Identity-based and anonymous key agreement protocol for fog computing resistant in the Canetti–Krawczyk security model

Abstract

Fog computing allows to connect the edge of the network, consisting of low cost Internet of Things devices, with high end cloud servers. Fog devices can perform data processing, which can significantly reduce the delay for the application. Moreover, data aggregation can be carried out by fog devices which decrease the bandwidth needed being very important for the wireless part of the communication with the cloud servers. The edge-fog-cloud architecture is currently being rolled out for several applications in the field of connected cars, health care monitoring, etc. In this paper, we propose an identitybased, mutual authenticated key agreement protocol for this fog architecture, in which end device and fog are able to establish a secure communication without leakage of their identities. Only the cloud server is able to control the identities of device and fog. We formally prove that the session keys are also protected in the Canetti-Krawczyk security model, in which adversaries are considered to have access to session state specific information, previous session keys, or long-term private keys. The scheme is very efficient as it only utilises elliptic curve operations and basic symmetric key operations.

Fog-Orchestrated and Server-Controlled Anonymous Group Authentication and Key Agreement

“…However, no anonymity is offered in here. Finally, in [43], an efficient, elliptic curve and identity based mutual authentication protocol with anonymity protection for devices is proposed. This scheme also offers protection in case of a Canetti-Krawczyk (CK) adversary model [44].…”

“…Table 3 provides an overview of the required cryptographic operations for the different phases in the scheme. As there are no other group authentication schemes for such fog architecture, we give as information the performance of the scheme in [43], proposing an anonymous pairwise mutual authentication scheme for a fog architecture. If we focus on the most constrained device, being the edge, we can conclude that our scheme is in the same range as [43].…”

“…As there are no other group authentication schemes for such fog architecture, we give as information the performance of the scheme in [43], proposing an anonymous pairwise mutual authentication scheme for a fog architecture. If we focus on the most constrained device, being the edge, we can conclude that our scheme is in the same range as [43]. As our scheme is a group authentication scheme, the complexity at fog and cloud server is higher in our scheme.…”

“…As our scheme is a group authentication scheme, the complexity at fog and cloud server is higher in our scheme. However, if n=1, the complexity becomes more or less similar to [43]. Figure 6 illustrates the computational complexity for the fog and the server, using the measurements of Table 3 for a varying number of devices.…”

“…For the group authentication phase, the total required number of bits to be sent equals to 2605 + 1668n, with n the number of devices in the group. Compared with [43], where a total of 3264 bits is required, this amount is certainly acceptable. A detailed calculation of these numbers can be found in Table 4.…”