TABLE II. Comparison of MASK Protocol Versus Conventional Protocols.
![]() |
[10] | [16] | [18] | [21] | [22] | [23] | [24] | [25] |
![]() |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ |
Acronyms:
: Security goals,
: MASK protocol, ✔: Secure against attack/preserves a security attribute,
: Vulnerable/non accomplishment of security attribute,
: Not applicable,
: Replay,
: Impersonation,
: Modification of messages,
: DoS,
: MITM,
: Known key,
: Cloning,
: Side-channel,
: Mutual authentication,
: Data privacy,
: Session key security,
: Message integrity,
: Message freshness,
: User identity anonymity,
: Sensor node identity anonymity,
: User untraceability,
: Sensor node untraceability




































































