Vehicular Social Networks 2017
DOI: 10.1201/9781315368450-12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Security and Privacy in Vehicular Social Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

5
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2) End-to-end Latency: We are primarily concerned with the end-to-end latency, i.e., the delay for pseudonym acquisition, measured at the vehicle, calculated from the initialization of Protocol 1 till the successful completion of Protocol 2. 3 Table VII details the latency statistics to obtain pseudonyms with different policies for the two datasets. Figs.…”
Section: A Experimental Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2) End-to-end Latency: We are primarily concerned with the end-to-end latency, i.e., the delay for pseudonym acquisition, measured at the vehicle, calculated from the initialization of Protocol 1 till the successful completion of Protocol 2. 3 Table VII details the latency statistics to obtain pseudonyms with different policies for the two datasets. Figs.…”
Section: A Experimental Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vehicular Communication (VC) systems can generally enhance transportation safety and efficiency with a gamut of applications, ranging from collision avoidance alerts to traffic conditions updates; moreover, they can integrate and enrich Location Based Services (LBSs) [1,2] and vehicular social networks [3], and provide infotainment services. In VC systems, vehicles are provided with On-Board Units (OBUs) to communicate with each other (Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication), or with Roadside Units (RSUs) (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering secure vehicular communications, Papadimitratos [59] analyzed the security challenges in vehicular communication systems while Jin et al [60] extend the analysis to the privacy landscape. Raya et al [61] described the need for a vehicular PKI to secure vehicular communications, and Khodaei et al [62] proposed a generic pseudonymization approach to preserve the unlinkability of messages exchanged between vehicles and PKI servers.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications seek to enhance transportation safety and efficiency with a gamut of applications, ranging from collision avoidance alerts to traffic conditions updates; moreover, they can integrate and enrich Location Based Services (LBSs) [1], [2] and vehicular social networks [3], and provide infotainment services. It has been well-understood that Vehicular Communication (VC) systems are vulnerable to attacks and that the privacy of their users is at stake.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is a double-edged sword: abusive peers, seeking to compromise the trustworthiness of the system, could pollute the CRL distribution and mount a clogging DoS attack. Such an attack relates other content dissemination, e.g., vehicular social networks [3], yet it is critical to mitigate it for CRL distribution: delaying or preventing legitimate users from obtaining the most up-to-date CRL pieces would result in prolonging the operation of a malicious compromised vehicle in the system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%