MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Securing the Authentication Process of LTE Base Stations

2020· article· en· W3082746435 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

Venue2020 International Conference on Electrical, Communication, and Computer Engineering (ICECCE) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of MontréalConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBase stationComputer scienceAuthentication (law)Computer networkComputer securityConfidentialityKey (lock)Mobile telephonyProcess (computing)LTE AdvancedTelecommunicationsMobile radioTelecommunications link

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Securing sensitive information like the International Mobile Subscriber Identity has been a challenge on all generations of mobile telecommunication networks, i.e., 2G, 3G and 4G. In fact, many cases of compromising users' privacy in telecom networks have been reported such as the cases of rogue base stations capable of tracking, intercepting and collecting the sensitive data without the users' knowledge. To overcome these issues, we are proposing in this paper the use of a pre-shared key in the authentication process of Long-Term Evolution (LTE) base stations to local users. We are proposing a first hop authentication procedure to verify if the base station is legitimate by the User Equipment. We simulate our approach using the NetSim simulated environment to show how it is improving the data confidentiality in LTE networks.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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