors LaiY.WangT.JiangM.XuG.LiangW.CastiglioneA. (Cham: Springer), 13156, 473–488. 10.1007/978-3-030-95388-1_31

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  ZhiquanL.MaJ.JiangZ.ZhuH.MiaoY. (2016). Lsot: A lightweight self-organized trust model in VANETs. Mob. Inf. Syst.2016, 1–15. 10.1155/2016/7628231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  ZhiquanL.WengJ.MaJ.GuoJ.FengB.JiangZ.et al (2020). Tcemd: A trust cascading-based emergency message dissemination model in VANETs. IEEE Internet Things J.7 (5), 4028–4048. 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2957520

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar