Mutual Authentication Sample Clauses

Mutual Authentication. In the proposed protocol, the goal of mutual authentication was to ensure that MU and HA are legitimate and to establish an agreed-upon session key between MU and FA for further communications. 1. Mutual authentication between MU and HA:

Mutual Authentication. U U U U U GWN GWN GWN S S S S U GWN U S GWN S

Mutual Authentication. From the proof of Theorem 1, it is proved that in polynomial time no one can successfully get the session key. In the proposed scheme, the participants (a vehicle Vi, a drone Dj and the control center CC) could mutually authenticate each other by checking whether their received message is valid or not. Therefore, the proposed scheme achieves mutual authentication.

Mutual Authentication. To protect the system security and avoid leaking the privacy of the devices, commu- nicators need to validate each other’s identity before sending sensitive message.

Mutual Authentication. The gate-way node GWN first checks whether the received timestamp T1 is valid as compare to the decrypted one from Di when receiving the message {Di, Ei, T1}. Next, GWN verifies = h(h(IDi, Xk), ri, T1) ? Ei. If both the condition are true, the validity of the user Ui is authenticated by ?

Mutual Authentication. The proposed scheme provides mutual authentication. Suppose if ℛ dispatches the Ciphertext Ψ1 = ( NON , Ω, Λ, , , ) to ℛ . After receiving the key 1, Xx performs the following computations:

Mutual Authentication. The enhanced scheme provides mutual authentication because legitimate participants verify each other, ensuring strong mutual authentication. This property secures our protocol and allows for the early detection of potential attacks such as replay attacks.

Mutual Authentication. After receiving message the {Auth1, M1, HIDi, Bi, RAj, Auth2} from vi and RSUj, TA checks = = whether Auth′ ? Auth1. If it is equal, TA also checks Auth′ ? Auth2. Subsequently, TA sends {Ci, Di, Auth3, Auth4} to the vi and RSUj for authenticating. RSUj checks Auth′ ? Auth3 and vi checks also Auth′ ? Auth4. If they are valid, vi, RSUj, and TA successfully authenticate each other. Previous 4 = sections have shown that A cannot generate valid messages. Furthermore, all of the transmitted messages are refreshed for every session with secret random numbers. Therefore, our proposed protocol successfully ensures secure mutual authentication and achieves session key agreement.

Mutual Authentication. The proposed scheme provides mutual authenticity to both participants by devising a unique and mutual agreed session key between them. We know that the benefit that adversary may take by launching the login as well as an authentication request and response message is quite negligible due to illustrated lemma1 in above section [24]. Hence, the MUi and CMDi could mutually authenticate one another with the assistance of GRSj. Hence, the proposed approach supports mutual authentication.

Mutual Authentication. In our proposed protocol, both the UAV and the service provider (USP) can authen- ticate each other. The USP authenticates the UAV by checking the parameter ResUav , which must be equal to h(EL Rx∗ Ry∗ SK ), where SK = h(Nu Rx Ry Ns ). Now, if an adversary wants to impersonate as an UAV, then he/she needs to know the secret PUF responses, i.e., Rx can write the following: and y A,G3 A,G4 Adv AKE − Adv AKE ≤ qsend