Access Control Protocol for Battlefield Surveillance in Drone-Assisted IoT Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveillance drones, called as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircrafts that are utilized to collect video recordings, still images, or live video of the targets, such as vehicles, people or specific areas. Particularly in battlefield surveillance, there is high possibility of eavesdropping, inserting, modifying or deleting the messages during communications among the deployed drones and ground station server (GSS). This leads to launch several potential attacks by an adversary, such as main-in-middle, impersonation, drones hijacking, replay attacks, etc. Moreover, anonymity and untraceability are two crucial security properties that need to be maintained in battlefield surveillance communication environment. To deal with such a crucial security problem, we propose a new access control protocol for battlefield surveillance in drone-assisted Internet of Things (IoT) environment, called ACPBS-IoT. Through the detailed security analysis using formal and informal (nonmathematical), and also the formal security verification under automated software simulation tool, we show that the proposed ACPBS-IoT can resist several potential attacks needed in a battlefield surveillance scenario. Furthermore, the testbed experiments for various cryptographic primitives have been performed for measuring the execution time. Finally, a detailed comparative study on communication and computational overheads, and security, as well as functionality features, reveals that the proposed ACPBS-IoT provides superior security and more functionality features, and better or comparable overheads than other existing competing access control schemes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".