MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improvement of Passkey Entry Protocol for Secure Simple Pairing

2023· article· en· W4391992206 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Computer sciencePairingProtocol (science)Computer networkPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bluetooth devices are used extensively in todays world. From simple wireless headsets to maintaining an entire home network, the Bluetooth technology is used everywhere. However, there are still vulnerabilities present in the pairing process of Bluetooth which lead to serious security issues resulting in data theft and manipulation. We scrutinized the passkey entry protocol of Secure Simple Pairing (SSP) in the Bluetooth standard v5.2. In this paper, we propose a simple enhancement for the passkey entry protocol in the authentication stage 1 of Secure Simple Pairing using preexisting cryptographic hash functions and random integer generation present in the protocol. We also introduce a store random nonce method to avoid possible man-in-the-middle attack. The new protocol is more secure and efficient than previous known protocols. Our research mainly focuses on strengthening the passkey entry protocol and protecting the devices against passive eavesdropping and active Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks in both Bluetooth Basic Rate/Enhanced Data Rate (BR/EDR) and Bluetooth Low Energy (Bluetooth LE). This method can be used for any device which uses the passkey entry protocol.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.323 · 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