- Upload File
- Most Popular
- Art & Photos
- SAMPLE PROPOSAL TITLE PAGE - Computer Scienceevans/theses/kwok.pdf · SAMPLE PROPOSAL TITLE PAGE A...
SAMPLE PROPOSAL TITLE PAGE - Computer Scienceevans/theses/kwok.pdf · SAMPLE PROPOSAL TITLE PAGE A Wireless Protocol to Prevent Wormhole Attacks A Thesis in TCC 402 Presented to The
Author others
Embed Size (px) 344 x 292 429 x 357 514 x 422 599 x 487
Text of SAMPLE PROPOSAL TITLE PAGE - Computer Scienceevans/theses/kwok.pdf · SAMPLE PROPOSAL TITLE PAGE A...
SAMPLE PROPOSAL TITLE PAGE
A Wireless Protocol to Prevent Wormhole Attacks
A Thesis in TCC 402
Presented to
The Faculty of the School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of Virginia
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering
Jackson Kwok
March 23, 2004 On my honor as a University student, on this assignment I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid as defined by the Honor Guidelines for Papers in TCC Courses.
_______________________________________
Approved _______________________________________ Date______ Technical Advisor – David Evans
Approved _______________________________________ Date______ TCC Advisor – Claire Chantell
Preface I would like to thank Professor David Evans, my Technical Advisor, for his support and
advisory work during the course of this project, and Professor Claire Chantell for her aid
as my TCC advisor. I would also like to thank Lingxuan Hu, a graduate student in the
computer science department for contributing source code and documentation necessary
to produce this project. Also, I like to credit the computer science department providing
me with resources and network disk space, for which I am very grateful.
Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES………………………………..……………………………………………………..…i GLOSSARY OF TERMS…………………………………………...………………………….…………..ii ABSTRACT………………………………………….……………………………………………………..iii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................2
A. Thesis Statement ................................................................................................................................5 B. Problem Definition ............................................................................................................................5 C. Background and Previous Work .......................................................................................................8 D. Rationale and Scope of the Project...................................................................................................8 E. Overview of the Report......................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS WORK....................................................................10 A. Localization Schemes ......................................................................................................................10 B. Packet Leashes ................................................................................................................................13 C. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER 3: PROTOCOL DESIGN .......................................................................................................15 A. Goals ...............................................................................................................................................15 B. Design of the Network and Network Devices ..................................................................................16 C. Protocol Functionality ....................................................................................................................18 D. Protocol Transfer Notation (PTN)..................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..........................................................26 A. Choice of Development Tools..........................................................................................................26 B. Software Development.....................................................................................................................27 C. Experiments and Results .................................................................................................................28 D. Discussion.......................................................................................................................................31
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................35 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................36 APPENDIX A. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK .........................................................38 APPENDIX B: SIMULATION RESULTS ...............................................................................................39
A. Variables .........................................................................................................................................39 B. Raw Data.........................................................................................................................................40
List of Figures Figure 1: Set-up of a wormhole. ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Selective Forwarding........................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Strategic Placement of Wormhole....................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Neighbor List..................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Denial of Service (DoS) Attack. ...................................................................... 20 Figure 6: One-Hop Calculation. ...................................................................................... 21 Figure 7: Hop-Counts. .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8: Two-Hop Calculation. ..................................................................................... 23 Figure 9: JFreeChart GUI Software. ............................................................................... 27 Figure 10: Experiment 1 Results. .................................................................................... 29 Figure 11: Test 2 Results. ............................................................................................... 31 Figure 12: Connectivity. ................................................................................................. 31 Figure 13: Experiment 1 Results. .................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Experiment 2 Results. .................................................................................... 33
Glossary of Terms Asymmetric Key Cryptography – also known as public key encryption. Relies on a pair of public and private keys to encrypt and decrypt messages sent across the network. Denial of Service (DoS) attack – an incident in which a user or organization is deprived of the services of a resource they would normally expect to have. Typically, the loss of service is the inability of a particular network service, such as e-mail, to be available or the temporary loss of all network connectivity and services. Global Positioning System (GPS) – a system that reports its geographic location using satellites orbiting the earth. The location accuracy is anywhere from 100 to 10 meters for most equipment. Accuracy can be pinpointed to within one (1) meter with special military-approved equipment. hop count – the number of nodes a packet travels from a sending node to a receiving node. network – any series of points or nodes interconnected by communication paths. Networks can interconnect with other networks and contain sub networks. nodes – a connection point on a network. Possible nodes may include network devices such as a computer, laptop, hub or router. packet – a unit of data that is routed between an origin and a destination on the Internet or any other packet-switched network. protocol – a special set of rules to be followed on a computer network. For example, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) governs how to transfer data on the World Wide Web. selective forwarding – a technique that allows nodes to refuse forwarding certain packets and simply drop them, ensuring that they are not propagated any further in the network. Symmetric Key Cryptography – also known as shared key encryption. Relies on the secrecy of one key between two nodes to encrypt and decrypt messages in the network. wormhole – a tunnel in a network which allows signals from nodes to travel faster than normal. This is similar to the definition of a wormhole in space which allows faster space travel. wormhole attack – an attack done using one or more wormholes in a network. A successful attack may result in a disruption or breakdown of a network. Source: http://whatis.techtarget.com
Abstract As an increasing number of people are going wireless, reducing the vulnerability
of wireless networks is becoming a top priority. Wireless networks are susceptible to
many attacks, including an attack known as the wormhole attack. The wormhole attack is
very powerful and preventing the attack has proven to be very difficult. A strategic
placement of the wormhole can result in a significant breakdown in communication
across a wireless network.
This project designed and developed a new protocol that prevents wormhole
attacks on wireless networks. The design of this protocol is based on the use of
asymmetric and symmetric key cryptography and a Global Positioning System (GPS). It
was evaluated using simulations under realistic ad-hoc network settings. The simulations
identified the strengths and weaknesses of this protocol under different distributions of
GPS and non-GPS nodes, network areas and network structures. Within a set of
requirements and assumptions, this wireless security protocol can detect nearly half of
wormhole attacks by relying on each node’s relative location.
Chapter 1: Introduction
A. Thesis Statement
The increasing popularity and usage of wireless technology is creating a need for
more secure wireless networks. Wireless networks are particularly vulnerable to a
powerful attack known as the wormhole attack. This project researched and developed a
new protocol that prevents wormhole attacks on a wireless network. A few existing
protocols detect wormhole attacks but they require highly specialized equipment not
found on most wireless devices. This project aims to develop a defense against
wormhole attacks that does not require as a significant amount of specialized equipment.
In this new protocol, only a subnet of nodes requires a Global Positioning System (GPS),
which enables the network devices to detect their own location. The thesis of this project
suggests that the collaboration between GPS and non-GPS nodes can provide adequate
detection of wormhole attacks in a wireless network. The analysis of this project’s
results may present valuable insight for new approaches in handling wormhole attacks in
the field of wireless security.
B. Problem Definition
Ad-hoc or spontaneous wireless networks are threatened by a powerful attack
known as the wormhole attack. A wormhole attack can be set up with relative ease, but
preventing one is difficult. To set up a wormhole attack, an attacker places two or more
transceivers at different locations on a wireless network as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Set-up of a wormhole. Node A can reach node C within a shorter time with the help of a wormhole.
This establishes a wormhole or tunnel through which data can transfer faster than it could
on the original network. After setting up a wormhole, an attacker can disrupt routing to
direct packets through the wormhole using a technique known as selective forwarding
depicted in Figure 2. A strategic placement of the wormhole can result in a significant
breakdown in communication across a wireless network as shown in Figure 3 [4: 3].
Figure 2: Selective Forwarding. Lower right portion of network relies on wormhole link to route information. Disconnecting wormhole link results in breakdown of the network.
Node C Node A Node B
Network Under Wormhole
Normal Network
Transceivers
Wormhole link
Selective Forwarding
Transceivers Wormhole link
Network under wormhole
Online Node Offline Node
Figure 3: Strategic Placement of Wormhole. The routes to the base station are disrupted the closer the wormhole endpoints are to the base station [4: 3].
Wireless networking is a young technology and thus, many wireless network
devices have not been designed to defend against wormhole attacks. For example, a
sensor network device called the Mica mote has the ability to sense information about its
surroundings such as temperature, sound or movement [9: 1]. Supplied with a 4 MHz
processor, 512KB flash memory and two AA batteries, the Mica mote has little room for
security measures to protect itself from a wormhole attack [9: 1].
Current network protocols are also vulnerable to wormhole attacks. Protocols are
a special set of rules that nodes follow on a network. Nodes or network devices such as
laptops, computers or the Mica mote explained above, currently do not follow rules that
help them detect wormhole attacks. Cryptography, which is used widely to secure
transfer of information in protocols, will not prevent wormhole attacks. As a result, this
project advocates the need for new set of protocols for wireless networks.
C. Background and Previous Work
Several techniques such as localization schemes and packet leashes can possibly
prevent wormhole attacks. Localization systems verify the relative locations of nodes in
a wireless network [4: 2]. Packet leashes restrict the packet’s maximum allowed distance
of transmission [6: 4]. Published research describes protocols that use directional
antennas, ultrasonic signals and other additional equipment to prevent wormhole attacks.
These techniques and specialized equipment may help detect wormholes in wireless
networks and therefore prevent wormhole attacks. A detailed review of these techniques
appears in chapter two.
D. Rationale and Scope of the Project
Wireless networks are currently very insecure and thus, they are easy targets for
attackers. Major users of wireless systems, such as the military, government, emergency
response teams and businesses can fall prey to these threats. Ideally, all wireless networks
would be protected from wormhole attacks. Existing wireless security protocols have
been able to block some but not all wormhole attacks. In these protocols, there are
compromises between performance and security. This project provides an overview of
the available protocols and offers an alternative solution which can reduce the risk of a
wormhole attack. This alternative protocol can be implemented and simulated under
reasonable requirements of cost and usability. This report also includes a discussion and
recommendation for further research on this topic. Users of wireless network technology
and applications such as sensor networks should benefit significantly from continued
research in this field.
E. Overview of the Report
Chapter two provides a review of previous work in preventing wormhole attacks.
Chapter three discusses the protocol design. Chapter four describes experiments
conducted by this project and using the results, evaluates the extent of the protocol’s
ability to prevent wormhole attacks. Chapter five draws a conclusion and recommends
ideas for future work to prevent wormhole attacks.
