MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080456737 · doi:10.1109/icc.2012.6363871

Lightweight mutual RFID authentication

2012· article· en· W2080456737 on OpenAlex

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRFID technology advancements
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMcEliece cryptosystemComputer scienceAuthentication (law)CryptosystemMutual authenticationComputer securityAuthentication protocolMessage authentication codeEncryptionRadio-frequency identificationProtocol (science)Computer networkPublic-key cryptographyCryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lightweight mutual authentication protocol is proposed for RFID systems in which both the tags and the reader can be authenticated to each other. The proposed protocol is based on the McEliece cryptosystem without requiring Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags to store the large matrices needed in the McEliece cryptosystem. Complex computational operations in the McEliece cryptosystem are removed from the RFID tags, as they only perform simple binary operations on short vectors. The size of the memory needed in the RFID tag is trivial and suitable for low-cost tags. Readers perform most of the encryption and decryption involved in the authentication protocol using McEliece functions. After every authentication, the content of the RFID tag is securely refreshed making it ready for a new round of authentication. This will ensure that the tags cannot be traced by unauthorized readers, thereby protecting the privacy of the RFID tags.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRFID technology advancementsFrench-language works237,207