Submitted:
04 July 2024
Posted:
05 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks and CCAM
- Safety applications: collision avoidance, curve speed warning, traffic signal violation, emergency brake lights, pre-collision detection, collision warning, left turn assist, lane change warning.
- Non-safety applications: traffic information, infotainment applications, weather and points of interest information.
- Mobile communications: In-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)
- Fixed node communications: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) and Vehicle-to-Broadband Cloud (V2B or V2C)
2.2. Blockchain Fundamentals
2.3. Smart Contracts
3. Method
3.1. Research Questions
3.1. Research Methodology
4. Taxonomy of Challenges in CCAM
4.1. Technical Challenges
4.2. Social Challenges
4.3. Ethical Challenges
5. Blockchain and Smart Contract Approaches for CCAM Challenges
5.1. Approaches for Technical Challenges
5.2. Approaches for Social Challenges
5.3. Approaches for Ethical Challenges
6. Discussion and Future Directions
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Faria, R.; Brito, L.; Baras, K.; Silva, J. Smart mobility: A survey. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things for the Global Community, Funchal, Portugal, 10–13 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mukhtar-Landgren, D.; Paulsson, A. Governing smart mobility: Policy instrumentation, technological utopianism, and the administrative quest for knowledge. Adm. Theory Prax. 2021, 43, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papa, R.; Gargiulo, C.; Russo, L. The evolution of smart mobility strategies and behaviors to build the smart city. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems, Napoli, Italy, 26–28 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Piperigkos, N.; Anagnostopoulos, C.; Lalos, A.S.; Berberidis, K. Extending Online 4D Situational Awareness in Connected and Automated Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 2023, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oladimeji, D.; Gupta, K.; Kose, N.A.; Gundogan, K.; Ge, L.; Liang, F. Smart transportation: An overview of technologies and applications. Sensors 2023, 23, 3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rai, S.C.; Nayak, S.P.; Acharya, B.; Gerogiannis, V.C.; Kanavos, A.; Panagiotakopoulos, T. ITSS: An Intelligent Traffic Signaling System Based on an IoT Infrastructure. Electronics 2023, 12, 1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Cai, P.; Lu, G. Cooperative autonomous traffic organization method for connected automated vehicles in multi-intersection road networks. Transp. Res. C: Emerg. Technol. 2020, 111, 458–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso Raposo, M.; Grosso, M.; Després, J.; Fernández Macías, E.; Galassi, C.; Krasenbrink, A.; Ciuffo, B. An analysis of possible socio-economic effects of a Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility (CCAM) in Europe. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/157830385.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2024).
- Hang, P.; Lv, C.; Huang, C.; Xing, Y.; Hu, Z. Cooperative decision making of connected automated vehicles at multi-lane merging zone: A coalitional game approach. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 23, 3829–3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.H.; Abdel-Aty, M.; Wu, Y. A multi-vehicle communication system to assess the safety and mobility of connected and automated vehicles. Transp. Res. C: Emerg. Technol. 2021, 124, 102887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piperigkos, N.; Lalos, A.S.; Berberidis, K. Multi-modal cooperative awareness of connected and automated vehicles in smart cities. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT), Jeju, Korea, 13–15 August 2021. [Google Scholar]
- He, J.; Tang, Z.; Fu, X.; Leng, S.; Wu, F.; Huang, K.; Xiong, Z. Cooperative connected autonomous vehicles (CAV): Research, applications and challenges. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 7–10 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, C.; Wu, C.; Gao, L.; Zhang, J.; Alvin Yau, K.L.; Ji, Y. Blockchain for vehicular internet of things: Recent advances and open issues. Sensors 2020, 20, 5079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Gu, Z.; Wang, Z. Ethical Challenges and Countermeasures of Autonomous Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Academic Exchange Conference on Science and Technology Innovation E3S Web of Conferences, Guangzhou, China, 18–20 December 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gruyer, D.; Orfila, O.; Glaser, S.; Hedhli, A.; Hautière, N.; Rakotonirainy, A. Are connected and automated vehicles the silver bullet for future transportation challenges? Benefits and weaknesses on safety, consumption, and traffic congestion. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 63, 607054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alladi, T.; Chamola, V.; Sahu, N.; Venkatesh, V.; Goyal, A.; Guizani, M. A comprehensive survey on the applications of blockchain for securing vehicular networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2022, 24, 1212–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnefon, J.F.; Černy, D.; Danaher, J.; Devillier, N.; Johansson, V.; Kovacikova, T.; Zawieska, K. Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles: Recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility. European Commission 2020.