Chapter 2: Background and Previous Work
This chapter discusses previous work on preventing wormhole attacks. All
protocols in this section fall under two broad categories: localization schemes and packet
A. Localization Schemes
Wireless security protocols based on localization have the potential to detect
wormhole attacks [4: 2]. Localization systems are based on verifying the relative
locations of nodes in a wireless network [4: 2]. Knowing the relative location may help
conclude whether or not packets are sent by either a node or wormhole. Several
localization schemes discussed in this section: Echo Protocol, Area-based Point
Triangulation Test (APIT), Coordinate System, Signal Strength and Infra-Red (IR), and
Directional Antennas.
Sastry, Shankar and Wagner from the University of California at Berkeley discuss
a location verification scheme known as the Echo protocol [16: 1]. Rather than focusing
on individual nodes of a network, this protocol emphasizes the regions of verification
[16: 3]. Nodes in the regions of verification must prove they are part of the wireless
network using radio frequency (RF) and ultrasonic sound capabilities [16: 3]. A verified
node sends a RF signal to an unverified node in the network. To prove it is part of the
network, the unverified node sends an ultrasonic signal back to the verified node. The
verified node determines whether or not the unverified node is in the region of
verification depending on the time it takes to receive an ultrasonic signal [16: 5]. RF
signals are used in most wireless network devices today. The strong points of this
protocol are that cryptography and tight time-synchronization are not needed. However,
because each network device needs additional equipment to detect and emit ultrasonic
sound frequencies, this protocol may detract some developers from adopting this idea to
prevent wormhole attacks.
He, Huang, Blum, Stankovic and Abdelzaher developed an area-based point in
triangulation test (APIT) which uses triangulation to determine the location of nodes in a
network [2: 1]. Calculations are performed to check whether or not certain nodes are
within triangles formed by anchors, which are nodes with Global Positioning System
(GPS) [2: 3]. These calculations determine the relative locations of all nodes in the
network which may prove helpful to combating wormhole attacks. Compared to the
Echo protocol, APIT does not require additional equipment for ultrasonic sound
frequencies. However, APIT does require some nodes to have GPS in the wireless
network to give some reference of locations in a network so that nodes without GPS have
a relative idea of where they stand [2: 1].
Another localization scheme known as the coordinate system involves the work
done by Nagpal, Shrobe and Bachrach at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
[10: 1]. Similar to the APIT, the protocol uses a subset of GPS nodes to provide nodes
without GPS a sense of relative location [10: 2]. This is achieved using two algorithms:
the gradient which measures a GPS node’s hop count from a point in a network, and
multilateration, which determines the way GPS nodes spread information of its location
to nodes without GPS [10 3-4]. Hop counts tell how far a node is from a particular
source. A flaw in using this scheme is that wormholes can disrupt hop counts within a
network [5: 2]. Therefore, any system following this scheme is rendered defenseless
under wormhole attacks.
Bulusu, Heidemann and Estrin discuss other localization techniques such as the
verification of signal strength and Infra Red (IR) [1: 3]. Weaker signal strengths may
indicate a node is farther away. However, signal strengths are not reliable outdoors
because ambient sound can disrupt signals [1: 3]. IR is very efficient in pinpointing
nodes in open spaces using invisible lasers. On the other hand, IR is very sensitive to its
surroundings rendering it unusable outdoors due to the interference of sunlight and indoor
areas which do not have a line-of-sight to each network device [1: 3].
Hu and Evans developed a protocol using directional antennas to prevent
wormhole attacks [5: 1]. Directional antennas are able to detect the angle of arrival of a
signal [5: 1]. In this protocol, two nodes communicate knowing that one node should be
receiving messages from one angle and the other should be receiving it at the opposite
angle (i.e. one from west and the other at east) [5: 4]. This protocol falls only if the
attacker strategically placed wormholes residing between two directional antennas [5: 7].
This problem has been solved by having a verifier check on the communications between
two nodes [5: 8]. However, some legitimate nodes are invalidated due to this solution.
Drawbacks to this protocol include the flaw of rejecting valid nodes and requiring the use
of directional antennas to prevent wormhole attacks.
Overall, localization schemes are very effective in determining location.
Wormholes, which fake their location to appear to be in two or more places at once, may
trigger protocols to reject them as invalid nodes.
B. Packet Leashes
Hu, Perrig and Johnson developed protocols with packet leashes have been
proven to be reliable wormhole attack detectors [6: 4]. Packet leashes place restrictions
on a packet’s maximum allowed transmission distance in a network [6: 4]. Two types of
packet leashes discussed in this article are temporal and geographical leashes. Temporal
leashes require tightly synchronized clocks on all nodes [6: 4]. Protocols based on
temporal leashes ensure that packets transmitted across the network have an upper bound
on its lifetime, which restricts the maximum distance of travel [6: 4]. Packets on a
network remain valid for a certain time interval before they are rejected. However,
setting up wormhole attacks under temporal leashes is difficult because packets must be
sent through the wormhole within the restricted time period.
A geographical leash is the second type of leash discussed. Protocols based on
geographical leashes differ slightly from temporal leashes in that each node must know
its location and have loosely synchronized clocks [6: 4]. Using location and time, nodes
can determine whether the packet is coming from a valid node or a wormhole. This
protocol allows more flexibility in the synchronization time among nodes than temporal
leashes [6: 5]. This type of packet leash also incorporates some of the same ideas used in
localization schemes of using location to prevent wormhole attacks.
A more refined temporal leash protocol known as the TESLA with Instant Key
disclosure (TIK) is discussed by Hu, Perrig and Johnson. TIK uses a hash tree to hold
symmetric keys to authenticate nodes [6: 6-7]. Receiving nodes will be able to determine
a packet’s validity based on the time interval and the corresponding key of the sender
node [6: 9]. TIK packets are structured so that the receiver node verifies the time interval
and message authentication codes (HMAC) before the key arrives. If the time interval is
valid, then the node verifies the key [6: 9]. Completing both tests would verify the sender
was not a wormhole. The TIK temporal leash protocol effectively detects a majority of
wormholes. An attacker must know the right time intervals and keys pairs so that nodes
in the wireless network will accept the wormhole’s packet. A disadvantage of this
protocol is its strict requirements in timing. Each node must be synchronized at exactly
the same time and errors in time difference must not be larger than a few microseconds or
even hundreds of nanoseconds [6: 4].
C. Conclusion
Protocols based on localization schemes and packet leashes can prevent wormhole
attacks. However, each protocol has different costs in achieving this goal. As mentioned
before, temporal leashes require strict time synchronization among all nodes. As a result,
this project focuses more on localization schemes and geographical leashes because it
does not require tight time synchronization. However, the trade-off is that localization
schemes and geographical leashes tend to use additional equipment. This project’s
design decisions will be discussed more in chapter three.
Chapter 3: Protocol Design
The first section in this chapter will talk about the goals of this protocol. The
second section will discuss the design of the network and network devices needed by the
protocol. The third and final section will provide details on the protocol and how it
works to detect wormholes.
This protocol adopted several design decisions to meet certain goals. These goals
were to design a protocol that not only prevents wormhole attacks but also:
1. Avoids using strict clock synchronization. 2. Limits the need for specialized equipment. 3. Ensures information confidentiality. 4. Provides high performance, low power consumption and minimal memory
Using strict clock synchronization to detect wormhole attacks is impractical. It
requires all nodes to synchronize within a few microseconds or hundreds of nanoseconds
[6: 4], which involves the use of highly sensitive and expensive network devices. As
mentioned in chapter two, localization schemes and geographic leashes can be used to
avoid strict clock synchronization. Therefore, design decisions of this protocol are based
on detecting wormholes using relative location rather than timing constraints.
Limiting the use of specialized equipment reduces the cost of creating a secure
wireless network. Rather than requiring all nodes to have specialized equipment, this
protocol uses a combination of GPS and non-GPS nodes to prevent wormhole attacks.
Non-GPS nodes are equivalent to many nodes available off the shelf. An example of
such a node would be the Mica mote discussed in chapter 1. GPS nodes on the other
hand would have all the properties of a non-GPS node except for the GPS. GPS were
determined to be a low cost yet highly beneficial system compared to the use of other
specialized equipment such as RF, IR and ultrasonic waves discussed in chapter 2.
While providing protection against wormhole attacks is the primary goal, this
protocol has secondary goals to provide information confidentiality and integrity in
addition to performance, power conservation and minimal data storage. The following
paragraphs will discuss the designs of GPS, non-GPS nodes and the network environment
for this protocol to achieve these goals.
B. Design of the Network and Network Devices
1. Network Devices
The most significant difference between GPS and non-GPS nodes is that non-GPS
nodes do not know their location directly. They rely on neighboring GPS nodes to
determine their relative location. Otherwise, GPS and non-GPS nodes share many
similar attributes. They use asymmetric and symmetric key cryptography and store a
neighbor list and their transmission range distance in their memory.
Both types of nodes make use of asymmetric and symmetric key cryptography.
Asymmetric key cryptography allows nodes to authenticate or verify the sender of the
message. Since non-GPS nodes refer to GPS nodes to determine relative location,
asymmetric key cryptography plays a crucial role to providing integrity and trust that
only reports of location come from GPS nodes. Since all GPS nodes are the same, only
one public key need to be preloaded into each node’s memory to verify the identity of a
Another disadvantage of asymmetric key cryptography is it requires nodes to send
large packets of information, which reduces the bandwidth of the network. Encrypting
and decrypting public and private keys also increases the power consumption of each
node. To provide a faster form of communication, symmetric key cryptography is used
rather than asymmetric key cryptography. Symmetric key cryptography uses smaller
keys but also delivers the confidentiality needed to secure messages sent across the
network. In symmetric key cryptography, each node holds keys for every other node in
the network. Along with the GPS’s public and private key, each node holds n – 1
symmetric keys, where n is the number of nodes in the network. Note that symmetric key
cryptography requires nodes to be either preloaded with the keys in memory or to be
distributed using a secure routing protocol. This project assumes that there is a separate
routing protocol that handles this task. The emphasis of this project is to create a security
protocol rather than an efficient routing protocol.
In addition to holding keys for cryptography, each node maintains a neighbor list.
