4.7 Article

TOWARD SECURE AND LIGHTWEIGHT ACCESS AUTHENTICATION IN SAGINS

期刊

IEEE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 75-81

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/MWC.001.2000132

关键词

Authentication; Blockchain; Mobile nodes; Performance analysis; Delays; Security; Reliability

资金

  1. National Key RD Program [2018YFB1800402]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61802222, 61825204, 61932016]
  3. Beijing Outstanding Young Scientist Program [BJJWZYJH01201910003011]
  4. CCF-Tencent Open Fund WeBank Special Funding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Space-air-ground integrated networks (SAGINs) allow mobile nodes to gain access to the Internet anywhere and at any time, which has significantly broadened the communication coverage all over the world. Different from other heterogeneous networks, SAGINs have the characteristics of dynamic network and wide coverage, which make it vulnerable to various malicious attacks. To improve the security of SAGINs, researchers are facing many sophisticated challenges, in which access authentication is the primary problem to be solved because is mainly used to prevent illegal nodes from accessing SAGINs for network services. Therefore, it is crucial to design a secure and lightweight access authentication scheme for SAGINs. In this article, we propose an identity-based mutual authentication scheme (IMAS), which consists of three segments and five procedural phases. Multicast communication is first introduced in access authentication for re-authentication message transmission, which can greatly reduce authentication delay and signaling overhead during handover. Our further qualitative analysis shows that IMAS has proper security characteristics which can meet various security requirements. In addition, from the perspective of performance evaluation, IMAS has outperformed the existing schemes especially when mobile nodes change their access points frequently and need to be re-authenticated for accessing requests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据