Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

StarCast: A Secure and Spectrum-Efficient Group Communication Scheme for LEO Satellite Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read StarCast claims that a LEO satellite can broadcast a single encrypted message to a group and still let only authorized members decrypt it.

desk verdict A useful application idea undermined by an internal contradiction in the key-management claim and an unfair spectrum baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07901 v2 pith:XGLSQJ2K submitted 2025-02-11 cs.NI

Chaoyu Zhang , Hexuan Yu , Shanghao Shi , Shaoyu Li , Yi Shi , Eric Burger , Y. Thomas Hou , Wenjing Lou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords LEOsatellitenetworksDirect-to-Cellgroupcommunicationciphertext-policyattribute-basedencryptionspectrumefficiencyfine-grainedaccesscontrolkeymanagementphasedarraybeamforming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

StarCast is a secure group-communication scheme for low-Earth-orbit satellites. It uses ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption so that the satellite transmits one encrypted copy of a message to everyone under a beam, and only users whose attributes satisfy the access policy can decrypt it. The paper argues this preserves the spectrum efficiency of group broadcast while eliminating the per-user encrypted channels of unicast end-to-end encryption and the per-member key wrapping of broadcast encryption. If the claim holds, direct-to-cell satellite networks could serve many users with far less spectrum and key-management overhead than current secure delivery approaches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is CP-ABE (ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption), in which a sender encrypts to an access policy and a user's secret key, labeled with attributes, decrypts only if the attribute set satisfies the policy. The construction uses asymmetric bilinear pairings $e: G_1 \times G_2 \to G_T$, with ciphertext components generated from the rows of a monotone span program and key components tied to individual attributes; the pairing lets authorized users reconstruct the message while preventing unauthorized users from combining keys. On the radio side, phased-array beamforming adjusts beam center and width to cover the policy group, giving higher antenna gain than a full broadcast beam while still serving all group members at once.

What would settle it

Measure the sum of legitimate-user data rates when one policy group is split across two regions separated by more than the beam radius. If StarCast must either widen the beam to cover both regions, admitting unauthorized users, or use two beams, doubling spectrum use, and the resulting data rate no longer beats unicast or broadcast encryption, the central efficiency claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that security and spectrum efficiency need not be traded off in satellite group communication. StarCast combines ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption with phased-array beamforming: the server gives each user a secret key tied to attributes, the encryptor embeds an access policy in the ciphertext, and the satellite points an intermediate-width beam at the users who share that policy. Because one ciphertext serves the whole group, a single transmission reaches many users, and because decryption requires a satisfying attribute set, the scheme is argued to resist collusion and to support revocation with backward secrecy. In the paper's data-rate model, StarCast outperforms both per-user unicast encryption and wide-beam broadcast encryption as the number of policy groups grows.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency claim assumes that users who share an access policy are geographically clustered enough for one satellite beam to cover them without also covering unauthorized users.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One ciphertext per access policy replaces one ciphertext per user, so spectrum use for a group no longer grows linearly with group size.
  • Key management scales with the number of distinct attributes rather than the number of subscribers, and a user's key stays valid across many policies as long as the user's attributes are unchanged.
  • Member join and revocation can be handled by updating the master key and regenerating subscriber keys, preserving backward secrecy.
  • StarCast's beam pattern becomes finer as the number of policy groups increases, and the paper's simulation shows its data-rate advantage over unicast and broadcast grows with that number.
  • For large messages, the ABE ciphertext can be used to derive a symmetric session key, so the cost of encrypting arbitrarily large content reduces to one ABE encryption.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper does not develop is to treat the access-policy-to-beam mapping as a scheduling variable: when multiple policies overlap geographically, the satellite could merge beams and let the ciphertext policies do the access control.
  • The same attribute-based key structure could be reused for authenticated uplink from devices, since a device already holds attribute keys the satellite could verify.
  • If real direct-to-cell constellations enable multicast, operators could benchmark StarCast against live broadcast encryption in orbit; the current prototype only exercises end-to-end latency because Starlink does not yet support true group communication.
  • The scheme's efficiency gain has a cross-over point: when policy groups are geographically scattered, StarCast approaches broadcast encryption's wide-beam regime, so an operator would need a quantitative rule for when to fall back to unicast.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes StarCast, a secure group communication scheme for LEO satellite downlinks that combines CP-ABE-based access control with adjustable satellite beamforming. The server encrypts content under an attribute-based access policy and broadcasts a single ciphertext over a beam covering the intended user group; only users whose attributes satisfy the policy can decrypt. The paper claims that this approach preserves the spectrum efficiency of group communication while reducing key management overhead relative to conventional unicast and broadcast encryption. The evaluation includes a simulated sum-rate comparison of unicast, broadcast, and StarCast beam patterns, a Starlink-based latency prototype, and a computational benchmark of CP-ABE operations.