- Cunneen, M.; Mullins, M.; Murphy, F.; Shannon, D.; Furxhi, I.; Ryan, C. Autonomous vehicles and avoiding the trolley (dilemma): Vehicle perception, classification, and the challenges of framing decision ethics. Cybern. Syst. 2020, 51, 59–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinho, A.; Herber, N.; Kroesen, M.; Chorus, C. Ethical issues in focus by the autonomous vehicles industry. Transp. Rev. 2021, 31, 556–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hbaieb, A.; Ayed, S.; Chaari, L. A survey of trust management in the Internet of Vehicles. Comput. Netw. 2022, 203, 108558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zekri, A.; Jia, W. Heterogeneous vehicular communications: A comprehensive study. Ad Hoc Netw. 2018, 75, 52–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, S.; Zou, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, T.; Li, X. An integrated longitudinal and lateral vehicle following control system with radar and vehicle-to-vehicle communication. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2019, 68, 1116–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.; Atkison, T. VANET applications: Past, present, and future. Veh. Commun. 2021, 28, 100310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Heety, O.S.; Zakaria, Z.; Ismail, M.; Shakir, M.M.; Alani, S.; Alsariera, H. A comprehensive survey: Benefits, services, recent works, challenges, security, and use cases for sdn-vanet. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 91028–91047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, M.; Narula, K.; Wong, Y.F.; Worrall, S.; Khan, M.; Alexander, P.; Nebot, E. Demonstrations of cooperative perception: Safety and robustness in connected and automated vehicle operations. Sensors 2020, 21, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahi, M.J.N.; Chaki, S.; Ahmed, S.; Biswas, M.; Kaiser, M.S.; Islam, M.S.; Whaiduzzaman, M. A review on VANET research: Perspective of recent emerging technologies. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 65760–65783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Son, S.; Lee, J.; Park, Y.; Park, Y.; Das, A.K. Design of blockchain-based lightweight V2I handover authentication protocol for VANET. IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 2022, 9, 1346–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Dec. Bus. Rev. 2008, 21260. [Google Scholar]
- Antonopooulos, A.M. Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking digital cryptocurrencies; O’Reilly Media, Inc, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cebe, M.; Erdin, E.; Akkaya, K.; Aksu, H.; Uluagac, S. Block4forensic: An integrated lightweight blockchain framework for forensics applications of connected vehicles. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rathee, G.; Sharma, A.; Iqbal, R.; Aloqaily, M.; Jaglan, N.; Kumar, R. A blockchain framework for securing connected and autonomous vehicles. Sensors 2019, 19, 3165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fu, Y.; Yu, F.R.; Li, C.; Luan, T.H.; Zhang, Y. Vehicular blockchain-based collective learning for connected and autonomous vehicles. IEEE wireless communications 2020, 27, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mik, E. Smart contracts: Terminology, technical limitations and real world complexity. Law Innov. Technol. 2017, 9, 269–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.N.; Loukil, F.; Ghedira-Guegan, C.; Benkhelifa, E.; Bani-Hani, A. Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2021, 14, 2901–2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christidis, K.; Devetsikiotis, M. Blockchains and smart contracts for the internet of things. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 2292–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, H.R.; Salah, K. Proof of delivery of digital assets using blockchain and smart contracts. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 65439–65448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waltl, B.; Sillaber, C.; Gallersdörfer, U.; Matthes, F. Blockchains and smart contracts: A threat for the legal industry. In Business Transformation through Blockchain, Volume II; Treiblmaier, H., Beck, R., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 287–315. [Google Scholar]
- Aoun, A.; Ilinca, A.; Ghandour, M.; Ibrahim, H. A review of Industry 4.0 characteristics and challenges, with potential improvements using blockchain technology. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 162, 107746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.N.; Chen, W.; Chen, X.; Weng, J.; Imran, M. An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 105, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitchenham, B.; Pretorius, R.; Budgen, D.; Brereton, O.P.; Turner, M.; Niazi, M.; Linkman, S. Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering—A Tertiary Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2010, 52, 792–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, X.; Chen, X. Data Security Sharing and Storage Based on a Consortium Blockchain in a Vehicular Ad-hoc Network. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 58241–58254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrestha, R.; Nam, S.Y. Regional Blockchain for Vehicular Networks to Prevent 51% Attacks. