Analysis of Security Attacks and Taxonomy in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks

Table 1

Shows the current routing protocols based on its features.

Protocols	Concentration points	Sink (multiple/single)	Mobility	Multihop	Location known	Void avoidance
BLOAD [20]	Balanced energy consumption, energy holes avoidance	Single	Yes	No	Yes	No
EMGGR [21]	Void avoidance, reliability	Single	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
ECBCCP [22]	Reliability, energy conservation	Multiple	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
EULC [23]	Balanced energy dissipation, improved network lifetime, hot spot mitigation	Single	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
iAMCTD [24]	Packet delivery ratio, energy efficiency	Multiple	Yes	No	No	No
SACRP [25]	Packet delivery ratio, energy efficiency, clustering	Single	No	Yes	Yes	No
QL-EEBDG [26]	Packet delivery ratio, energy efficiency, clustering	Multiple	Yes	No	Yes	No
EnOR [27]	Packet delivery ratio, energy efficiency, improved network lifetime	Single	No	Yes	Yes	No
EECAR-AC [28]	Network lifetime, void avoidance	Multiple	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
QERP [29]	End-to-end delay, improve network energy consumption, and packet delivery ratio (PDR)	Single	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
EEDC-AA [30]	Prolong underwater network lifetime, and balance energy consumption	Multiple	Yes	No	Yes	No
JREM [31]	Energy holes and balancing energy consumption, and increase network lifetime by avoiding	Single	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
PCR [32]	Energy efficient data, opportunistic routing, and reliability	Multiple	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
EBOR [33]	Network lifetime, reliability, PDR, energy consumption	Multiple	No	Yes	Yes	No
RBCRP [34]	Reduce outage probability, load balancing	Multiple	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
CSQSR [35]	Network lifetime, application-specific QoS	N/A	No	No	Yes	No
AREP [36]	Link asymmetry, void handling	Single	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
VA-GMPR [37]	Void avoidance, load balancing, reliability	Single	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
P-AUV [38]	Low latency, energy efficiency	Multiple	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
RPO [39]	Reliability, energy efficiency	Multiple	No	N/A	Yes	N/A