MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765183808 · doi:10.1109/iceiec.2017.8076506

Cryptographic key management methods for mission-critical wireless networks

2017· article· en· W2765183808 on OpenAlexaff
Celia Li, Cungang Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRekeyingComputer scienceComputer networkHandshakeKey managementSession keyWireless mesh networkComputer securityKey (lock)Session (web analytics)Mesh networkingWireless networkWirelessEncryptionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a large scale disaster strikes, it demands an efficient communication and coordination among first responders to save life and other community resources. Normally, the traditional communication infrastructures such as landline phone or cellular networks are damaged and dont provide adequate communication services to first responders for exchanging emergency related information. Wireless mesh networks is the promising alternatives in such type of situations. The security requirements for emergency response communications include privacy, data integrity, authentication, access control and availability. To build a secure communication system, usually the first attempt is to employ cryptographic keys. In critical-mission wireless mesh networks, a mesh router needs to maintain secure data communication with its neighboring mesh routers. The effective designs on fast pairwise key generation and rekeying for mesh routers are critical for emergency response and are essential to protect unicast traffic. In this paper, we present a security-enhanced session key generation and rekeying protocols EHPFS (enhanced 4-way handshake with PFS support). It eliminate the DoS attack problem of the 4-way handshake in 802.11s. EHPFS provides additional support for perfect forward secrecy (PFS). Even in case a Primary Master Key (PMK) is exposed, the session key PTK will not be compromised. The performance and security analysis show that EHPFS is efficient.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Authentication Protocols SecurityFrench-language works237,207