4.7 Article

LACO: Lightweight Three-Factor Authentication, Access Control and Ownership Transfer Scheme for E-Health Systems in IoT

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2019.02.020

关键词

E-health systems; IoT; Cybersecurity; Three-factor authentication; Ownership transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of the Internet of Things (loT) in the electronic health (e-health) management systems brings with it many challenges, including secure communications through insecure radio channels, authentication and key agreement schemes between the entities involved, access control protocols and also schemes for transferring ownership of vital patient information. Besides, the resource-limited sensors in the IoT have real difficulties in achieving this goal. Motivated by these considerations, in this work we propose a new lightweight authentication and ownership transfer protocol for e-health systems in the context of IoT (LACO in short). The goal is to propose a secure and energy-efficient protocol that not only provides authentication and key agreement but also satisfies access control and preserves the privacy of doctors and patients. Moreover, this is the first time that the ownership transfer of users is considered. In the ownership transfer phase of the proposed scheme, the medical server can change the ownership of patient information. In addition, the LACO protocol overcomes the security flaws of recent authentication protocols that were proposed for e-health systems, but are unfortunately vulnerable to traceability, de-synchronization, denial of service (DoS), and insider attacks. To avoid past mistakes, we present formal (i.e., conducted on ProVerif language) and informal security analysis for the LACO protocol. All this ensures that our proposed scheme is secure against the most common attacks in IoT systems. Compared to the predecessor schemes, the LACO protocol is both more efficient and more secure to use in e-health systems. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据