A Wormhole Attack Resistant Neighbor Discovery Scheme With RDMA Protocol for 60 GHz Directional Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a wormhole attack resistant secure neighbor discovery (SND) scheme for a centralized 60-GHz directional wireless network. Specifically, the proposed SND scheme consists of three phases: the network controller (NC) broadcasting phase, the network nodes response/authentication phase, and the NC time analysis phase. In the broadcasting phase and the response/authentication phase, local time information and antenna direction information are elegantly exchanged with signature-based authentication techniques between the NC and the legislate network nodes, which can prevent most of the wormhole attacks. In the NC time analysis phase, the NC can further detect the possible attack using the time-delay information from the network nodes. To solve the transmission collision problem in the response/authentication phase, we also introduce a novel random delay multiple access (RDMA) protocol to divide the RA phase into M periods, within which the unsuccessfully transmitting nodes randomly select a time slot to transmit. The optimal parameter setting of the RDMA protocol and the optional strategies of the NC are discussed. Both neighbor discovery time analysis and security analysis demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed SND scheme in conjunction with the RDMA protocol.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".