DCAGKA: Dynamic certificateless asymmetric group key agreement protocol for IoT


Abstract

With the rapid advancement of communication technologies, the demand for IoT device interaction and collaboration in clustered environments has significantly increased, making secure communication among devices within a group a critical challenge. Asymmetric group key agreement ensures data transmission security by generating asymmetric keys for the group members. However, the dynamic nature and resource constraints of IoT devices pose challenges in ensuring strong security, low computational overhead, and efficient communication. Specifically, existing solutions lack effective support for device privacy protection, malicious device traceability, and dynamic group key updates. To address these issues, we propose a dynamic certificateless asymmetric group key agreement protocol, as DCAGKA. DCAGKA generates the shared public key and independent private keys for group members to ensure secure group communication, and supports dynamic group key updates when a member joins or leaves, meeting the high mobility and dynamic management requirements of IoT. Through security analysis and security proofs, DCAGKA enables fast traceability of malicious devices and privacy protection of device identities, and satisfies various security properties such as forward security, ensuring the security of IoT data transmission. Through theoretical analysis and simulation experiments, the results show that DCAGKA outperforms existing methods in computational and communication efficiency, making it more suitable for IoT.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].