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 95033–95045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.; He, D.; Huang, X.; Kumar, N.; Choo, K.K.R. BCPPA: A blockchain-based conditional privacy-preserving authentication protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 22, 7408–7420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, D.; Jing, C.; Guo, R.; Gao, S.; Wang, L. A traceable blockchain-based access authentication system with privacy preservation in VANETs. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 117716–117726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayaz, F.; Sheng, Z.; Tian, D.; Guan, Y.L. A proof-of-quality-factor (PoQF)-based blockchain and edge computing for vehicular message dissemination. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 8, 2468–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Fu, Y.; Yu, F.R.; Luan, T.H.; Zhang, Y. Vehicle position correction: A vehicular blockchain networks-based GPS error sharing framework. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022, 22, 898–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Li, T.; Cui, J.; Ying, Z.; Cheng, J. Attribute-Based Secure Announcement Sharing Among Vehicles Using Blockchain. IEEE Internet Things J. 2021, 8, 10873–10883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iftikhar, M.Z.; Javaid, N.; Javaid, S.; Imran, M.; Nasser, N. TFPMS: Transactions Filtering Pattern Matching Scheme for Vehicular Networks based on Blockchain. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC), online, 12–14 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, L.; Yin, H. A Blockchain-Empowered Platoon Communication Scheme for Vehicular Safety Applications. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 94th Vehicular Technology Conference, Online, 27 September–28 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Khalid, R.; Malik, M.W.; Alghamdi, T.A.; Javaid, N. A consortium blockchain based energy trading scheme for Electric Vehicles in smart cities. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2021, 63, 102998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, X.; Gao, T. Electronic payment schemes based on blockchain in VANETs. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 38296–38303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vendan, V.; Chaudhary, A. Smart EV Charging to Mitigate Range Anxiety in VANET Backbone Guided by Named Data Networking and Block-Chain. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Distributed Computing and Electrical Circuits and Electronics (ICDCECE), Ballar, India, 29–30 April 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Javaid, U.; Sikdar, B. A Secure and Scalable Framework for Blockchain Based Edge Computation Offloading in Social Internet of Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2021, 70, 4022–4036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawat, D.B.; Doku, R.; Adebayo, A.; Bajracharya, C.; Kamhoua, C. Blockchain Enabled Named Data Networking for Secure Vehicle-to-Everything Communications. IEEE Netw. 2020, 34, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, L.Y.; Shen, N.X.; Hwang, R.H. Blockchain-based privacy-preserving and sustainable data query service over 5G-VANETs. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022, 23, 15909–15921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Jing, A.; Gan, C.; Guan, X.; Qin, Y. HCSC: A Hierarchical Certificate Service Chain Based on Reputation for VANETs. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst 2023, 24, 6123–6145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Agyekum, K.O.-B.; Sifah, E.B.; Acheampon, K.N. A Blockchain-SDN-Enabled Internet of Vehicles Environment for Fog Computing and 5G Networks. Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 4278–4291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, N.; Nanda, P.; He, X.; Liu, R. Trust and Reputation in Vehicular Networks: A Smart Contract-Based Approach. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference On Trust, Security And Privacy In Computing And Communications/13th IEEE International Conference On Big Data Science And Engineering (TrustCom/BigDataSE), Rotorua, New Zealand, 5–8 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Javaid, U.; Aman, M.N.; Sikdar, B. DrivMan: Driving trust management and data sharing in VANETS with blockchain and smart contracts. In Proceedings of the IEEE 89th Vehicular Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 28 April–1 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, M.; Zhao, J.; Sun, X.; Nie, Y. Secure and efficient computing resource management in blockchain-based vehicular fog computing. China Commun. 2021, 18, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bıyık, C.; Abareshi, A.; Paz, A.; Ruiz, R.A.; Battarra, R.; Rogers, C.D.; Lizarraga, C. Smart Mobility Adoption: A Review of the Literature. J. Open Innov.: Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gkillas, A.; Lalos, A.S.; Markakis, E.K.; Politis, I. A Federated Deep Unrolling Method for Lidar Super-resolution: Benefits in SLAM. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sodhro, A.H.; Rodrigues, J.J.; Pirbhulal, S.; Zahid, N.; de Macedo, A.R.L.; de Albuquerque, V.H.C. Link optimization in software defined IoV driven autonomous transportation system. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 22, 3511–3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Dai, H.N.; Wang, H.; Xiong, Z.; Guo, S. A survey of intelligent network slicing management for industrial IoT: Integrated approaches for smart transportation, smart energy, and smart factory. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2022, 24, 1175–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, P.P.; Kumar, N. SDN/NFV architectures for edge-cloud oriented IoT: A systematic review. Comput. Commun. 2022, 169, 129–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gkillas, A.; Lalos, A.S.; Ampeliotis, D. An efficient deep unrolling super-resolution network for Lidar automotive scenes. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–11 October 2023. [Google Scholar]




