Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probabilistic Full Disclosure Attack on IoT Network Authentication Protocol

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Information and Communication (FICC 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 70))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1507 Accesses

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoTs) is one of the most promising technologies of 5G. The IoTs is basically a system of interconnected computing devices which are provided with unique identification number and capability of transmitting information without human intervention. Since the computing devices (sensors) in IoTs communicate with each other using wireless channel which is accessible for all types of adversaries. Therefore, mutual authentication protocols play an important role for secure communication between the computing nodes. Recently Tewari and Gupta proposed an extremely lightweight authentication protocol to ensure the security and privacy of IoT networks in a cost-effective manner. The proposed protocol uses only two bitwise logical operators; Rotation and XOR and claimed to be one of the most secure Ultralightweight Mutual Authentication Protocol (UMAP). In this paper we have highlighted probabilistic full disclosure attack on the said protocol and challenged their security claims. The proposed attack model is passive and success probability is close to unity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Atzori, L., et al.: The social internet of things (siot)–when social networks meet the internet of things: concept, architecture and network characterization. Comput. Netw. 56(16), 3594–3608 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lin, J., et al.: A survey on internet of things: architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications. IEEE Internet Things J. 4(5), 1125–1142 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mahmoud, R., et al.: Internet of things (IoT) security: current status, challenges and prospective measures. In: 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST). IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babar, S., et al.: Proposed security model and threat taxonomy for the Internet of Things (IoT). In: International Conference on Network Security and Applications, Springer (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ćika, D., Draganić, M., Šipuš, Z.: Active wireless sensor with radio frequency identification chip. In MIPRO, 2012 Proceedings of the 35th International Convention. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tan, J., Koo, S.G.: A survey of technologies in internet of things. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Finkenzeller, K.: RFID handbook: fundamentals and applications in contactless smart cards, radio frequency identification and near-field communication. Wiley (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Class, E.: Generation-2 Class-1 Generation 2 UHF Air Interface Protocol Standard Version 1.2. 0. Gen. 2: p. 2008

    Google Scholar 

  9. Peris-Lopez, P., et al.: LMAP: A real lightweight mutual authentication protocol for low-cost RFID tags. In: Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on RFID Security (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Peris-Lopez, P., et al.: EMAP: an efficient mutual-authentication protocol for low-cost RFID tags. In OTM Confederated International Conferences On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. Springer (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Peris-Lopez, P., et al.: M2AP: a minimalist mutual-authentication protocol for low-cost RFID tags. In: International Conference on Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing. Springer (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Islam, S.: Security analysis of LMAP using AVISPA. Int. J. Secure. Netw. 9(1), 30–39 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li, T., Deng, R.: Vulnerability analysis of EMAP-an efficient RFID mutual authentication protocol. In: The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, 2007. ARES 2007. IEEE (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bárász, M., et al.: Passive attack against the M2AP mutual authentication protocol for RFID tags. In Proceedings of First International EURASIP Workshop on RFID Technology (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chien, H.-Y.: Sasi: a new ultralightweight rfid authentication protocol providing strong authentication and strong integrity. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 4(4), 337–340 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mujahid, U., Najam-ul-Islam, M., Shami, M.A.: Rcia: a new ultralightweight rfid authentication protocol using recursive hash. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 11(1), 642180 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mujahid, U., Najam-ul-Islam, M., Sarwar, S.: A new ultralightweight RFID authentication protocol for passive low cost tags: KMAP. Wireless Pers. Commun. 94(3), 725–744 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Luo, H., et al.: SLAP: succinct and lightweight authentication protocol for low-cost RFID system. Wireless Netw. 24(1), 69–78 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun, H.-M., Ting, W.-C., Wang, K.-H.: On the security of Chien’s ultralightweight RFID authentication protocol. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 8(2), 315–317 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Avoine, G., Carpent, X., Martin, B.: Strong authentication and strong integrity (SASI) is not that strong. In International Workshop on Radio Frequency Identification: Security and Privacy Issues. Springer (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Safkhani, M., Bagheri, N.: Generalized desynchronization attack on UMAP: application to RCIA, KMAP, SLAP and SASI + protocols. IACR Cryptology ePrint Arch. 2016, 905 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tewari, A., Gupta, B.: Cryptanalysis of a novel ultra-lightweight mutual authentication protocol for IoT devices using RFID tags. J. Supercomput. 73(3), 1085–1102 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Adat, V., Gupta, B.: Security in internet of things: issues, challenges, taxonomy, and architecture. Telecommun. Syst. 67(3), 423–441 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Safkhani, M., Bagheri, N.: Passive secret disclosure attack on an ultralightweight authentication protocol for internet of things. J. Supercomput. 73(8), 3579–3585 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hernandez-Castro, J.C., et al.: Cryptanalysis of the David-Prasad RFID ultralightweight authentication protocol. In International Workshop on Radio Frequency Identification: Security and Privacy Issues. Springer (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Madiha Khalid & Muhammad Najam-ul-Islam

  2. Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, USA

    Umar Mujahid & Binh Tran

Authors
  1. Madiha Khalid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Umar Mujahid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammad Najam-ul-Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Binh Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madiha Khalid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga, Japan

    Kohei Arai

  2. The Science and Information (SAI) Organization, Bradford, UK

    Rahul Bhatia

Appendix A

Appendix A

Good approximation equation calculation to estimate tag’s \( ID \) (100 tests).

\( X \)

\( dist\left( {ID,X} \right) \)

GA equations

\( \varvec{P} \)

30.48

•

\( \varvec{Q} \)

31.75

•

\( \varvec{R} \)

31.69

•

\( \varvec{S} \)

30.59

•

\( \varvec{P} \oplus \varvec{Q} \)

31.69

•

\( \varvec{P} \oplus \varvec{R} \)

31.93

•

\( \varvec{P} \oplus \varvec{S} \)

28.89

•

\( \varvec{Q} \oplus \varvec{R} \)

29.40

•

\( Q \oplus S \)

32.28

â–²

\( \varvec{S} \oplus \varvec{R} \)

31.42

•

\( \varvec{P} \oplus \varvec{Q} \oplus \varvec{R} \)

31.74

•

\( \varvec{P} \oplus \varvec{Q} \oplus \varvec{S} \)

31.60

•

\( Q \oplus R \oplus S \)

32.03

â–²

\( \varvec{P} \oplus \varvec{S} \oplus \varvec{R} \)

31.8

•

\( \varvec{P} \oplus \varvec{Q} \oplus \varvec{R} \oplus \varvec{S} \)

31.23

•

\( P^{\prime} \)

33.52

â–²

\( Q^{\prime} \)

32.25

â–²

\( R^{\prime} \)

32.31

â–²

\( S^{\prime} \)

33.41

â–²

\( Q^{\prime} \oplus S^{\prime} \)

32.28

â–²

\( \varvec{S^{\prime}} \oplus \varvec{R^{\prime}} \)

31.42

•

\( \varvec{Q^{\prime}} \oplus \varvec{R^{\prime}} \oplus \varvec{S^{\prime}} \)

31.97

•

\( P^{\prime} \oplus S^{\prime} \oplus R^{\prime} \)

32.2

â–²

  1. â–²: Equation not selected as good approximation
  2. •: Equation selected as good approximation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Khalid, M., Mujahid, U., Najam-ul-Islam, M., Tran, B. (2020). Probabilistic Full Disclosure Attack on IoT Network Authentication Protocol. In: Arai, K., Bhatia, R. (eds) Advances in Information and Communication. FICC 2019. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 70. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12385-7_52

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation