LEMAP: A Lightweight EAP based Mutual Authentication Protocol for IEEE 802.11 WLAN
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing usage of wireless devices has significantly increased the need for Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) during the past two decades. However, security (most notably authentication) remains a major roadblock to WLAN adoption. Several authentication protocols exist for verifying a supplicant’s identity who attempts to connect his wireless device to an access point (AP) of an organization’s WLAN. Many of these protocols use the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) framework. These protocols are either vulnerable to attacks such as violation of perfect forward secrecy, replay attack, synchronization attack, privileged insider attack, and identity theft or require high computational and communication costs. In this paper, a lightweight EAP-based authentication protocol for IEEE 802.11 WLAN is proposed that not only addresses the security issues in the existing WLAN authentication protocols but is also cost-effective. The security of the proposed protocol is verified using BAN logic and the Scyther tool. Our analysis shows that the proposed protocol is safe against all the above attacks and attacks defined in RFC-4017. A comparison of the computational and communication costs of the proposed protocol with other existing state-of-the-art protocols shows that the proposed protocol is lightweight than existing solutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it