2011
DOI: 10.5121/iju.2011.2101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Practical Attacks on a RFID Authentication Protocol Conforming to EPC C-1 G-2 Standard

Abstract: ABSTRACT

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
(37 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The protocols [7][8][9][10][11][12] use the Hash operation to search the database for the target tag, and we call their method as the one-layer-Hash indexing mechanism, short as 1-Hash. The protocols [13][14][15] use the PRNG operation to replace the Hash operation such that they can conform to the EPC class-1 generation-2 standard, and we call the tag indexing method that they use as one-layer-PRNG indexing mechanism, short as 1-PRNG. Our two-layer tag indexing mechanism can be denoted by 2-PRNG.…”
Section: Experiments and Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The protocols [7][8][9][10][11][12] use the Hash operation to search the database for the target tag, and we call their method as the one-layer-Hash indexing mechanism, short as 1-Hash. The protocols [13][14][15] use the PRNG operation to replace the Hash operation such that they can conform to the EPC class-1 generation-2 standard, and we call the tag indexing method that they use as one-layer-PRNG indexing mechanism, short as 1-PRNG. Our two-layer tag indexing mechanism can be denoted by 2-PRNG.…”
Section: Experiments and Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, [17] and [8] claimed that this proposed protocol is not invulnerable due to the insufficient size of the secure keys. Consequently, it is susceptible to Tag/Reader impersonation attack and desynchronisation as [17] also claimed.…”
Section: ) Cipher-based Proposalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The minimum and maximum values of T 3 are shown in (12) and (13) Likewise, the minimum and maximum values of T 4 are computed as (14) and (15 Finally, deriving from (2) and the calculations above, the minimum and maximum values of T now can be resulted as (16) and (17). …”
Section: ) T 3 and Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Desynchronization: This is an active attack in which a malicious adversary tries to cause the tag and the reader to update inconsistent values and make tag disabled [11]. In recent years, many researchers have tried to propose lightweight and secure authentication protocols [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24], but unfortunately many vulnerabilities have been found in their schemes [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Recently Fu et al [39] proposed a scalable RFID mutual authentication and Li et al [40] suggested a mutual authentication protocol for RFID communication.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%