Significance. If the central claims held, StarCast would offer a practical way to combine fine-grained access control with physical-layer multicast for DTC LEO satellites, an application area of growing relevance. The paper includes a real Starlink latency measurement and a Charm-based implementation of the underlying CP-ABE primitive, which are useful engineering data points. However, the claimed key-management benefit is contradicted by the paper's own rekeying procedure, and the spectrum-efficiency advantage is shown only under a strong geographic-clustering assumption and a single-beam model that is not representative of realistic multi-beam satellite operation. As a result, the paper's main contributions are not established as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-D and Abstract] The abstract and Contribution 2 claim that StarCast 'significantly reduces the costly key management overhead' and 'reduces the complexity of key management in dynamically changing and large-scale user systems.' However, Section IV-D specifies that for every new user join, 'the master key mk is updated' and 'the secret keys sk for all current legitimate users are regenerated,' and that revocation is done 'in a similar manner by updating the mk for all users, excluding those that need to be revoked.' This is a per-membership-change cost of O(N) KeyGen operations plus O(N) secure key deliveries, which is not a reduction compared with conventional per-user key management and is worse than modern broadcast encryption with sublinear revocation. The later statement in Section IV-D that a user's sk need not change across policy changes holds only when mk is unchanged; the join/revocation path changes mk, so the two statements cannot both be true in dynamic settings. This internal contradiction undermines the paper's stated main advantage over prior schemes.
  2. [§V-A, Eq. (10)-(11)] The simulated spectrum-efficiency comparison assumes that each policy group is geographically clustered so that a single beam can cover all legitimate users without including many unintended receivers. This assumption is stated in Section V-A ('We assume that the same group of users utilizes the line-of-sight path to the satellite and requests the same content') and is implemented in the simulation by placing users in colored spatial clusters. If users sharing an access policy are geographically scattered, StarCast either must widen the beam, reducing antenna gain and approaching broadcast performance, or must use multiple beams, losing the claimed one-beam-per-group efficiency. The paper does not quantify when the advantage disappears or compare against a geographically realistic attribute-to-user mapping, so the conclusion that 'StarCast consistently outperforms unicast and broadcast' is not established for general LEO user distributions.
  3. [§V-A, model description] The evaluation restricts the satellite to a single beam at any time ('we simplify the analysis by assuming that only one beam is used for transmission at any given time') and serves the M groups sequentially via time division. This modeling choice systematically disadvantages the unicast baseline, which in a realistic multi-beam phased-array satellite would deliver narrow, high-gain beams to multiple users in parallel rather than serially. The reported sum-rate advantage of StarCast over unicast may therefore be an artifact of the single-beam, time-division assumption rather than an inherent property of the proposed scheme. The authors should either compare against a multi-beam unicast baseline or explicitly justify why the single-beam restriction is appropriate for the claimed scenario.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-C, Dec] In Eq. (9), the text refers to sk'_1, sk'_2, and sk'_3 in the three pairing products, but the immediately preceding definition (Eq. (5) and following sentence) only defines sk'_1 and sk'_2; the third component appears to be g^{δ3}. This is a typographical inconsistency that makes the decryption formula difficult to verify.
  2. [§IV-C, Setup] The protocol description in Section IV-C does not explicitly list public parameters used by Enc and Dec (e.g., the hash function H and the group descriptions) as part of pk; the reader must infer these from context. A formal specification of all public parameters would improve reproducibility.
  3. [§V-D] The comparison of 'Total Number of Encryption Keys' states that broadcast encryption requires N keys because the group key is encrypted with each member's public key. This conflates the public-key count for the encryptor with the per-user key-management burden, and it ignores modern broadcast-encryption constructions with logarithmic or constant-size ciphertexts and efficient revocation. The comparison should use state-of-the-art broadcast encryption baselines.
  4. [§V-B] The latency experiment acknowledges that Starlink does not physically support group communication and that the test is therefore an end-to-end session with a smaller beamwidth. This limitation is appropriately stated, but the paper should clarify that the measured latencies do not validate the beamforming or multicast aspects of StarCast.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from a formal statement of the security definitions and a security proof or a precise reduction to the referenced CP-ABE schemes; currently the security claims are asserted informally with citations to [21], [22].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cryptographic core is imported from external CP-ABE constructions and the spectrum evaluation is an external simulation model; the key-management overhead claim is internally inconsistent but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The cryptographic design explicitly follows external, well-established CP-ABE schemes: 'Our formal definitions of the cryptographic design follow [21], [22], whose security properties and proofs are well established' (Section IV-A), so no load-bearing claim is justified by the authors' own prior work. The spectrum-efficiency evaluation likewise follows an external model: 'To analyze the sum of legitimate users' data rates, we follow the performance evaluation model from [10]' (Section V-A), with fixed system parameters in Table II and no fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction. The conclusion that StarCast achieves higher sum data rates than unicast and broadcast is a direct consequence of the antenna-gain and time-sharing model, not of any circular input. The abstract's claim that StarCast 'significantly reduces the costly key management overhead associated with conventional encryption schemes' is not supported in a dynamic setting, because Section IV-D states that before each new user joins 'the master key mk is updated' and 'the secret keys sk for all current legitimate users are regenerated,' and revocation is done 'in a similar manner by updating the mk for all users, excluding those that need to be revoked.' This is an internal inconsistency with the claimed reduction, but it is a correctness or modeling risk, not a circularity of the kind where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. Self-citations appear in related work (e.g., [5], [31]-[40], [44]-[46]), but none is load-bearing: they support background statements and are not used to derive StarCast's central results. The geographic-clustering assumption is explicitly acknowledged in Section V-B as a limitation of the Starlink-based measurement, rather than smuggled in as an established fact. Overall, the paper's central claims are not forced by definition, by fit, or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the security of an externally proven CP-ABE construction, a physical-layer model borrowed from prior work, and a strong geographic co-location assumption that the paper does not justify.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The CP-ABE construction from [21] (FAME) and [22] (FABEO) is secure and correctly implemented.
    Section IV-A states the cryptographic design follows [21] and [22], whose security properties and proofs are well established.
  • domain assumption The Friis transmission equation and Rician channel model accurately describe the LEO satellite downlink.
    Equation (10) and Section V-A use these models to compute received power and data rates.
  • ad hoc to paper Users with identical access privileges are geographically co-located so a single beam can cover them without including unauthorized users.
    Section V-A assumes group membership is determined by attribute sets and that users share a line-of-sight path; the simulation distributes users in spatially clustered groups.
  • domain assumption The satellite is honest-but-curious and is trusted with user locations and access privileges.
    Section III-B defines the threat model with an honest-but-curious service provider, and Section III-A assumes the satellite knows user locations and privileges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StarCast: A Secure and Spectrum-Efficient Group Communication Scheme for LEO Satellite Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XGLSQJ2K

