An EAP-Based Mutual Authentication Protocol for WLAN-Connected IoT Devices

Abstract

Several symmetric and asymmetric encryption based authentication protocols have been developed for the Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs). However, recent findings reveal that these protocols are either vulnerable to numerous attacks or computationally expensive. Considering the demerits of these protocols and the necessity to provide enhanced security, a lightweight Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)-based authentication protocol for WLAN-connected IoT devices is presented. We conduct an informal and formal security analysis to ensure robustness against the attacks. Furthermore, the empirical performance analysis and comparison show that the proposed protocol outperforms its counterparts, reducing computational, communication, storage costs, and energy consumption by up to 99%, 80%, 91.8%, and 98%, respectively. Simulation results of the protocol using the NS3 and its overhead under unknown attacks demonstrate that the proposed protocol performs better in all scenarios. A prototype implementation of the protocol has also been tested to evaluate its feasibility in real-time applications.

An Exhaustive Survey on Authentication Classes in the IoT Environments

“…Kaurl et al [94], Dammak et al [97], Yadav et al [107], and Rostampour et al [111] provided four dual-factor authentication protocols built on encryption and decryption algorithms, random numbers, and hash functions. The formal analysis of the schemes provided by Kaurl et al [94] was carried out using the ProVerif simulator, as these of Yadav et al's protocol [107] and Rostampour et al's protocol [111] were carried out using Scyther.…”

“…Moreover, the key secret that maintains sensitive data secret. As it is clear from Table 2, the schemes [91], [93], [94], [101]- [105], [115], [118], [120], and [125] are the most effective protocols ensuring all security features, then the protocols [95], [97], [98], [106], [107], [111], [113], [116], [117], [119], [122], and [123] which do not ensure the key secret, and [108], [109] that do not ensure the perfect forward secrecy. However, scheme [112] secures mutual authentication, anonymity, intractability, and key agreement, and scheme [121] secures mutual authentication, anonymity, key agreement, and perfect forward secrecy.…”

“…Nonetheless, the protocol [90] is resilient to  ISSN: 2089-3272 insider attacks, replay attacks, GWN bypassing, and stolen verifier attacks. Additionally, the scheme [107] can hold out the same attacks as the scheme [116] apart from man-in-the-middle.…”

“…Based on [93] and [114] Tsig= 0,47 s. Table 3 shows the computational requirement pf the studied authentication schemes. The two-factor lightweight authentication protocols [90], [94], [95], [97], [107], [109], [110], [111], [120], [121], [123], and [125] need 24Th, 21Th+ 4Ts, 42Th, 42Th+Ts, 6Taes + 2Th, 16Th, 6Th+9Ts, 2Ts, 17Th, 16Th, 20Th+2Tpuf, and 30Th respectively. The three-factor lightweight authentication protocols [99], [102], [103], [105], [108], [112], [113], and [117] require 25Th+Tf+4Ts, 35Th+Tf, 15Th+Tf+2Ts, 34Th+2Tf+Tpuf, 29Th+Tf, 24Th+2Ts, 18Th + 2Tf, and 2Tp + 16Th+Tf respectively.…”

Dickson polynomial-based secure group authentication scheme for Internet of Things

“…The authentication followed is a group authenticated key agreement protocol is utilized (5G-AKA). If and when the number of IoT device load gets increased there will be a computational 27 proposed a lightweight extensible authentication protocol (EAP) designed for Internet of Things environment. The scheme suffers computation overhead across unidentified attacks.…”