| Survey | Technical Challenges | Social Challenges | Ethical Challenges | Blockchain approaches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [12,15,16] | ✓ | |||
| [13] | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| [14,17,18] | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| [19] | ✓ | |||
| [20] | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| This work | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Ref | Challenge | Summary | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [42] | Security | Protection mechanism against malicious attacks on the data collected by RSUs of VANET networks using blockchain technology for distributed data storage and smart contracts for access by vehicles and neighboring RSUs through data coins. | Protection against attacks on centralized systems, due to the decentralized architecture. Protection against Brute Force attacks based on asymmetric encryption and signature verification techniques. Protection against malicious RSUs. |
With a small number of involved RSUs in the network there is an increased possibility of malicious tampering and thus the system is unstable. |
| [43] | Security | Description and configuration of secure message transmission in geographically defined blockchain systems in VANETs so that they are protected against majority attacks. | It defines those parameters that ensure the secure transmission of messages in VANETs located in a limited geographical area. | Even with a small percentage of malicious nodes, if the delay time of messages from malicious nodes is less than “good” nodes, the 51% attack is quite possible. |
| [44] | Security | Protocol for creating secure communications in VANET networks based on the blockchain version of the conditional privacy-preserving authentication (CPPA) protocol | Provides security against various types of attacks such as: Hijacking, 51% resistance to attacks, DDoS, Man-in-the-middle | The average packet delay (APD) of the data is affected by changes in the average speed of the vehicles. |
| [45] | Privacy | Protection against transmission of false messages in vehicle transactions in V2V & V2I communications based on authentication through blockchain technology | Efficient methodology because it reduces the dependency on the central authorization authority and the burden on vehicle authentication | It is not a purely decentralized solution because it is based on a relatively small number of servers in the cloud. |
| [46] | Decentralization | Blockchain technology consensus mechanism based on node votes for road event transmission | Reliable mechanism in case of knotting. Fewer validation losses than other consensus mechanisms. |
The voting mechanism causes long delays in the transmission of messages (latency). It is impervious to 51% majority attacks. |
| [47] | Sensing Accuracy | A methodology that uses blockchain and smart contracts in combination with neural networks to improve location accuracy and share it in VANET networks | Improvement in position accuracy is possible even when access to reference points is interrupted | It does not consider random errors in positioning |
| [48] | Audit | Mechanism for recording vehicle announcements based on quality characteristics, based on blockchain technology | It reduces the need for processing power in vehicles | Stored feature policies are not dynamic and do not change. |
| Ref | Challenge | Blockchain / Smart Contract |
Consensus mechanism | Techniques/tools | Performance of the methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [42] | Security | Blockchain | PoW & Practical Byzantine fault tolerance (PBFT) | - | Better performance in computation and transmission times as the number of verification signatures increases, compared to existing solutions (IBV, SPRING, IBCPPA and EAAP) |
| [43] | Security | Blockchain | PoW | - | It implements the BIP325 key extraction algorithm to avoid preloading keys and burdening OBUs with storage consumption. The performance of the technique is not affected by the average speed as far as packet loss is concerned |
| [44] | Security | Permissionless Blockchain & Smart Contracts (Ethereum) | PoW & Proof-of-Stake | - | The methodology is efficient for small delay time in the transmission of messages from the group of “good” nodes |
| [45] | Privacy | Blockchain | PoW | Distributed Cloud Servers | It achieves fewer cycles (steps) in communication compared to pre-existing methodologies |
| [46] | Decentralization | Blockchain | Proof-of-Quality-Factor (PoQF) | Game Theory, Vehicular edge computing (VEC) network | Compared to the rest of the consensus mechanisms studied, it has less loss when validating events but this has the impact of the longest delay in message transmission |