@misc{pith2026250207901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StarCast: A Secure and Spectrum-Efficient Group Communication Scheme for LEO Satellite Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XGLSQJ2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07901}
}
read the original abstract

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks serve as a cornerstone infrastructure for providing ubiquitous connectivity in areas where terrestrial infrastructure is unavailable. With the emergence of Direct-to-Cell (DTC) satellites, these networks can provide direct access to mobile phones and IoT devices without relying on terrestrial base stations, leading to a surge in massive connectivity demands for the serving satellite. To address this issue, group communication is an effective paradigm that enables simultaneous content delivery to multiple users and thus optimizes bandwidth reuse. Although extensive research has been conducted to improve group communication performance, securing this communication without compromising its inherent spectrum efficiency remains a critical challenge. To address this, we introduce StarCast, a secure group encryption scheme for LEO satellite networks. Our solution leverages ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption (CP-ABE) to implement fine-grained access control by embedding access policies directly within the ciphertext. Unlike standard secure communication approaches that require dedicated per-user channels and significantly deplete limited satellite spectrum resources, StarCast maintains efficient spectrum reuse within user groups while ensuring that only authorized users can access transmitted data. Additionally, it significantly reduces the costly key management overhead associated with conventional encryption schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Starlink Coverage Map; (b) DTC Supported Mobile Phone and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. StarCast system model B. Threat Model We assume that the satellite communication service is con￾trolled and provided by an honest-but-curious third party, such as Starlink. Consequently, a security mechanism is required to preserve data confidentiality and achieve access control. We assume that an attacker can intercept wireless signals transmitted between the satellite and user devices, potentially gaining access t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System Design: In our system, the server defines an access policy, and only those users whose attributes meet it can decrypt the data. An LEO satellite utilizes group communication to send the ciphertext to the users of the legitimate group simultaneously. of input: strings and numbers. It takes the form of (ξ, ℓ, t) or (ρ, ℓ, t), where ξ is an arbitrary string, ρ is a positive integer, ℓ ∈ {1, 2, 3} and t ∈ {1, 2}.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: StarCast Communication Test-Bed we simplify the analysis by assuming that only one beam is used for transmission at any given time. The satellite provides communication services to a total of N users. They are grouped into M groups, and each group is served sequentiall…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: User Grouping and Beam Coverage in a Satellite-Serviced Area: Visualizations with (a) 2 Groups of Users, (b) 4 Groups of Users, (c) 8 Groups of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average ciphertext communication latency from eight AWS servers to the end device, with standard deviation samples indicated. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Computation times for StarCast by (a) setup, (b) key generation, (c) encryption, and (d) decryption processes as the number of attributes increases. beamwidth θm. However, this method results in a lower Cm due to the reduced antenna gain Gm t , as it must cover a broad…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Non-terrestrial networks

