Improved two-factor user authentication in wireless sensor networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are considered due to the ubiquitous nature, ease of deployment, and wide range of possible applications. WSNs can be deployed in unattended environments, where a registered user can login to the network and access data collected by the linked sensors. Authenticating users in resource constrained environments is one of the major security concerns. Since sensor nodes have limited resources and computation power, it is desirable that the authentication protocol is simple and efficient. In 2009, M. L. Das proposed a two-factor authentication for WSNs, where a user has to prove possession of both, a password and a smart card. Since his scheme utilizes only cryptographic one-way hash function and exclusive-OR operation, it is well-suited for resource constrained environments. However, Khan and Algahathbar pointed out that Das's scheme has some flaws and is vulnerable to various attacks and proposed an alternative solution. In this paper, we show that both, Das's and Khan-Algahathbar's schemes have flaws and remain vulnerable to various attacks including stolen smart card attacks. To overcome the security weaknesses of both schemes, we propose an improved two-factor user authentication that is resilient to stolen smart card attacks as well as other common types of attacks. We provide security evaluation of the proposed protocols showing its robustness to various attacks and analyzed the scheme's performance to determine its efficiency. Compared to the previous schemes, it is proven more robust and provides better security.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it