This neighbor list consists of all GPS or non-GPS nodes within the transmission radius of
the node as shown in Figure 4. The node’s transmission radius is also stored in memory
for purposes explained in section C. Ideally, each node has a constant maximum
transmission radius; however, in reality, network devices signals may vary depending on
power consumption and other factors.
Figure 4: Neighbor List. Node’s A transmission range includes nodes B, I, E and F and GPS nodes 1 and 2. The other nodes C, D, H, and G are not on node A’s neighbor list.
2. Network Environment
The network environment requires that each non-GPS node must be in the
transmission radius of at least one GPS node to prevent wormhole attacks effectively.
However, the placement of nodes within the network does not matter. The network
should work under ad-hoc or spontaneous networks. It should also work whether nodes
in the network are mobile or stationary. An analysis of the optimal network environment
will be discussed in-depth in chapter 5.
C. Protocol Functionality
The design of this protocol relies on the collaboration of GPS and non-GPS nodes
in the network. The following subsections will explain the initialization, communication
and detection process of the protocol to identify wormhole attacks. A more formal
description of this protocol is shown at the end of this chapter.
Node A GPS Node 2
Node H Node C
1. Initialization Process
Before the initialization process, all nodes are either sleeping or powered off.
When the nodes are powered, the first step of the protocol is for the GPS node to
broadcast or announce its presence in the network. GPS nodes will send this signal
encrypted with a private key within its fixed transmission radius. All nodes within that
radius will wake up, decipher the message using the GPS’s public key, and respond to the
broadcast using an encrypted message with their own identity. After all the nodes have
responded, each node will have compiled a neighbor list of GPS or non-GPS nodes
around their transmission radius. This list is stored in each node’s memory.
Messages sent across the network include a nonce or random number generated
depending on time of the message. These nonces are verified by the receiving node to
ensure that they are not replays of previous messages. Without nonces, a wormhole
attack can flood the network with messages to overwhelm the network as illustrated in
Figure 5. This type of attack is also known as a Denial of Service (DoS) attack which is
commonly used to bring down the services of websites by overloading it with service
requests. Nonces prevent attackers from replaying previous messages and nodes from
accepting these messages because only nonces with the appropriate time stamps are
Figure 5: Denial of Service (DoS) Attack. A wormhole overwhelms nodes in the network with messages so that it cannot take other requests.
2. Communication Process
After the initialization process, all nodes should be able to forward messages to
each other. To keep the communication confidential, each node encrypts its own
message before sending it out to the network. As mentioned in section B, each node uses
symmetric keys. Nodes in the network should remain in the communication state unless
the one of the following conditions becomes true:
One or more nodes move to a different location of the network. One or more nodes suddenly turn off or stop responding, requiring their removal
from the network. One or more nodes suddenly turn on or arrive, requiring their addition to the
network. The network has set a refresh rate that automatically brings the protocol back to
initialization to update the network.
If one or more of these states becomes true, the protocol goes back to the initialization
state to update each node’s neighbor lists. Mobile networks may need to update at faster
rates due to the constantly changing network structure. Higher refresh rates may help
detect and prevent wormhole attacks but there are trade-offs in network performance and
power consumption.
3a. Detection Process: One-Hop Calculation
Two calculations run in the background of the communication process to detect
wormhole attacks. The first calculation determines whether or not a node in the network
should be able to hear the GPS nodes in its list stored in memory. If the distance
between any two GPS nodes in a node’s neighbor list is greater than two times the
transmission radius of the node, then the node is affected by a wormhole attack. A node
can only hear GPS nodes at either end of the transmission radius as shown in Figure 6.
Therefore, any GPS nodes whose distances are greater must be compromised by a
wormhole. This calculation will be referred as the one-hop calculation throughout the
rest of this report.
Figure 6: One-Hop Calculation. GPS nodes can only be 2 times the transmission radius away from each other in node A’s neighbor list.
A hop count is the number of nodes which a sending node must forward packets to reach
the receiving node. One-hop means that a sending node’s packet can reach its destination
within its transmission range as depicted in Figure 7.
2 x Transmission Radius
Figure 7: Hop-Counts. It takes one hop for node A to reach node B, two for node A to reach C, and three in order to reach node D.
3b. Detection Process: Two-Hop Calculation
The second calculation determines whether two nodes can communicate with
each other. For example, suppose there are two nodes A and J that are within the
transmission radius of each other. If the distance between any GPS node in node A’s
neighbor list and any GPS node in node J’s neighbor list is greater than three times the
transmission radius of the node, then both nodes are most likely subjected to a wormhole
attack. A node can only communicate with another node with the maximum distance of
the GPS nodes at the end of their transmission radiuses as illustrated in Figure 8. This
calculation will be referred as the two-hop calculation.
Figure 8: Two-Hop Calculation. When node A communicates with node J, node A checks its neighbor list with node J’s neighbor list to see if there is any GPS nodes are greater than three times the transmission radius.
To summarize, nodes that fail the one-hop calculation are likely to be nearby a
wormhole. Nodes that fail the two-hop calculation are potentially sending packets to a
node compromised by a wormhole. In the detection process, any node failing the one-
hop and two-hop calculations shut down and are removed to avoid additional damage on
the network. The next chapter will show how these processes were implemented and
simulated to model realistic network conditions.
Node A Node J
3 x Transmission Radius
D. Protocol Transfer Notation (PTN) Symbol Description GPSX GPS node where X is the ID of the node IDX ID of node X
A,B,C Non-GPS nodes where A,B,C is the ID of the node
->, <- Direction of Communication EKR[ … ] Encryption using a private key EKU[ … ] Encryption using a public key EXY[ … ] Encryption using a shared key between x and y N A nonce or randomly generated number f( … ) A function performing mathematical operations
A. Initialization Process
1. Building neighbor list of GPS and non-GPS nodes
1. GPS1 -> A Broadcast 2. A -> GPS1 IDA, N (GPS1 adds A to list) 3. GPS1 -> A EKR[ IDA, location(x1,y1,z1) ], f(N) (A adds GPS1 to list)
2. Building neighbor list of GPS nodes
1. GPS1 -> GPS2 Broadcast 2. GPS2 -> GPS1 EKR[ location(x1,y1,z1) ], N (GPS1 adds GPS2) 3. GPS1 -> GPS2 EKR[ location(x1,y1,z1) ], f(N) (GPS2 adds GPS1)
3. Building neighbor list of non-GPS nodes
1. GPS1 -> A Broadcast 2. A -> B IDA, N (B adds A to list) 3. B -> A IDB, f(N) (A adds B to list)
B. Communication Process
1. Communication via non-GPS nodes
1. A -> B KAB[ IDA, IDC, A’s GPS List, KAC[data]] , N
2. B -> C KBC[ IDA, IDC, B’s GPS List, KAC[data]] , f(N)
2. Communication via GPS nodes
1. A -> GPS1 IDA, IDC, A’s GPS List, KAC[data], N 2. GPS1 -> C EKR [ IDA, IDC, location(x,y,z) , KAC[data]], f(N)
Node C verifies f(N) and decrypts to receive message.
C. Detection Process
1. One-Hop Calculation
Distance of A’s nearby GPS1 and GPS2 > Transmission Radius x 2
2. Two-Hop Calculation
Distance of A’s GPS1 and B’s GPS2 > Transmission Radius x 3
Chapter 4: Experiments, Results and Discussion The first section will talk about this project’s choice of development tools. The
second section will report on development of the program used to simulate the design of
the protocol. After providing the details of the implementation, the third section will
discuss the various experiments conducted and report their results. Based on these
results, the fourth section will discuss effectiveness of this protocol to prevent wormhole
A. Choice of Development Tools
After experimenting with different development tools, I decided to use an open-
source Java class library called JFreeChart (available at
http://www.jfree.org/jfreechart/index.html) to implement the simulation. JFreeChart was
chosen over alternative development tools such as GNUplot, PHPlot and JOpenChart
because of the following criteria:
Relatively low learning curve Large amount of documentation and examples Java-based programming User-friendly environment Detailed graphical interface
The alternative development tools were either lacking in one or more of these categories
above. JFreeChart allows users to easily plot and graph data without going into detail on
how to use Java graphic libraries. Because of the large amount of documentation and
example files, this project can focus more on implementing the protocol design rather
than learning the functions and internal workings of the library.
B. Software Development
Using JFreeChart, I created a program that plots random coordinates on an X-Y
plane as depicted in Figure 9 and simulates their behavior according to the protocol
Figure 9: JFreeChart GUI Software. Displays GPS nodes, non-GPS nodes and the wormhole scattered randomly on an x-y plane.
The program consists of three classes: the simulation, node and graphical user
interface (GUI) class. The simulation class is the most important class as it implements
the design of the protocol. The number of GPS nodes, non-GPS nodes and wormholes,
the location of the nodes and wormholes, their transmission radius and the size of the
network area can be configured in this class. The other two classes work to support the
simulation class. The node class is used primarily to hold data. Each node’s actual
location, perception of location due to GPS nodes and wormholes and neighbor list are
held in this class. On the other hand, the GUI class simply takes x and y coordinates
from the simulation class and displays the X-Y plot graph on the screen. All three
classes work together to produce results which are reported in a text file for easy access.
C. Experiments and Results
Two experiments were conducted to verify the effectiveness of the protocol.
These experiments show whether the protocol design could work on wireless networks
with the following conditions:
Limited numbers of GPS nodes Large network areas Ad-hoc or randomized networks
Highlights of the simulation results are provided in this chapter. For the complete table
of results, please refer to Appendix B.
1. First Experiment: Limited Number of GPS Nodes
The first experiment analyzes the effectiveness of the protocol design under
varying numbers of GPS nodes to non-GPS nodes. The ratios of GPS nodes to non-GPS
nodes tested are 30:20, 25:25, 20:30, 15:35, 10:40 and 5:45 under a total network area of
100 by 100 meters. In this experiment, all nodes can hear any other node within a
transmission radius of twenty-five meters. The wormholes are in a fixed position on the
top-right and bottom-left during all stages of this experiment.
After conducting ten trials of the first experiment, the results show that lower
numbers of GPS nodes relative to non-GPS nodes leads to fewer wormhole detections as
shown in Figure 10.