| [47] | Sensing Accuracy | Permissioned Blockchain & Smart Contracts | Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) | Deep Neural networks (DNN) | Position correction compared to other methodologies is more effective when we have many errors from the sensors |
| [48] | Audit | Blockchain | Proof-of-Storage | - | Moderate transmission speed performance – High security |
| Ref | Challenge | Summary | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [49] | Road Safety | Improving the performance of communications in VANET road safety applications with the help of Blockchain technology | It reduces the need for processing power in vehicles | Stored feature policies are not dynamic and do not change. |
| [50] | Road Safety | Filtering event data and storing it on blockchain for road safety through false event protection | Efficient technique in a large and dense number of vehicles | - |
| [51] | Resource Management | Energy exchange methodology between charging stations and vehicles with the aim of saving energy and security from 2 types of attacks using blockchain & smart contracts. | Elimination of cheaters, complete supplier coverage with short time of searching and reduces costs for purchasers | There is no integration with IoV Infrastructure |
| [52] | Financial | Electronic payment methodology in VANETs based on blockchain | The communication load increases linearly in relation to the number of vehicles and not exponentially as it happens in pre-existing techniques. | Data transmission performance decreases for vehicles that are further away from other RSUs. |
| [53] | Financial | A methodology for supplier selection with secure buyer-seller exchange in Smart EV charging to mitigate anxiety in VANETs | Fast transaction transfer | The authentication mechanism and communications architecture are not described |
| [54] | Social Networking | Dynamic PoW mechanism based on checkpoint-block and different difficulty levels to manage IoV social network data | Low delays in V2I communications | Cloud servers pose a problem as far as the distributed feature of the methodology is concerned |
| Ref | Challenge | Blockchain / Smart Contract |
Consensus mechanism | Techniques/tools | Performance of the methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [49] | Road Safety | Blockchain | PoW | Distributed Cloud Servers | Low efficiency: Linear increase in both storage space and operating costs in line with the increase in vehicles |
| [50] | Road Safety | Blockchain | Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) | 5G New Radio (NR) V2X | High performance compared to the SPS technique in terms of collision probability and delay. |
| [51] | Resource Management | Consortium Blockchain & Smart Contracts | Proof of Authority | Smart Grid | Moderate energy saving performance compared to existing solutions. |
| [52] | Financial | Blockchain | PoW | - | High performance in relation to the time needed to search for a location but also the reduction of congestion and costs |
| [53] | Financial | Blockchain | PoW | Named Data Networking, Vehicular Sensor Networks | Moderate performance relative to pre-existing works. Effectiveness: collection reporting, fake identical rate & time for trade |
| [54] | Social Networking | Permissioned Blockchain | dynamic PoW (dPoW) | - | High: Compared to existing methodologies, this one performs better on a large increase in social network data and offloads vehicles from resource consumption |
| Ref | Challenge | Summary | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [55] | Accountability | Combining Blockchain and Named Data Networking (NDN) to provide secure distributed V2X communications while maintaining privacy. | The identity of the parties involved in the road network is not disclosed. It is an appropriate methodology to protect against identity disclosure and non-attribution attacks. | It has no filtering techniques for the data generated by the vehicle. Using different key pairs for blockchain and NDN functions puts a strain on system performance |
| [56] | Accountability | Event message search mechanism through blockchain and smart contracts maintaining the anonymity and accountability of VANET network users and improving the performance of the 5G network by applying SDN technology. | Reduces message transmission time and network load | It does not meet the needs of real-time VANETs. |
| [57] | Accountability | A hierarchical certificate service chain based on blockchain and on a new reputation measurement model for effective authentication of node’s identity in VANETs | Small block storage pressure, and high consensus algorithm efficiency | Not tested in real scenarios |
| [58] | Responsibility | Propagation of messages based on reputation between connected vehicles and a combination of SDN, Fog Computing and blockchain technologies. | Platform capable of providing trust to the involved entities of VANETs | There are shortcomings in the methodology as far as privacy protection is concerned |
| [59] | Responsibility | A mechanism for generating, exchanging and storing the reputation of nodes in VANETs in order to encourage vehicle accountability. | The reputation score is available to individual nodes when requested with no central dependency. | The process of registering a vehicle does not guarantee concealment of the vehicle’s location |
| [60] | Trust management | Model for creating a distributed trust management system that registers and recalls vehicles using blockchain and smart contracts and the unique ID generated by the PUFs of the vehicles’ SoCs. | It provides data with integrity, security and reliability. | Vulnerable to Modeling attacks on PUFs. |
