2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-36252-1_7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Lightweight RFID Mutual Authentication Protocol with Ownership Transfer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“… Nam, Kim, Park and Won fixed Lee, Kim and Yong Authentication Protocol [6]: Activates R1.2, R2.3, revealing replay attack [17].  JSXLC RFID Authentication Protocol [44]: Activates R1.1, revealing freshness attack [15].…”
Section: Results For Other Security Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“… Nam, Kim, Park and Won fixed Lee, Kim and Yong Authentication Protocol [6]: Activates R1.2, R2.3, revealing replay attack [17].  JSXLC RFID Authentication Protocol [44]: Activates R1.1, revealing freshness attack [15].…”
Section: Results For Other Security Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Attack on ID-based scheme for mobile environment detected by Wang and Ma in 2013 [14].  Attack on lightweight RFID authentication protocol detected by Fu and Guo in 2013 [15].  Attack on RAPP ultra-lightweight RFID protocol detected by Zhuang et al in 2013 [16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, in addition to not being EPC compliant due to the use of hash operations and encryption functions, the protocol does not handle the privacy among the shared owners. More recent protocols such as [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] are not suitable for low-cost passive tags because they use hash functions or keyed encryption functions. New shared secret between TTP and Owners in a Owner-Group STs n New shared secret between TTP and Tags in a Tag-Group S1r; S2r…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2) LKY scheme steps The LKY scheme steps are formalised as follows: S1: TTP receivefrom A at [ {Nttp}H({A}datax)); G5: TTP know at [3] A send at [3] H({Nttp}H({A}datax),Nttp); G6: TTP know at [3] NOT(Zero send at [0] H({Nttp}H({A}datax),Nttp)); Goals G1-G4 relate to authentication of TTP to A. G1 states that A knows at step 2 that TTP is the source of message component H({Na}H({A}datax),Na), which is the reply to A's nonce challenge. G2 states that A knows that this message component has been created during the current protocol run.…”
Section: A Formalisation Of Lky Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The formalized goals are similar to the LKY scheme. G1: A know at [2] TTP send at [2] H({Na}H({A}datax), Na, TTP); G2: A know at [2] NOT(Zero send at [0] H({Na}H({A}datax), Na, TTP)); G3: A know at [2] TTP send at [2] {Nttp}H({A}datax); G4: A know at [2] NOT (Zero send at [0] {Nttp}H({A}datax)); G5: TTP know at [3] A send at [3] H({Nttp}H({A}datax), Nttp, A); G6: TTP know at [3] NOT(Zero send at [0] H({Nttp}H({A}datax), Nttp, A));…”
Section: ) Goalsmentioning
confidence: 99%