Experiment 1
30:20 25:25 20:30 15:35 10:40 5:45
Ratio of GPS to non-GPS Nodes
Figure 10: Experiment 1 Results. Shows the % of the number of nodes that detected wormholes over the number of nodes with actual wormholes within their transmission radius under varying numbers of GPS and non-GPS nodes. The percentage shown in Figure 10 is the total number of wormhole detections divided
by the total number of actual wormholes. The total number of wormhole detections is
determined using the one-hop and two-hop calculations discussed in chapter three. Each
GPS and non-GPS node uses its neighbor list of GPS nodes to determine whether or not it
is affected by a wormhole. The total number of actual wormholes is determined by the
number of nodes within the transmission radius of the wormhole. From Figure 10, the
protocol can detect an average of 54-55% of the nodes affected by a wormhole in
networks consisting of a 30:25, 25:25 and 20:30 GPS to non-GPS node ratio. However,
when the network is introduced with only 15 GPS and 35 non-GPS nodes, the protocol
detection rate reduces to 33%. The data seems to indicate that the detection rate is a
linearly related until it reaches the 15:35 GPS to non-GPS ratio where it drops
exponentially.
2. Second Experiment: Density Check
The second experiment determines whether the network will be able to detect
wormholes under different densities. The density of the network is increased by adding
more nodes on the network under a constant area. A 2:3 ratio of GPS to non-GPS nodes
is maintained on this experiment because this ratio as proven to work as well as the
higher GPS to non-GPS ratios in the first experiment. Distributions of 100, 75, 50, 30
and 20 nodes are tested in a network area of 100 by 100 meters. Ratios of 2:3 GPS to
non-GPS nodes of these distributions are 40:60, 30:45, 20:30, 12:18 and 8:12
respectively. Again, the wormholes are in a fixed position on the top-right and bottom-
left during all stages of this experiment.
The results on the second experiment show lower densities of nodes result in
fewer wormhole detections as depicted in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows the connectivity of
non-GPS nodes in different densities. Each non-GPS node must be nearby at least one
GPS node to be connected to the network. Larger numbers of nodes tend to lead to better
wormhole detection as well as connectivity of the network. The density of the network
seems to have a linear relationship with the wormhole detection rate while it has an
exponential relationship with the connectivity of nodes in the network.
Experiment 2
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
40:60 35:45 20:30 12:18 8:12
Figure 11: Test 2 Results. Shows the % of the number of nodes that detected wormholes over the number of nodes with actual wormholes within their transmission radius under varying densities.
Experiment 2: Connectivity
Figure 12: Connectivity. Shows the % of the number of non-GPS nodes that are disconnected wormholes under varying network densities.
D. Discussion
To test how well the protocol works under ad-hoc wireless networks, ten trials of
the first and second experiments were conducted. Each trial places the GPS and non-
GPS nodes in different locations. The averages of all the trials and standard deviation or
variance of the data are calculated to determine if the protocol works better under
different network structures.
From these experiments, it is clear that the highest percentage of total number of
nodes detecting wormholes comes from a distribution of 40 GPS and 60 non-GPS nodes
on a 100 x 100 meter network area. The results show that this protocol can effectively
detect slightly over half of the nodes affected by a wormhole. However, in reality major
users of wireless networks would not adopt this protocol as it does not provide adequate
protection against wormhole attacks compared to existing protocols.
Looking more closely at the raw data, we can see that this project has a higher
success rate in detecting nodes which have wormholes within one-hop than those within
two-hops as shown in Figure 13 and 14. This may suggest that two-hop calculations may
not be as effective as one-hop calculations in the design of this protocol. One-hop
calculations and two-hop calculations are disjoint; one-hop detection of a wormhole
attack exists independently of two-hop detection. Since both calculations can detect the
same wormhole, the experiments conducted in this project take careful steps to avoid
double-counts.
ted Total Number
Total NumberTwo-Hop
Figure 13: Experiment 1 Results. Shows the % of the number of nodes that detected wormholes using one-hop and two-hop calculation over the number of nodes with actual wormholes within one-hop and two-hop under varying numbers of GPS and non-GPS nodes.
Figure 14: Experiment 2 Results. Shows the % of the number of nodes that detected wormholes using one-hop and two-hop calculation over the number of nodes with actual wormholes within one-hop and two-hop under varying network sizes. A glance at the average and standard deviations in the raw data suggests that the
performance of detecting wormholes depend on the structure of the network. The
location of the wormhole endpoints and GPS nodes to non-GPS nodes significantly
changes the results of the data. The data between different trials in Appendix B shows
that a majority of the variables are more than one standard deviation from the norm. The
protocol performs the best on trial 2 while it performs the worst on trial 10 in detecting a
Chapter 5: Conclusion
Wormhole attacks are significant problems that need to be addressed in wireless
network security. Although substantial research has been done to combat wormhole
attacks, this protocol is one of the first to implement a collaboration of GPS and non-GPS
nodes as an aid to prevent this type of attack. The simulation results indicate that nodes
working under this protocol have the potential to detect slightly over half of the actual
nodes compromised by a wormhole. This project holds confidence that further research
in using GPS nodes may lead to better detection of wormholes. By having only a subset
of GPS nodes, the costs of producing a secure network are significantly lower than the
costs associated with the existing protocols noted in chapter two. The collaboration
between GPS and non-GPS nodes has introduced a new way of preventing wormhole
attacks. Users of wireless networks especially in applications of sensor networks will
benefit from continued research in this form of prevention. For those who are interested
pursuing work in this field of wireless network security, Appendix A provides
recommendations for future work.
Bibliography
1. Bulusu, N, J. Heidemann and D. Estrin. “GPS-less Low Cost Outdoor Localization for Very Small Devices.” IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, October 2000. 23 October 2003 < www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Bulusu00a.pdf >.
2. He, Tian, Chengdu Huang, Brain M. Blum, John A. Stankovic and Tarek
Abdelzaher. “Range-Free Localization Schemes for Large Scale Sensor Networks.” Mobicom 2003. 23 October 2003 < www.cs.virginia.edu/~th7c/paper/APIT_CS-2003-06.pdf >.
3. Hu, Lingxuan. “Some Security Issues in Wireless Sensor Networks.” E-mail to
the author. 23 October 2003.
4. Hu, Lingxuan and David Evans. “Using Directional Antennas to Prevent Wormhole Attacks.” Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS 2004), February 2004.
5. Hu, Lingxuan and David Evans. “Localization for Mobile Sensor Networks.”
MobiCom 2004. 21 March 2004.
6. Hu, Yih-Chun, Adrian Perrig and David B. Johnson. “Packet Leashes: A Defense against Wormhole Attacks in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks.” 23 October 2003. < www.monarch.cs.rice.edu/monarch-papers/tikreport.pdf >.
7. Jacques Ellul Society. “Seventy-Six Reasonable Questions to Ask About Any
Technology.” 23 October 2003. < http://www.newdream.org/tech/76.html >.
8. Ko, Y., V. Shankarkumar and N. H. Vaidya. “Medium access control protocols using directional antennas in ad hoc networks.” Proc. Of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 13-21, 2000. 23 October 2003 < www.ieee-infocom.org/2000/papers/350.pdf >.
9. Karlof, Chris and David Wagner. “Secure Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks:
Attacks and Countermeasures.” 23 October 2003 < http://webs.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/sensor-route-security.pdf >.
10. Nagpal, Radhika, Howard Strobe and Jonathan Bachrach. “Organizing a Global
Coordinate System from Local Information on an Ad Hoc Sensor Network.” 23 October 2003 < http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/projects/amorphous/papers/ipsn-2003-v5.pdf >.
11. Nasipuri, A. J. Mandava, H. Manchala and R. E. Hiromoto. “On Demand Routing
Using Directional Antennas in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks.” Prof. of the IEEE WCNC 2000. 23 October 2003 < utsa.edu/~nasipuri/pubs/247.pdf >.
12. Niculescu, D. and B. Nath. “Ad Hoc Positioning System (APS) using AoA.” INFOCOM 03, San Francisco, CA 2003. 23 October 2003 < http://paul.rutgers.edu/~dnicules/research/aps/dcs-tr-468.pdf >.
13. Pacey, Arnold. The Culture of Technology Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1985.
14. Papadimitratos, P. and Z. Haas. “Secure routing for mobile ad hoc networks.” In SCS Communication Networks and Distributed Systems Modeling and Simulation Conference (CNDS 2002), January 2002. 23 October 2003 < http://wnl.ece.cornell.edu/Publications/cnds02.pdf >.
15. Perrig, Adams, Robert Szewczyk, Victor Wen, David Culler and Doug Tygar.
“SPINS: Security Protocols for Sensor Networks. Wireless Networks Journal (WINE), September 2002. 23 October 2003 < http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/projects/mc2001/spins-wine-journal.pdf >.
16. Sastry, Naveen, Umesh Shankar, and David Wagner. “Secure Verification of
Location Claims.” ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe 2003), September 19, 2003. 23 October 2003. < www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nks/locprove/csd-03-1245.pdf >.
17. The ETC Group. “The Big Down: Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the
Nano-Scale” 23 October 2003 < http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/BigDownfinalrevisedNR.pdf >
18. “Will Big Brother Track You by Cell Phone?” PC World. September 2001. 23
October 2003 < http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,55986,00.asp >
Appendix A. Recommendations for Future Work
Researchers and students interested in the design of this protocol can access the
source code of the simulation online at http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jk5t/protocol.zip.
This program can be compiled on any Java Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
with the use of JFreeChart libraries found at http://www.jfree.org/jfreechart/index.html.
Professor David Evans and graduate student Lingxuan Hu are currently
experimenting with configurations of GPS nodes and non-GPS nodes to detect wormhole
attacks. A recent journal titled the “Localization for Mobile Sensor Network” has been
submitted on March 15, 2004 to the MobiCom, an international forum addressing mobile
computing and wireless networking. This document investigates the use of GPS to detect
the relative locations of each node in a network. The findings of the document may
enhance the ability of this project’s protocol in detecting wormhole attacks.
Appendix B: Simulation Results
A. Variables
# detected under one-hop - refers to the number of nodes which have detected a wormhole using the one-hop calculation mentioned in chapter 3.
# detected under two-hop – similar to # detected under one-hop except it uses the two-hop calculation mentioned in chapter 3.
