Blockchain and PUF-Based Lightweight Authentication Protocol for Wireless Medical Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the emergence of heterogeneous Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) (e.g., wearable health devices, smartwatch monitoring, and automated insulin delivery systems), large volumes of patient data are dispatched to central cloud servers for disease analysis and diagnosis. Although this direct mode brings a lot of convenience for both patients and medical professionals (MPs), the open communication channel between them also incurs several security and privacy issues, such as man-in-the-middle attacks, eavesdropping attacks, and tracking attacks. Based on the unsolved challenges in wireless medical sensor networks (WMSNs), several researchers have proposed various authentication and key agreement (AKA) protocols for this type of healthcare system recently. However, most of these protocols do not perceive physical-layer security and over-centralized server problem in WMSN. In this article, to address these two open problems, we propose a lightweight and reliable authentication protocol for WMSN, which is composed of cutting-edge blockchain technology and physically unclonable functions (PUFs). In addition, a fuzzy extractor scheme is introduced to deal with biometric information. Subsequently, two security evaluation methods are used to prove the high reliability of our proposed scheme. Finally, performance evaluation experiments illustrate that the proposed mutual authentication protocol requires the least computation and communication cost among the compared 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".