MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497574042 · doi:10.1002/dac.2428

Cryptanalysis of a dynamic ID‐based remote user authentication with key agreement scheme

2012· article· en· W1497574042 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Communication Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceForward secrecySpoofing attackAnonymityPasswordComputer securityScheme (mathematics)CryptanalysisKey (lock)Authentication (law)SecrecyComputer networkCryptographyPublic-key cryptographyEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY A dynamic user authentication scheme allows a user and a remote server to authenticate each other without leaking the user's identity. In 2011, Wen and Li proposed an improved dynamic ID‐based remote user authentication with key agreement scheme for mobile and home networks. They claimed that their scheme was more secure than the scheme of Wang et al. However, we demonstrate that their scheme is vulnerable to the privileged insider, off‐line password guessing, impersonation, and server spoofing attacks. At the same time, it does not provide any user anonymity and forward secrecy property. Thus, it is not feasible for real‐life implementation.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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it