# actual under one-hop - refers to the number of nodes that are within the transmission radius of the wormhole.
# actual under two-hop - refers to the number of nodes which have at least one node in their neighbor list that hears a wormhole (see figure). Note that when calculating the number of actual wormholes, nodes already counted in # actual under one-hop do not get counted here.
% detected under one-hop – a percentage determined by # detected under one-hop divided by # actual under one-hop.
% detected under one-hop – same as above except it uses # detected under two-hop divided by # actual under two –hop.
% total under one-hop – sum of GPS and non-GPS # detected under one-hop divided by # actual under one-hop.
% total under two-hop – sum of GPS and non-GPS # detected under two-hop divided by # actual under two –hop.
% total detection - sum of GPS and non-GPS # detected under one-hop and two-hop divided by # actual under one-hop and two –hop.
# without GPS – refers to the non-GPS nodes which do not have a GPS node in its neighbor list.
% without GPS – a percentage determined by # without GPS divided by the total number of non-GPS nodes.
B. Raw Data
Ex. 1 (30:20 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Avg Std. Dev # GPS nodes 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 # detected under one hop 3 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 1.8 2.25093# actual under one hop 3 6 2 2 2 0 0 1 5 1 2.2 1.98886# detected under two hops 0 6 3 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 1.8 2.4404# actual under two hops 0 6 3 5 7 0 0 6 4 3 3.4 2.67499% detected under one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% # Non-GPS 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 # without GPS 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.94868% without GPS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% # detected under one hop 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0.7 1.05935# actual under one hop 1 0 3 0 4 4 2 1 2 2 1.9 1.44914# detected under two hops 1 0 3 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 1.2 1.68655# actual under two hops 1 0 3 0 12 18 6 2 1 7 5 5.94418% detected under one hop 100% 0% 100% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 33% % detected under two hops 100% 0% 100% 0% 42% 0% 33% 0% 100% 0% 38% % total one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 17% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 52% % total two hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 26% 0% 33% 0% 100% 0% 36% % total wormholes detected 100% 100% 100% 100% 24% 0% 25% 0% 100% 0% 55%
Ex 1 (25:25 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 # detected under one hop 7 6 0 4 3 0 0 3 6 0 2.9 2.80674# actual under one hop 7 6 4 4 3 2 2 3 6 1 3.8 1.98886# detected under two hops 1 6 0 8 2 0 0 4 3 0 2.4 2.83627# actual under two hops 1 6 14 9 6 6 7 8 5 3 6.5 3.50397% detected under one hop 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 60% % detected under two hops 100% 100% 0% 89% 33% 0% 0% 50% 60% 0% 43% # Non-GPS 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 # without GPS 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0.8 1.39841% without GPS 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% 0% 8% 0% 0% 3% # detected under one hop 2 3 2 3 5 0 1 3 3 0 2.2 1.54919# actual under one hop 2 3 6 3 7 5 3 3 3 6 4.1 1.72884# detected under two hops 2 1 5 1 6 0 2 2 2 0 2.1 1.96921# actual under two hops 2 1 16 1 11 22 10 3 2 26 9.4 9.26403% detected under one hop 100% 100% 33% 100% 71% 0% 33% 100% 100% 0% 64% % detected under two hops 100% 100% 31% 100% 55% 0% 20% 67% 100% 0% 57% % total one hop 100% 100% 20% 100% 80% 0% 20% 100% 100% 0% 62% % total two hop 100% 100% 17% 90% 47% 0% 12% 55% 71% 0% 28% % total wormholes detected 100% 100% 18% 94% 59% 0% 14% 71% 88% 0% 54%
Ex 1 (20:30 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 # detected under one hop 5 5 0 4 2 0 0 2 5 0 2.3 2.26323# actual under one hop 5 5 3 4 2 2 2 2 5 1 3.1 1.52388# detected under two hops 0 5 0 6 1 0 0 3 2 0 1.7 2.26323# actual under two hops 0 5 7 7 5 6 7 5 3 3 4.8 2.25093% detected under one hop 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 60% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 0% 86% 20% 0% 0% 60% 67% 0% 33% # Non-GPS 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 # without GPS 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 1.1 1.91195% without GPS 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 13% 0% 0% 4% # detected under one hop 4 4 2 3 6 0 1 4 4 0 2.8 1.98886# actual under one hop 4 4 7 3 8 5 3 4 4 6 4.8 1.68655# detected under two hops 2 1 6 3 6 0 2 2 3 0 2.5 2.12132# actual under two hops 2 1 25 3 12 22 11 5 4 29 11.4 10.3837% detected under one hop 100% 100% 29% 100% 75% 0% 33% 100% 100% 0% 64% % detected under two hops 100% 100% 24% 100% 50% 0% 18% 40% 75% 0% 51% % total one hop 100% 100% 20% 100% 80% 0% 20% 100% 100% 0% 62% % total two hop 100% 100% 19% 90% 41% 0% 11% 50% 71% 0% 26% % total wormholes detected 100% 100% 19% 94% 56% 0% 13% 69% 88% 0% 54%
Ex. 1 (15:35 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 # detected under one hop 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.9 1.52388# actual under one hop 3 4 3 3 1 0 0 2 2 1 1.9 1.37032# detected under two hops 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.9 1.66333# actual under two hops 5 4 7 6 4 0 0 3 5 3 3.7 2.31181% detected under one hop 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 30% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 20% # Non-GPS 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 # without GPS 2 1 3 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 1.8 1.8738% without GPS 6% 3% 9% 0% 9% 14% 0% 11% 0% 0% 5% # detected under one hop 2 5 2 4 3 0 0 4 4 0 2.4 1.89737# actual under one hop 6 5 7 4 9 7 5 4 7 6 6 1.56347# detected under two hops 5 2 6 5 0 0 0 3 7 0 2.8 2.78089# actual under two hops 19 2 25 5 57 32 34 6 28 32 24 16.7597% detected under one hop 33% 100% 29% 100% 33% 0% 0% 100% 57% 0% 45% % detected under two hops 26% 100% 24% 100% 0% 0% 0% 50% 25% 0% 33% % total one hop 22% 100% 20% 100% 30% 0% 0% 100% 44% 0% 42% % total two hop 21% 100% 19% 82% 0% 0% 0% 44% 21% 0% 13% % total wormholes detected 21% 100% 19% 89% 4% 0% 0% 67% 26% 0% 33%
Ex. 1 (10:40 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 # detected under one hop 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.63246# actual under one hop 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.8 0.78881# detected under two hops 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.94868# actual under two hops 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1.2 1.39841% detected under one hop 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% # Non-GPS 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 # without GPS 8 9 7 6 12 12 1 18 6 8 8.7 4.54728% without GPS 20% 23% 18% 15% 30% 30% 3% 45% 15% 20% 22% # detected under one hop 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.7 1.33749# actual under one hop 2 4 4 1 6 4 2 2 6 2 3.3 1.76698# detected under two hops 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 0 1.9 2.68535# actual under two hops 2 2 23 5 53 19 11 17 32 9 17.3 15.8258% detected under one hop 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 23% % detected under two hops 100% 100% 9% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 33% % total one hop 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% 18% % total two hop 33% 100% 8% 83% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 0% 12% % total wormholes detected 20% 100% 7% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 23%
Ex. 1 (5:45 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Avg Std. Dev # GPS nodes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # detected under one hop 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.63246# actual under one hop 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.84327# detected under two hops 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.63246# actual under two hops 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 1.31656% detected under one hop 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% # Non-GPS 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 # without GPS 23 31 19 25 21 14 17 25 29 19 22.3 5.33437% without GPS 51% 69% 42% 56% 47% 31% 38% 56% 64% 42% 50% # detected under one hop 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.2693# actual under one hop 2 4 4 1 6 4 2 2 7 3 3.5 1.90029# detected under two hops 3 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.02485# actual under two hops 2 2 26 6 53 19 12 17 68 16 22.1 21.9061% detected under one hop 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% % detected under two hops 150% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% % total one hop 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% % total two hop 50% 100% 0% 86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% % total wormholes detected 30% 100% 0% 78% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 21%
Ex. 2 (40:60 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 # detected under one hop 3 6 3 2 5 0 0 0 7 0 2.6 2.67499# actual under one hop 3 6 3 2 5 3 0 1 7 1 3.1 2.28279# detected under two hops 3 6 5 8 5 0 0 0 8 0 3.5 3.34166# actual under two hops 3 6 5 8 5 10 0 8 8 4 5.7 2.94581% detected under one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% % detected under two hops 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% # Non-GPS 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # without GPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.1 0.31623% without GPS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% # detected under one hop 5 3 5 8 6 1 0 3 5 4 4 2.35702# actual under one hop 5 3 5 8 6 4 7 5 5 10 5.8 2.04396# detected under two hops 8 0 9 8 8 12 6 8 10 9 7.8 3.15524# actual under two hops 8 0 9 8 8 25 63 14 10 52 19.7 21.0452% detected under one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 25% 0% 60% 100% 40% 73% % detected under two hops 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 48% 10% 57% 100% 17% 63% % total one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 14% 0% 50% 100% 36% 70% % total two hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 34% 10% 36% 100% 16% 44% % total wormholes detected 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 31% 9% 39% 100% 19% 70%
Ex. 2 (30:45 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 # detected under one hop 3 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 1.8 2.25093# actual under one hop 3 6 2 2 2 0 0 1 5 1 2.2 1.98886# detected under two hops 0 6 3 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 1.8 2.4404# actual under two hops 0 6 3 5 7 0 0 6 4 3 3.4 2.67499% detected under one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% # Non-GPS 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 # without GPS 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0.4 0.96609% without GPS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% # detected under one hop 2 1 4 3 1 0 0 2 5 4 2.2 1.75119# actual under one hop 2 1 4 3 6 5 3 3 5 7 3.9 1.85293# detected under two hops 8 0 10 9 8 2 3 4 5 5 5.4 3.27278# actual under two hops 8 0 10 9 34 30 17 6 5 18 13.7 11.0459% detected under one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 17% 0% 0% 67% 100% 57% 64% % detected under two hops 100% 0% 100% 33% 24% 7% 18% 67% 100% 28% 48% % total one hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 13% 0% 0% 50% 100% 50% 61% % total two hop 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 7% 18% 33% 100% 24% 42% % total wormholes detected 100% 100% 100% 100% 18% 6% 15% 38% 100% 31% 61%
Ex. 2 (20:30 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
Ex. 2 (12:18 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 # detected under one hop 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.84327# actual under one hop 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.8165# detected under two hops 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 1.68655# actual under two hops 4 4 1 4 0 0 0 6 1 2 2.2 2.14994% detected under one hop 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% # Non-GPS 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 # without GPS 1 3 1 4 3 1 0 4 0 0 1.7 1.63639% without GPS 3% 10% 3% 13% 10% 3% 0% 13% 0% 0% 6% # detected under one hop 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.7 1.33749# actual under one hop 1 4 1 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 1.3 1.56702# detected under two hops 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.4 0.96609# actual under two hops 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 6 9 0 2.4 3.50238% detected under one hop 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 25% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 13% % total one hop 0% 100% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 0% 29% % total two hop 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 26% % total wormholes detected 0% 100% 33% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 27%