| Ref | Challenge | Blockchain / Smart Contract |
Consensus mechanism | Techniques/tools | Performance of the methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [55] | Accountability | Blockchain | PoW | Named data networking (NDN) | Moderate performance in the communication load due to the handling of a large amount of data by the vehicles but also due to the different key pairs used in the technologies based on |
| [56] | Accountability | Permissioned Blockchain & Smart Contracts | PoW | InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), Software-Defined Networks (SDNs) | Low performance |
| [57] | Accountability | Blockchain & Smart Contracts | Delegated proof of stake (DPoS), Proof of work (PoW) | Better for large concurrent authentication requests than a large number of requests | |
| [58] | Responsibility | Blockchain | Practical Byzantine fault tolerance (PBFT) | SDN, Fog computing | Moderate performance in terms of communication load |
| [59] | Responsibility | Permissioned Blockchain & Smart Contracts | Proof of Authority | Interplanetary file system (IPFS) | Low performance as the number of malicious nodes increases, compared to the methodology without smart contracts |
| [60] | Trust management | Blockchain & Smart Contracts | PoW & Proof-of-Stake | Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) | Works effectively against data tampering and identity disclosure attacks |
| Ref | Βrute Force | Hijacking | Alteration Attack | Jamming | DDoS | Man-in-the-middle | 51% Attack Resilience | Unlinkability | Intrusion Detection | Identity Authentication | User Account Management | Tracking Attack | Sybil Attack | Location Privacy Threats | Collusion Attack | Eavesdropping Attack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [42] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [43] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [44] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| [45] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [46] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [47] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| [48] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| [49] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [50] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| [51] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [52] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [53] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [54] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| [55] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| [56] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [57] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| [58] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [59] | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| [60] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Future direction | Description |
|---|---|
| Well-structured trust models | Models that will create a climate of trust and security for users and that will include all involved entities, different types of data, different properties, measurements and parameters. |
| Building a framework to protect against a set of attacks | Methodologies should cover many different types of attacks and not just a few. A comprehensive framework for dealing with most VANET attacks and failures should be designed and evaluated. |
| Mechanisms and methodologies with a small energy footprint | Defining parameters in the processes and operations that will be implemented in order to reduce the consumption of resources that affect energy consumption and environmental pollution. |
| Comprehensive profiling, reputation and rating system for all entities involved | Creating a profile based on the contribution to road incident data, but also defining the reputation of each entity (fixed or not, direct or indirect), but also creating a reward system for its behavior in the road ecosystem. |
| Use of Federal Learning and Artificial Intelligence technologies. | Applying Federated Learning and Artificial Intelligence models to create a global intelligence in the IoT ecosystem. |
| Use of emerging technologies | Cloud Services, Fog & Edge computing, Software Defined Networking (SDN), Network Functions Virtualization (NFV). |
| Improving the performance of Blockchain technology for use in different applications | Blockchain offers users many different applications with different performance requirements, which must be met by Blockchain technology in order to overcome latency and load issues. |
| Improvement and development of detection systems and sensors | Further research into the creation of more reliable and efficient devices and sensors, filtering and evaluating the data they produce before being sent to the RSUs and central infrastructure. |
| Balancing between decentralization and network load | Blockchain technology, the consensus mechanism and the constant exchange of large volumes of data burdens the network and causes load and delays. |
| Allocation of resources, processing and storage | Due to the complexity and decentralization of Blockchain technology, as well as the dynamic nature of the blockchain, new performance and resource allocation challenges arise. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
