MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leveraging Group Secret Sharing Technology for FD-RAN: A Lightweight AKA Mechanism

2024· article· en· W4402835406 on OpenAlexaff
Ning Wang, Jiacheng Chen, Jianbing Ni, Liquan Chen, Haibo Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAKAComputer scienceRanMechanism (biology)Group (periodic table)Secret sharingComputer securityComputer networkCryptographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With rapid advances in communication technology, a new access architecture of fully decoupled radio access network (FD-RAN) has been proposed. FD-RAN completely decouples the base station (BS) into uplink data base station (UBS), downlink data base station (DBS), and control base station (CBS). Different BSs handle the uplink and downlink data of the user plane, as well as control signaling, and facilitate communication needs through multi-BS cooperation. To ensure the security of multi-BS cooperation and user access, it becomes imperative to conduct key negotiations among multiple parties. However, as the number of simultaneously accessed BSs increases, the existing access security mechanism imposes excessive overhead in FD-RAN, compromising both access security and efficiency. Additionally, it becomes susceptible to distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks launched by potential attackers. This paper introduces a lightweight authentication and key agreement (AKA) protocol based on secret value ($m_{i},\ n_{i}$) sharing technology to negotiate multi-BS group communication keys, which ensures access security in FD-RAN. By leveraging interpolation polynomial and multi-party key negotiation, the proposed protocol achieves efficient and cost-effective key negotiation on both the user and BS sides, which mitigates the risk of man-in-the-middle (MitM) and DDoS attacks. Security analysis and further evaluation show that the proposed scheme can resist various known attacks, and guarantee the computational and communication efficiency of key negotiation within the FD-RAN context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207