4.5 Article

PSAP: Pseudonym-Based Secure Authentication Protocol for NFC Applications

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TCE.2018.2811260

关键词

Authentication and key agreement; conditional privacy protection; near field communication (NFC); pseudonym; traceability

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61379129]
  2. Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nowadays, near field communication (NFC) has been widely used in electronic payment, ticketing, and many other areas. NFC security standard requires the use of public key infrastructure (PKI) to implement mutual authentication and session keys negotiation in order to ensure communication security. In traditional PKI-based schemes, every user uses a fixed public/private key pair to implement authentication and key agreement. An attacker can create a profile based on user's public key to track and compromise the user's privacy. Recently, He et al. and Odelu et al. successively proposed pseudonyma-based authentication key and agreement protocols for NFC after Eun et al.'s protocol (2013), which is first claimed to provide conditional privacy for NFC. They respectively claimed that their scheme can satisfy the security requirements. In this paper, first, we prove that their protocols still have security flaws, including the confusion of the user's identity and the random identity. Then, we propose a pseudonym-based secure authentication protocol (PSAP) for NFC applications, which is effective in lifetime and includes time synchronization-based method and nonce-based method. In our scheme, trusted service manager issues pseudonyms but does not need to maintain verification tables and it could reveal the user's identity of internal attackers. Furthermore, security and performance analysis proves that PSAP can provide traceability and more secure features with a little more cost.

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