Ex. 2 (8:12 GPS to non-GPS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Std. Dev
# GPS nodes 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 # detected under one hop 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.63246# actual under one hop 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.7 0.82327# detected under two hops 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.63246# actual under two hops 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1.33333% detected under one hop 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% % detected under two hops 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% # Non-GPS 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 # without GPS 4 3 6 5 4 5 3 4 7 4 4.5 1.2693% without GPS 20% 15% 30% 25% 20% 25% 15% 20% 35% 20% 23% # detected under one hop 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.42164# actual under one hop 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 0.9 1.19722# detected under two hops 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.84327# actual under two hops 1 2 0 2 3 0 0 4 17 0 2.9 5.15213% detected under one hop 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% % detected under two hops 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% % total one hop 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% % total two hop 0% 100% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% % total wormholes detected 0% 100% 0% 60% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16%
Technology Proposal Sample
Product Proposal - Sample
IT Proposal Sample
MCS Digital Liibrary Proposal (Generic Sample Proposal)
Sample Proposal #2
Sample International Proposal
Ppt proposal sample
CKW Sample Proposal
Abstract SAMPLE PROPOSAL
Sample Project Proposal
Proposal - Sample
Sample of proposal
Proposal Sample
Standard sample proposal
Sample Proposal and Feedback Proposal on Ecotourism
SAMPLE Tender Proposal
Commercial Sample Proposal
Networking Sample Proposal
Proposal sample 1
Sample Loan Proposal
Thesis Proposal Sample
event proposal sample
Business Proposal Sample - cf.ltkcdn.net€¦ · Business Proposal Sample Author: LoveToKnow Subject: Business Proposal Sample Keywords: Business Proposal Sample Created Date: 4/17/2018
Sample company proposal
Sample grant proposal
Sample Group Proposal
Sample Proposal MBA
Sample Business Proposal - Proposal Software, Legal
SAMPLE PROPOSAL DOC
Research Proposal Sample
- Advertising
- Applications
- Assessments
- Certificates
- Announcement
- Invitations
- Newsletters
- Questionnaires
- Food & Beverages
- Recruitment
- Marketing Examples
- Transportation
12+ Thesis Proposal Examples – PDF, DOC, PSD, AI
- Thesis Proposal Example
- Google Docs
Thesis Proposal Template
- Apple Pages
Thesis Proposal Gantt Chart Template
Masters Thesis Proposal Example
Thesis Project Proposal
Why Do You Need a Thesis Proposal?
Thesis proposal outline.
Architectural Sample Proposal
How to Make a Thesis Proposal
Phd thesis proposal.
Thesis Title Proposal
Bachelor Thesis Proposal Example
What Should Be in a Thesis Proposal?
Model sample proposal.
Free Thesis Proposal
Thesis Degree Project Proposal
Tips When Making Thesis Proposals
More design, thesis paper examples, tips on writing your thesis statement, thesis introduction examples, thesis statement - writing tips and examples, 17+ research statement examples, 10+ research proposal examples & samples, 5+ abstract writing examples, samples, how to write a short business proposal, research summary examples, related articles.
- 41+ Proposal Examples
- Social Media
Thesis Proposal How to Prepare
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Thesis Proposal How to Prepare
Thesis ProposalHow to Prepare
A guide for MPhil and PhD students
7220_hku_cover_0606.pdf 1 12年6月6日 下午4:46
To many students, it may be the fi rst time that they write a research proposal. This booklet serves as a reference guide to highlight the process in preparing a research proposal and basic elements that should be included. Students should bear in mind that this booklet is in no way an exhaustive list of topics that need to be considered in preparing a thesis proposal. Different disciplines may have different expectations and requirements on the substance, format and length of a proposal. In this regard, students are strongly advised to consult their supervisor(s) and the department beforehand.
Graduate SchoolMarch 2006Reprinted 2012
I. Introduction
II. Preparation for a Thesis Proposal
III. Basic Elements of a Thesis Proposal
IV. Presentation and Language
V. Further Readings
All MPhil and PhD students in HKU are required to have their candidature confi rmed by the end of the probationary period. By the end of the probationary period, every student is required to submit a thesis proposal for consideration by the Departmental Research Postgraduate Committee (DRPC) and the Faculty Higher Degrees Committee (FHDC). The thesis proposal is one of the most important documents that the University will consider in determining whether the candidature of a student should be confi rmed or be terminated. It is also important to students as a plan for how the research should be implemented and to set a time schedule so that the thesis could be completed within the specifi ed time frame.
Degree Full-time Part-time
Probationary period Study period Probationary
period Study period
MPhil 12 months 24 months 18 months 36 months 3-year PhD 12 months 36 months 18 months 54 months 4-year PhD 18 months 48 months 24 months 72 months
Before writing the thesis proposal, a student should have already taken most of coursework and done an extensive literature review. He/she should have a solid understanding on the background materials and previous research done by other researchers in the same fi eld. Most importantly, he/she should have identifi ed a research topic with his/her supervisor. In developing a research topic, it is advisable to develop two to three topics fi rst and then fi nally focus on a topic to develop further. You may like to ask the following questions in deciding on a research topic:
- What is the contribution to knowledge in your fi eld of study?
- Has it been done by others before?
- What is the theoretical framework for the study?
- What are the research hypotheses or questions?
- Are data, if needed, available?
- How to collect data?
- What are the appropriate methods in analyzing the data?
- What are the expected end results?
- Can the thesis be done within the time period of study?
Writing a thesis is the beginning of a scholarly work. You should write a thesis that you can manage within your present resource and time frame.
Developing a research topic and writing a proposal cannot be done within a week. You must allow yourself enough time to develop your research topic and proposal well before the deadline. You need time for your library research and to make sure that you understand all the issues involved in your proposed research. You may also need time to learn about the particular research methodologies that you propose to use. You should consult your supervisor in the process and be open to any advice that he/she may be willing to give. It is helpful to look at some sample products, i.e. theses in your fi eld, before writing your proposal because at the end of the day, the fi nal product of your thesis proposal is the thesis. You need to know what it roughly looks like before you can propose what to do in order to produce it. If possible, ask for copies of past theses that your supervisor has approved. Having a sample of a successful thesis can make the preparation of your own much easier.
As your proposal will probably go through several drafts before you are ready to submit it, you should set aside each draft for a few days, or even a week, before attempting to revise it. This will give you some distance from the draft, enabling you to spot mistakes or gaps in logic that you simply could not see before. It also allows you time to show it to your supervisor to get his comments and advice. If you start preparing your proposal a few days before the deadline, the proposal will be rushed, and more likely will be fl awed.
Do not take the thesis proposal lightly. A good thesis proposal is half-way to a good thesis. It will help you to focus on what you would like to do and plan to do in your research. It is also a refl ection of your knowledge of your fi eld of study and research methodology and how serious you are in doing research. A sloppy thesis proposal will not impress people who are examining it that you are ready for your research.
In writing the research proposal, you should:
- State the objectives and signifi cance of your research clearly
- Show the contribution of your research in advancing the knowledge of your fi eld of study
- Be focused on your research questions
- Provide a sound theoretical framework of your study based on comprehensive literature review (after you have fi nished your thesis, you should be the expert and pioneer in your fi eld)
- Make sure that you have cited the most important seminal work related to your study
- Avoid providing a long reference list which contains a lot of work which is marginal to your research
- Provide a persuasive argument and justifi cation of your research
- Provide a time schedule of your research and completion of the thesis
- Indicate the likely end results of your research
- Write clearly in good English
The following topics/chapters are the most commonly suggested elements of a thesis proposal. It is highly recommended that students should consult the supervisor(s) and the Department for the specifi c requirements in their own fi eld of study.
1. Title Page
(i) Tentative thesis title (ii) Your full-name(iii) Name of your supervisor(iv) Degree sought(v) Department of study(vi) Date of submission
The thesis title should be concise, descriptive and fairly self-explanatory. Choose a title that is easy to understand and represent the main theme of your thesis. For example, the phrase “An investigation of …” should be omitted and students could consider stating the title in terms of a functional relationship so as to clearly indicate the independent and dependent variables.
A sample title page is given at Appendix IAppendix I.
2. Abstract of Thesis Proposal
The abstract is a summary of your thesis proposal. It is usually not more than 1 or 2 pages containing the problem statement, the rationale of the study, the hypothesis, the methodology that you are proposing to use, the expected result and the signifi cance of your study. This section gives the reader an overview of your thesis proposal. Don’t try to explain the technical details or methodology of your study here, as these should be included in the latter sections. Try to present your idea in layman language so that even readers who are not in your fi eld could understand. This section should not contain references.
3. Table of Contents
You should list all headings and subheadings with page numbers. Subheadings should be indented.
4. Introduction
This section sets the context for your proposed project and must capture the reader’s interest. You should explain the background of your study starting from a broad picture narrowing in on your research questions, listing the relevant references, as appropriate. The introduction should be at a level that makes it easy to understand for readers with a general background in your fi eld.
5. Literature Review
The section demonstrates that you are knowledgeable of the primary texts and secondary research studies done by other researchers and ensure that you are not “reinventing the wheel”. It is important to note that this section is not merely a summary of the relevant literature you have read but instead, you have to provide a critical review on it and be able to relate the literature to your proposed research. You should point to areas overlooked or inadequately addressed by previous studies and discuss how your proposed research could contribute to the knowledge advancement in the area. This shows your ability to integrate and synthesize the literature and to develop new ideas and innovations. Proper referencing in this section is very important.
