4.7 Article

On Message Authentication Channel Capacity Over a Wiretap Channel

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIFS.2022.3201386

关键词

Physical layer security; multiple message authentication; wiretap channel

资金

  1. NSFC [61872059, 61502085]
  2. Project The Verification Platform of Multi-Tier Coverage Communication Network for Oceans [LZC0020]
  3. Cloud Technology Endowed Professorship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a novel message authentication model using the same key over wiretap channel is proposed to achieve information-theoretic security. The model consists of two discrete memoryless channels: one between transmitter Alice and receiver Bob, and another connecting attacker Oscar and Alice. Based on this model, a new message authentication scheme is proposed, which utilizes random coding techniques to detect man-in-the-middle attacks.
In this paper, a novel message authentication model using the same key over wiretap channel is proposed to achieve information-theoretic security. Specifically, in the proposed model, there is a discrete memoryless channel W-1 : x -> y between transmitter Alice and receiver Bob, while an attacker Oscar is connected with Alice via discrete memoryless channel W-2 : x -> z. Alice encodes message M to codeword (S, X-n), using an encoding function with secret key K. Then, S is sent to Bob over a one-way noiseless channel (fully controlled by Oscar), and X-n is sent over the wiretap channel, say X -> (Y, Z). Building on this model, a new message authentication scheme is proposed. The scheme incorporates a secure channel coding, which uses random coding techniques to detect man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. The authentication channel capacity is studied in a specific channel model when W-2 is not less noisy than W-1. We theoretically demonstrate that the authentication channel capacity is much larger than the secrecy capacity, since Bob does not need to recover information transmitted over the noisy channel.

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