MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1978881617 · doi:10.1049/iet-ifs.2011.0052

HB <sup>𝒞</sup> entity authentication for low-cost pervasive devices

2012· article· en· W1978881617 on OpenAlexaff
Li Zhu, Guang Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Information Security · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAuthentication protocolAuthentication (law)Protocol (science)Computer networkForward secrecyKey exchangeComputer securityTheoretical computer sciencePublic-key cryptographyEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The HB-like entity authentication protocols for low-cost pervasive devices have attracted a great deal of attention because of their simplicity, computational efficiency and solid security foundation on a well-studied hard problem–learning parity with noise. By far, the most efficient protocol is HB#, which is provably resistant to the GRS attack under the conjecture that it is secure in the DET-model. However, in order to achieve 80-bit security, a typical HB# authentication key comprises over 1000 bits, which imposes considerable storage burdens on resource-constrained devices. In this study, the authors propose a new HB-like protocol: HB. The protocol makes use of a special type of circulant matrix, in contrast to the Toeplitz matrix in HB#, to significantly reduce storage consumption and overcome a subtle security proof inefficacy in HB#. In addition, the authors introduce a masking technique that substantially increases noise level from an adversary's standpoint, and thus improves protocol performance. The authors demonstrate that 613-bit authentication key suffices for 80-bit security in the HB protocol, which is quite competitive and more appealing for low-cost devices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Information Security→Same topicCryptography and Data Security→French-language works237,207→