The followings are the most common defi ciencies of a literature review and you should try to avoid all of them:
- lack of organization and structure
- lack of focus and coherence
- being repetitive
- failing to cite infl uential papers or studies
- citing irrelevant and trivial references
- failing to cite the current papers or studies
- failing to critically evaluate cited papers
6. Research Questions and Hypotheses
This section tells reader what you would like to fi nd out in your research. State your research questions and hypotheses explicitly in this section. In most cases, the primary research question should be broad enough to cover your whole proposed research and the subsidiary research questions and hypotheses are more specifi c and each of them should focus on a certain aspect of your research. These hypotheses usually form chapters or sub-sections of your fi nal thesis. You should explain how these research questions and hypotheses are formulated.
7. Methodology
This section explains “how” you are going to conduct your research. You should demonstrate that you are fully aware of the alternative research methods and explain how your proposed methodology is more advantageous than the others in attaining your stated objectives.
For quantitative research, you should include:(i) the research design, e.g. a questionnaire study or a laboratory experiment(ii) the subjects or data source, e.g. who will participate in the data collection, the
sample size and sampling methodology(iii) the instruments, e.g. the kind of measuring instruments or questionnaires and
the reason for choosing these instruments(iv) procedure, e.g. how you are going to carry out your study, what activities are
involved and how long does it take(v) the methods of analysis, e.g. modeling techniques or statistical methods
You should also discuss the limitations of the proposed methodology, the assumption and the range of validity in data collection.
Where the thesis research involves human subjects, you must also obtain the approval from the appropriate ethics committee. A copy of the approval, if available, should be attached to the proposal.
If you have conducted a pilot study, please also provide the details here and discuss how the methodology will be improved in view of the previous experience.
For qualitative research, as there are no well-established and widely accepted general rules or principles, you need to elaborate more on the data collection process and how you will analyze the results.
The methodology carries great weight to affect the success of a piece of research. You can have a very good research topic but a poor research methodology could easily ruin the outcome! In order to prepare yourself for your research and to enable the reviewer to understand your proposed study better, you should be more detail in your research methodology. For example, how to collect your data, how many samples to take, what specifi c methods will you used in analyzing your data.
8. Work Schedule
Every student is supposed to submit the thesis for examination by the end of the study period, i.e. 2 years (full-time)/3 years (part-time) for MPhil; 3 years (full-time)/4.5 years (part-time) for 3-year PhD and 4 years (full-time)/6 years (part-time) for 4-year PhD. Hence, you should not start a research that could not be possibly completed within your study period.
In this section, you need to identify the tasks and make realistic estimates of the time required for each task. This could be easily done in a table or chart format. Setting important milestones could defi nitely help to monitor the research progress.
9. Expected Results and Implication of Results
Obviously you do not have results at the proposal stage. However, you need to have some idea about what kind of data you will be collecting, and what methods will be used in order to answer your research question or test your hypothesis. You should also state the contribution expected from your research efforts.
10. Tentative Thesis Chapter Outline
You should check with your supervisor if this is a required section of the thesis proposal. Present the chapter outline as a draft contents page with brief annotations of expected content or stages will help you in thinking through the process and outcome of your research. Follow the standard sections relevant to your type of research. Look at past theses in your area and discuss your ideas with your supervisor.
11. List of References
This list is desirable only if the proposal contains six or more references. Otherwise, the references can be inserted in the text within parentheses, i.e.
(Morita, Y [1996], Spring torrents: The catastrophic effects of corn snow meltdown. European Ski Journal, 5, 141-162). (Note that brackets, not parentheses, are used within parentheses.)
The style and format of the references depend on the disciplinary fi eld. The main consideration is consistency; whatever style is chosen should be followed scrupulously throughout. (Please see IV(1)(v) below.)
1. Presentation
Even with access to all the power and variety that the combination of modern software and hardware offers, resist the temptation to use fancy or decorative fonts in the main part of the proposal. Look at any textbook, or a newspaper, and note that their body text is almost invariably printed in a serif font (a serif is a small cross stroke at the tops and bottoms of the main strokes of the letters, such as Roman, Times, Times Roman or Palatino). Sans serif (sans = without) fonts lack embellishments and are usually used only in titles, headings or other blocks of text, such as quotations, which need to be set apart from the main text.
Use a standard font size (12 cpi). Small fonts are uncomfortable to read, while large ones are extremely distracting. Don’t try to use a small font in order to cram everything that you want to say into specifi ed page limits.
(ii) Sections and Headings
To improve the layout of your proposal and make it easier to read, you can divide it into sections and sub-sections, each with a relevant heading. Use line spaces to separate the sections from one another, and bold, capitals or italics to highlight the headings.
(iii) Point Form
If you have to write a list of points/items, it may be a good idea to use point form. If your list consists of three items or fewer, you may as well write it sequentially, but for more than three, or if each point is quite long, point form is neater and easier to read. You can use bullets, asterisks, dashes, numbers or letters to introduce the points.
(iv) In-text Citations
In a document as short as a research proposal, it is advisable to use a name-year (Smith, 1994)* system and to structure the corresponding reference list alphabetically. This has at least two advantages. First, the reader may actually be familiar with the text(s) that you cite and will instantly know what you are referring to rather than having to take the time to fl ick back and forward to the reference list. Secondly, it will save you having to re-order numbers, and the numbers in the corresponding reference list, if you add further citations later. You may, however, prefer to use a number system, if that is what you are familiar with. There are various different styles within both systems, and there is probably a preferred one in your fi eld. In the long run, it is immaterial which you use, as long as you are consistent.
* Where there is more than one author, the citation should read (Smith & Jones, 1994), or (Smith et al., 1994), in the case of multiple authors.
(v) Reference Lists
Again, you will probably adopt the layout style that your department, faculty or discipline recommends, and, as before, consistency is important. For easier reading, it is helpful if you can leave a one-line space between each entry, highlight book/journal titles in some way, and bold your own name and those of your co-investigators wherever they appear. For both references and citations, make sure that you read the relevant style manual thoroughly, double-checking all of your entries against it so that inconsistencies do not arise. Using reference list software (such as Reference Manager) is also useful.
Appendix IIAppendix II contains some examples of the issues that we have just covered on presentation.
2. Language
(i) Sentences
In general, try to keep your sentences simple and short. It is not necessary for a piece of writing to be “diffi cult” in order to be properly “academic”. To help keep your reader’s interest, it is certainly a good idea to vary sentence lengths throughout any piece of writing, but overlong sentences invariably confuse the reader; they have to be read more than once, sometimes over and over, until they no longer make any sense. It never hurts to make your meaning quite clear: not everyone has the time to unravel long, unwieldy, jargon-fi lled sentences.
(ii) Linking Devices
Some conjunctions used to link ideas within and between sentences have become rather overused, particularly in an academic context. The most obvious are moreover, furthermore, hence and thus. It should almost always be possible to link sentences using a logical fl ow of ideas rather than conjunctions, but on the rare occasions that internal logic is not enough, the words ‘and’, ‘also’, ‘but’, ‘so’ and the occasional ‘and’, ‘also’, ‘but’, ‘so’ and the occasional ‘and’, ‘also’, ‘but’, ‘so’ ‘therefore’, ‘however’ or ‘however’ or ‘however’ ‘although’ should be enough. Use others sparingly, if at all. ‘although’ should be enough. Use others sparingly, if at all. ‘although’
(iii) Other Overused Words
aforementioned paradigm notwithstandingabove-mentioned parameter interpersonal(the) above ___ etc impact (used as a verb)(the) said ___ signifi cantly veryviz prior to besidescorrelate indeed utiliserespectively interrelated inherent
Spend some time thinking of alternatives to these so that your writing does not become clichéd - and don’t use a thesaurus. Thesauri usually list equally exotic alternatives, which will in their turn become overused. Stick to simple language.
(iv) Jargon
Jargon is generally best kept to a minimum. If it becomes necessary to use a word that you think the reader might not understand, then you should give a brief explanation, either by supplying clues about the meaning of a word throughout the sentence, or by placing the defi nition in brackets or between commas or dashes after the word. It is easier to cut out unnecessary jargon if you avoid importing work from elsewhere - for example, from a lecture or journal article that you have written. Not only will it be obvious that you have done so (the style will differ from other parts of your proposal), but it will usually require substantial rewriting before it is suitable for your new audience - much more bother than writing it fresh in the fi rst place.
(v) Variation and the Use of Pronouns
A common problem in academic writing is a lack of variation, with writers using the same nouns over and over throughout a paragraph. This quickly becomes very monotonous. Make good use of variants and pronouns to ensure that your writing is more interesting.
Along the same lines, you may fi nd that there is some overlap in your answers to various questions. If this happens, refer the reader back/forwards to the relevant section rather than repeating the same sentences or paragraphs all over again. Even if you do have to repeat information - in the abstract, for example - don’t use exactly the same words as before. It bores the reader and gives the impression that the writer is unimaginative. Paraphrase them instead.
(vi) Spoken vs. Written Language
Spoken, informal language is often inappropriately used in proposals, which should contain more formal writing. The most common examples of this are the words ‘get’,‘like’ (for making comparisons), and ‘like’ (for making comparisons), and ‘like’ ‘all’ (as in “all (of) the books”). Some synonyms ‘all’ (as in “all (of) the books”). Some synonyms ‘all’for ‘get’, depending on the context, are: ‘obtain’, ‘gain’, ‘acquire’, ‘fi nd’. ‘For example’can often be used in place of ‘like’.
(vii) Grammar
Almost all of us, whether native English speakers or not, have problems with grammar at some time or another. In our haste to get our ideas down on paper, we are more concerned with content than form, and so we often make mistakes. Some mistakes are easily discovered during proofreading, while others, particularly if you are not literary-minded, are not so easy either to spot or to remedy. If grammar is a problem for you - and you will usually know if this is the case - then you should be honest and try to do something about it rather than submitting a sub-standard piece of work. There are some simple things you can do to help yourself:
• Write short sentences, as recommended in Sentences, above. The longer a sentence is, the more complicated the grammar becomes, and the more likely it is that you will make mistakes.
• Ask colleagues or friends to proofread your work. This will help with grammar problems as well as any gaps in logic or unclearly-explained points. You know what you meant when you wrote something down, but part of the explanation may still be in your head and not on the paper! A good proofreader will help sort this out. Alternatively, consult a professional editor or proofreader if you feel that you need consult a professional editor or proofreader if you feel that you need consult a professional editor or proofreadermore help than your colleagues can provide.
