4.5 Article

Identity based two-party authenticated key agreement scheme for vehicular ad hoc networks

期刊

PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKING AND APPLICATIONS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 2236-2247

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12083-021-01181-8

关键词

Identity based cryptography; Key agreement; Vehicular ad hoc networks; eCK model; Standard model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61962011, 61562012]
  2. Innovation Group Major Research Projects of Department of Education of Guizhou Province [KY[2016]026]
  3. Guizhou Provincial Science and Technology Foundation Science [[2019]1434]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The text discusses the challenges of achieving secure information sharing in Vehicular ad hoc network and the security proofs of known identity based two-party authenticated key agreement schemes. The authors point out the insecurity of a new scheme and propose a new scheme suitable for VANET. The proposed scheme does not require pairing operations and only needs four scalar multiplication operations.
Vehicular ad hoc network(VANET) is the application of mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) on the road of traffic. It is an important issue to achieve secure sharing of information among vehicles. Authenticated key agreement (AKA) is a good option to solve the problem. The security proofs of all known identity based two-party authenticated key agreement (IB2PAKA) schemes are given in the random oracle model(ROM). A cryptographic scheme, that is proven to be secure in ROM, is not necessarily safe in real life. Recently, Dang et al. presented an IB2PAKA scheme for VANET and claimed that it is provably secure in the extended Canetti-Krawczyk (eCK) model and ROM. In this paper, we indicate that Dang et al.'s scheme is not secure by showing two concrete attacks, then put forward a new IB2PAKA scheme and provide the security proofs in eCK model and the standard model (SM). Our scheme is suitable for VANET due to it does not require pairing operations and requires only four scale multiplication operations.

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

4.5
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