MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980884844 · doi:10.1504/ijsn.2007.013177

Preventing or utilising key escrow in identity-based schemes employed in mobile ad hoc networks

2007· article· en· W1980884844 on OpenAlex
Katrin Hoeper, Guang Gong

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 Security and Networks · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey escrowMobile ad hoc networkComputer scienceKey (lock)Computer networkWireless ad hoc networkComputer securityKey managementPublic-key cryptographyCryptographyWirelessTelecommunicationsEncryptionNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Identity-Based Cryptography (IBC) schemes have been considered as a tool to secure Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) due to the efficient key management of the schemes. In this work, we focus on the role of the Key Generation Centre (KGC) as a key escrow, a property that is inherent to all IBC schemes. We explore the special role of key escrow in MANETs and show that this role significantly differs from key escrows in other networks. We introduce two adversary models for dishonest KGCs in MANETs, including a new spy model where a KGC uses so-called spy nodes that record communications in the network and report them to the KGC. We discuss the two faces of key escrow in MANETs, where our analytical results show that in many MANET applications the KGC can be prevented from being a key escrow. On the other hand, the results of this paper illustrate how a KGC can utilise spy nodes to monitor nodes in a MANET, as needed in some applications.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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