Rotating behind security: an enhanced authentication protocol for IoT-enabled devices in distributed cloud computing architecture

Abstract

With the continuous progress of the Internet of Things (IoT) technology, IoT devices have gradually penetrated all aspects of life. However, due to rapid data growth, IoT devices with limited memory resources cannot store massive data. Cloud computing is an Internet-centric network that can provide security services and data storage. The combination of IoT devices with cloud computing considerably promotes resource sharing, facilitates users’ access to information at any time, and provides users with corresponding cloud computing services on time. Because the information transmitted through public channels is easily intercepted, tampered with, and eavesdropped on by malicious attackers. As a result, users’ and servers’ private information are disclosed. Numerous scholars have proposed different authentication protocols in this environment to protect the communications between users and servers. Amin et al. devised a smart card based authentication protocol. Unfortunately, Kang et al. demonstrated that their protocol was insecure. Huang et al. discovered Kang et al.’s improvement also has security flaws and then designed a protocol to enhance security. In this paper, we first show that Huang et al.’s protocol cannot resist privileged insider and temporary value disclosure attacks. Afterward, we propose an enhanced protocol based on their protocol. Finally, we use formal/informal security analysis to demonstrate the security of the improved protocol. The comparison results are indicated that our protocol has lower computational and communication costs under the same security level.

A Systematic Literature Review of Information Security in Chatbots

“…Encryption can protect data from being intercepted and viewed by unauthorized parties during transmission. Developers can use techniques such as end-to-end encryption or transport layer security to secure data in transit using authenticated key agreement schemes [33][34][35] in different environments and symmetric or asymmetric encryption to protect data stored on the chatbot's database.…”

Provably Secure Lightweight Mutual Authentication and Key Agreement Scheme for Cloud-Based IoT Environments

“…We visually compare the safety elements of the proposed scheme and related schemes [ 11 , 21 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] and record them in Table 3 , which includes various types of safety elements such as “insider attack”, “impersonation attack”, “stolen verification attack”, “ESL attack”, “privileged attack”, “perfect forward secrecy”, “reply attack”, “offline password-guessing attack”, “session key disclosure”, “mutual authentication”, “DoS attack”, “user anonymity”, and “untraceability”. Ultimately, the proposed scheme offers more security features compared to Wu et al’s scheme, and it exhibits fewer features that are either unidentified or not provided, even when compared to the schemes of other related works.…”

“…We conducted a comparative analysis of communication costs between the related schemes [ 11 , 21 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] and the proposed scheme. Based on [ 11 ], we assume the bit lengths of hash function, timestamp, string, identity, random number, fuzzy extractor, and encryption operation to be 256, 32, 160, 160, 160, 8, and 256 bits, respectively.…”

“…Therefore, during the MAKA phase of our proposed scheme, the exchanged message requires (160 + 160 + 160 + 256 + 32 = 768 bits), message requires (768 + 160 + 256 + 32 = 1216 bits), message requires (160 + 160 + 160 + 160 + 256 + 256 + 32 = 1184 bits), and message requires (160 + 160 + 256 + 32 = 608 bits). Table 4 and Figure 8 present a summary of the communication costs for the associated schemes [ 11 , 21 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] and the proposed scheme.…”

“…We conducted a comparative analysis of computation costs for the AKA phase of the proposed scheme and related schemes [ 11 , 21 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Based on [ 49 ], we designed the environment for computing costs.…”