RSEL: revocable secure efficient lightweight RFID authentication scheme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Radio frequency identification (RFID) has been regarded as one of the 10 important technologies in the 21st century. Because of its capability to rapidly and accurately collect and process data in real‐time, RFID has been widely applied in many areas, such as Internet of Things and Smart Grid. However, the existing security threats become more severe toward RFID authentication scheme. The traditional security mechanisms cannot be used in RFID directly because of the limitations of processing capability, storage space, and power supply of RFID tags. In this paper, we propose a revocable secure efficient lightweight RFID authentication scheme (RSEL). To achieve authentication efficiency, the key of the tag is chosen to reduce the number of hash computing in the database. Furthermore, the key is stored in the database and updated constantly with the tag to prevent the tracking and synchronization attacks. The valid period of each tag is stored in the database so that RSEL can revoke the expired tag. The correctness of RSEL has been proved using GNY logic. The performance of RSEL in terms of security and efficiency is evaluated. Compared with other existing approaches, RSEL achieves stronger security and higher efficiency. Copyright © 2013 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".