(viii) Spelling
Probably more than anything else, bad spelling irritates a literate reader. Often it is your typing rather than your spelling that is at fault, but whichever it is, if you do not correct mistakes, it looks as though you rushed your proposal, can’t be bothered to use a spell-checker or dictionary, and are therefore a sloppy worker - not a very good impression to make on someone who is going to decide whether or not to confi rm your candidature.
A word on American vs. British spelling: BE CONSISTENT in your use of the one that you choose. As it is likely, if you are not a native speaker of the one that you choose, that you will not be aware of the many differences between the two, it is crucial that you use the relevant spellchecker to help iron out any inconsistencies in your proposal.
Please see Appendix IIIAppendix III for more detailed examples and further discussion of language matters.
Cooley, Linda and Lewkowicz, Jo (2003), Dissertation Writing in Practice: Turning Ideas into Text, Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press.
Cryer, Pat (2000), The Research Student’s Guide to Success, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Day, Robert A. (1995), Scientifi c English, Westport: Oryx Press.
Strunk, William, Jr. (2000), The Elements of Style, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
APPENDIX I - TITLE PAGE (SAMPLE)
Your Tentative Thesis Title Here
Your Full-name
Degree Sought
Department of Study
Name of your Supervisor
Date of Submission
APPENDIX II - PRESENTATION (EXAMPLES)
Use of Point Form
The following sentence:
Our objectives are to fi nd 1) a suitable format, 2) suffi cient transmission speed, and 3) minimum corruption of data.
might have been more effectively presented as either:
Our objectives are to fi nd:- a suitable format; - suffi cient transmission speed; and- minimum corruption of data.
Our objectives are to fi nd a suitable format, suffi cient transmission speed, and minimum corruption of data.
Reference List Layout
Compare the following two extracts from reference lists, both roughly following the APA style:
Bloggs, J and Hartley, J R (1995, December). How to write a better résumé. Job Hunting Job Hunting QuarterlyQuarterly,Quarterly,QuarterlyQuarterly,Quarterly 5 - 24.
Geront, K R and Wong, Y L (1995). Résumésumé é Basics (3rd ed). London: Little, Brown.
Lemain, F (1992). Basic résumé construction. Eastern European REastern European Résumésumé é Journal, 64, 64Journal, 64Journal , 157 - 206.
This is much easier to read than:
Bloggs, J and Hartley, J R (1995, December). How to write a better résumé. Job Hunting Quarterly, 5 - 24.
Geront, K R and Wong, Y L (1995). Résumé Basics (3rd ed). London: Little, Brown.
Lemain, F (1992). Basic résumé construction. Eastern European Résumé Journal, 64, 157 - 206.
APPENDIX III - LANGUAGE (EXAMPLES)
Overlong sentences cause confusion. They usually become too long for one of two reasons:
(i) using ten words where one will do, or
(ii) trying to include too many ideas.
1. Here is an example of a sentence that uses too many words:
Since there is such a large variety of potential applications with industrial contributions that can be made, we need to identify a particular application that is both original, cost-effective and has a high potential for achievability within the time frame of this proposed project.
Looking at the highlighted phrases in order:
(i) such a large variety : the word ‘large’ is essentially redundant; (ii) that can be made : too many words; (iii) both : 3 things follow, so ‘both’ is incorrect. It is usually
redundant anyway; (iv) cost-effective : a trendy buzz-word that usually simply means
‘cheap’; (v) has a high potential... : ‘achievability’ has been invented by the author,
and the whole phrase simply contains too many words.
It can be signifi cantly cut down, as follows:
Given the range of potential industrial applications, we must identify one in particular that is original, cheap, and can be achieved by the end of the project.
2. Now here is a sentence with too many ideas in it:
A selected group of girders is subjected to a simple correction process to expand the number of rust-eating agents assigned to individual girders to improve the suppression rate of the rust that forms on the structure as a whole.
You probably can’t understand this straight away. The number of ofs and ofs and of tos confuses us, until we are not sure what process is being carried out with what kind of effect on which thing. The sentence would be much better slightly rewritten and divided into two, like this:
A selected group of girders is subjected to a simple correction process which expands the number of rust-eating agents assigned to individual girders. This improves the suppression rate of the rust that forms on the structure as a whole.
It could even have been left as one sentence, if it had been slightly better organized:
A selected group of girders is subjected to a simple correction process which expands the number of rust-eating agents assigned to individual girders, which in turn improves the suppression rate of the rust that forms on the structure as a whole.
3. An example of an overly complicated sentence:
The proposed method does not require the user to manipulate a keyboard when responding to screen prompts, but instead employs an interactive touch-screen device.
With simpler vocabulary, it could be much clearer:
With this method, the user does not need to type his/her answers to the computer’s questions, but can simply touch reply-boxes on the screen instead.
There is very little difference in length, but the second sentence is much easier to understand, as it does not use unnecessarily diffi cult words.
Linking Devices
The following paragraph uses a lot of linking words (marked in bold), most of them unnecessary. They are very intrusive, tending to draw the reader’s attention away from what is actually being said:
Problems often occur at the time of transmission, and the resultant crystal loss is usually due to congestion in the tubes. However, the FRG6 routine, which has a built-in error detection scheme, will abort transmission if an error is found. Nevertheless, if FRG6 aborted every time errors were detected, many more crystals would ultimately be lost. Furthermore, this would pre-empt the machine’s ability to carry out error management and loss recovery. Therefore, passing damaged crystals to the decoder for correct treatment without aborting the entire transmission process is defi nitely something that we must concentrate on in the future. Hence, developing an effi cient error management and loss recovery system must take priority over all other issues involved in the various methods of transmission.
The passage can be easily rewritten, using internal logic to join the various ideas together instead:
Problems often occur at the time of transmission, and the resultant crystal loss is usually due to congestion in the tubes. The FRG6 routine, with its built-in error-detection scheme, will abort the transmission if an error is found; although if it aborted every time, many more crystals would ultimately be lost, and the machine’s ability to carry out error management and loss recovery would be pre-empted. Passing damaged crystals to the decoder for treatment without aborting the entire transmission process is defi nitely something that we must concentrate on in the future. The development of an effi cient error management and loss recovery mechanism should take priority over all other issues involved in the various methods of transmission.
The ideas in the passage now fl ow much more easily, leading us effortlessly from one sentence to the next.
The following examples show some ways of explaining technical terms, whenever their use is unavoidable:
In some plants, the honey guides (petal markings indicating the position of the nectaries) appear to the insect as orange dots.
The people native to this area used to play a little-known musical instrument called an ocarina - an elongated egg-shaped wind instrument - until the early years of this century.
Formerly, the standard treatment for hypoglycaemia, or low blood sugar, was a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet.
Variation and the Use of Pronouns
The following paragraph shows the kind of deadly, dull repetitiousness of certain words that occurs all too often in research proposals:
Hong Kong doesn’t get very much snow. In fact, most people who live in Hong Kong have never seen snow. The proposed snow machine can create snow whenever we want snow, and will make sure that everybody in Hong Kong has a truly White Christmas every year.
Fortunately, the remedy is simple. First, let’s deal with the word snow:
Hong Kong doesn’t get very much snow. In fact, most people who live in Hong Kong have never seen any. The proposed machine can create snow whenever we want it, and will make sure that everybody in Hong Kong has a truly White Christmas every year.
The redundant snow which preceded snow which preceded snow machine has been deleted, and two other occurrences have been replaced with pronouns. Now let’s look at Hong Kong:
Hong Kong doesn’t get very much snow. In fact, most people who live herehave never seen any. The proposed machine can create snow whenever we want it, and will make sure that everybody in the territory has a White Christmas every year.
Spoken vs. Written Language
The following sentences show the inappropriate use of spoken, colloquial English:
We hope we can get the fi nal results within a year.get the fi nal results within a year.get
This process will be useful in many situations, like playing football, watching TV or eating in a restaurant.
We need to talk to all the subjects within six months.all the subjects within six months.all
They should have been written as:
We hope to have the fi nal results within a year.
It will be useful in many situations, such as playing football, watching TV or eating in a restaurant.
We need to talk to all of the subjects within six months.all of the subjects within six months.all of
Compound Words
Following is an example of a possible ambiguity resulting from a missing hyphen:
We will have to ensure decisions are made and follow up actions taken.
Does the writer mean that he and his co-researchers will make sure that decisions are made and follow-up actions taken, or are they going to fi rst make sure that decisions are made, and then follow up the actions taken? This ambiguity will never become clear without actually consulting the writer. Always check your compound words to ensure that there is no possibility of misunderstandings arising.
Thesis Proposal VARUN GUPTA 1. Thesis Proposal VARUN GUPTA 2.
Executive Summary Thesis Proposal › ae › thesis › portfolios › 2006 › msl176 › proposal.… · Executive Summary Thesis Proposal The Renick Education Building located
How to prepare a thesis
Proposal thesis
Proposal Orange Book - Prepare a winning proposal
Thesis Proposal.
Thesis Proposal - Pennsylvania State University Propos… · Thesis Proposal Thesis Proposal Cody A. Scheller The Pennsylvania State University Architectural Engineering Structural
How to Prepare Proposal
University of Manitoba - 1.1 Application and … · Web viewEach student is required to prepare a written proposal that outlines the thesis project. The proposal document is prepared
Thesis Proposal
SAP PI Proposal (Use to Prepare Proposal)
How To Prepare A Proposal
- Cookie policy
Copyright © 2022 FDOCUMENTS
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Thesis proposal sample engineering for case study sample for business policy. Write a sample thesis proposal engineering paragraph or an antifreeze solution circulating through plastic or copper piping installed beneath the earths surface
A Wireless Protocol to Prevent Wormhole Attacks. The Faculty of the. School of Engineering and Applied Science. University of Virginia
Planning to start making you thesis proposal? Download samples in this post for references
More Documents from "Yrral Jaime Perez"
Law (Law Essay Sample) / Samples / Law / Law law essays Best Custom Writing Service. Take a look at our abounding collection of written projects law essays in Law in different divisions to obtain a second opinion
The thesis proposal is one of the most important documents that the University will consider in determining whether the candidature of a student should be confi rmed or be terminated