Two‐factor mutual authentication with key agreement in wireless sensor networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are getting popular for their deployment in unattended environments, where a registered user can log in to the network and access data collected from the desired sensor. Because of limited resources and computation power in sensor nodes, an authentication protocol should be simple and efficient. M.L. Das proposed a two‐factor authentication scheme for WSNs. Because his scheme uses only one‐way hash function and XOR operation, it is well suited for resource‐constrained environments. Because of some flaws in Das's scheme, several improved schemes have been introduced. In this paper, we show that Das's scheme and its derivatives not only have security imperfections but also do not provide key agreement. To overcome their security shortcomings, we propose a novel user authentication scheme with key agreement for WSN. We furnish security analysis of the proposed protocol to show its robustness to various attacks as well as analyze its performance to determine its efficiency. We provide protocol analysis and verification of the proposed protocol. Compared with the existing schemes, it is more robust and offers better security. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it