2015 IEEE 81st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/vtcspring.2015.7146029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pre-Distribution of Certificates for Pseudonymous Broadcast Authentication in VANET

Abstract: In the context of vehicular networks, certificate management is challenging because of the dynamic topology and privacy requirements. In this paper we propose a technique that combines certificate omission and certificate pre-distribution in order to reduce communication overhead and to minimize cryptographic packet loss. Simulation results show that this technique is useful to improve awareness quality during pseudonym changes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Sun et al [21] proposed a certificate update method using roadside units (RSUs), but that method depends on communication infrastructures, which makes it unsuitable for disaster communication systems because it is highly probable that RSUs will be unavailable in emergency situations. Separately, Feiri et al [22] proposed a vehiclebased certificate distribution method that forces vehicles in close proximity to each other to proactively exchange certificates. However, Feiri's method would not work in low-vehicle-density areas where vehicles rarely encounter each other because the need to encounter other vehicles to keep certificates updated would degrade disaster communication systems.…”
Section: B Individual Authentication On Vehicular Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Sun et al [21] proposed a certificate update method using roadside units (RSUs), but that method depends on communication infrastructures, which makes it unsuitable for disaster communication systems because it is highly probable that RSUs will be unavailable in emergency situations. Separately, Feiri et al [22] proposed a vehiclebased certificate distribution method that forces vehicles in close proximity to each other to proactively exchange certificates. However, Feiri's method would not work in low-vehicle-density areas where vehicles rarely encounter each other because the need to encounter other vehicles to keep certificates updated would degrade disaster communication systems.…”
Section: B Individual Authentication On Vehicular Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cluster head nodes are make clusters to existing vehicles node have to broadcast pseudonyms certificate to achieve higher VPL. Our this work, we propose VPL x to denote the level of vehicle node x,(x = 1,2,….,n) to the number of the vehicle nodes to CH …”
Section: Proposed Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our this work, we propose VPL x to denote the level of vehicle node x,(x = 1,2,….,n) to the number of the vehicle nodes to CH. [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] The pseudonyms changing vehicle node obviously consider distance and traffic from other vehicle nodes to CH by way of it or not. Pseudonyms changing of node x is P x , PC is for the number of the pseudonyms changing vehicle to transfer their traffic information by way of distance to the CH, then the pseudonyms changing of node x is calculated by…”
Section: Clustering Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The scheme is highly efficient in terms of the delays involved in signature and certificate verification; however, it maintains conditional privacy. For an anonymous certificate, in order to reduce communication overhead and to minimize cryptographic packet loss, Feiri et al [10] combined certificate pre-distribution and certificate omission in order to reduce communications overhead and minimize cryptographic packet loss. Although the use of anonymous certificates is able to achieve the purpose of privacy protection, it needs further investigation to overcome weaknesses in certificate distribution and revocation, and numerous problems with certificate storage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%