Common use of Comparison of Security Features Clause in Contracts

Comparison of Security Features. Table 2 compares the security features of our scheme with other schemes presented for the purpose of identity-based mutual authentication in the context of SGs. It must be in addition mentioned that the security strength of [14] with respect to the anonymity feature and the replay, impersonation and MITM attack is strongly dependent on the number of pre-stored security material, which is established with the need for a secure communication channel. Consequently, the process to update the security material is very impractical and by generating a DoS attack both from the side of the SM and the SP, this key material can be very easily exhausted. Based on Table 2 and the fact that anonymity of the SM’s credentials is an elementary security feature, we decided to perform our performance analysis on the schemes providing anonymity. These schemes correspond also with the most recent schemes. Consequently, we compare our scheme with the schemes [9–12,14]. Table 2. Comparison of security features of other identity-based mutual authentication schemes. 2011 [5] 2012 [6] 2016 [7] 2016 [8] 2016 [9] 2018 [10] 2018 [11] 2018 [12] 2018 [14] Ours R1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes R2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes R3 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes R5 No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes R6 No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes R7 No No No No No No No No No Yes R1: Resistance replay attack; R2: Resistance impersonation attack; R3:Resistance MITM attack; R4: Anonymity; R5: SK security in CK model; R6: No secure channel in registration; R7: Resistance DoS attack.