    J. Krause, “Non-terrestrial networks.” https://www.3gpp.org/ technologies/ntn-overview. Online; accessed December-2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Spectrum sharing and inter- ference management for 6g leo satellite-terrestrial network integration,

    N. Heydarishahreza, T. Han, and N. Ansari, “Spectrum sharing and inter- ference management for 6g leo satellite-terrestrial network integration,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    A survey on direct-to-device satellite communications: Advances, challenges, and prospects,

    H. B. Pasandi, J. A. Fraire, S. Ratnasamy, and H. Rivano, “A survey on direct-to-device satellite communications: Advances, challenges, and prospects,” in LEO-NET’24: Proceedings of the 2nd International Work- shop on LEO Networking and Communication , pp. 7–12, ACM, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Leo satellite access network (leo-san) towards 6g: Challenges and approaches,

    Z. Xiao, J. Yang, T. Mao, C. Xu, R. Zhang, Z. Han, and X.-G. Xia, “Leo satellite access network (leo-san) towards 6g: Challenges and approaches,” IEEE Wireless Communications, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Pri-share: Enabling inter-sas privacy protection via secure multi-party spectrum al- location,

    H. Yu, S. Shi, Y . Shi, E. Burger, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, “Pri-share: Enabling inter-sas privacy protection via secure multi-party spectrum al- location,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), pp. 347–356, IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Large constellations of small satellites: A survey of near future challenges and missions,

    G. Curzi, D. Modenini, and P. Tortora, “Large constellations of small satellites: A survey of near future challenges and missions,” Aerospace, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 133, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Leo mega-constellations for 6g global coverage: Challenges and opportunities,

    H. Xie, Y . Zhan, G. Zeng, and X. Pan, “Leo mega-constellations for 6g global coverage: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 164223–164244, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Satellite technology

    Starlink, “Satellite technology.” https://www.starlink.com/technology. Online; accessed December-2024

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    DVB-S2X (Second Generation Satellite Extensions); DVB BlueBook A083-2r4 (Draft EN 302 307-2 V1.4.1),

    “DVB-S2X (Second Generation Satellite Extensions); DVB BlueBook A083-2r4 (Draft EN 302 307-2 V1.4.1),” tech. rep., DVB Project Office, 17a Ancienne Route CH-1218 Grand Saconnex, Geneva, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Joint user grouping and beamwidth optimization for satellite multicast with phased array an- tennas,

    B. Liu, C. Jiang, L. Kuang, and J. Lu, “Joint user grouping and beamwidth optimization for satellite multicast with phased array an- tennas,” in GLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Rate-splitting multiple access for multigroup multicast and multibeam satellite systems,

    L. Yin and B. Clerckx, “Rate-splitting multiple access for multigroup multicast and multibeam satellite systems,” IEEE Transactions on Com- munications, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 976–990, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Outage- constrained robust multigroup multicast beamforming for satellite-based internet of things coexisting with terrestrial networks,

    Y . Yan, K. An, B. Zhang, W.-P. Zhu, G. Ding, and D. Guo, “Outage- constrained robust multigroup multicast beamforming for satellite-based internet of things coexisting with terrestrial networks,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 8159–8172, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Cooperative multigroup multicast transmission in integrated terrestrial-satellite net- works,

    X. Zhu, C. Jiang, L. Yin, L. Kuang, N. Ge, and J. Lu, “Cooperative multigroup multicast transmission in integrated terrestrial-satellite net- works,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 981–992, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Secure anonymous group infrastructure for common and future internet applications,

    N. Weiler, “Secure anonymous group infrastructure for common and future internet applications,” in Seventeenth Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 401–410, IEEE, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Framework for anonymity in ip-multicast environments,

    C. Grosch, “Framework for anonymity in ip-multicast environments,” in Globecom’00-IEEE. Global Telecommunications Conference. Confer- ence Record (Cat. No. 00CH37137) , vol. 1, pp. 365–369, IEEE, 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    Privacy in encrypted content distri- bution using private broadcast encryption,

    A. Barth, D. Boneh, and B. Waters, “Privacy in encrypted content distri- bution using private broadcast encryption,” in International conference on financial cryptography and data security , pp. 52–64, Springer, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Broadcast encryption,

    A. Fiat and M. Naor, “Broadcast encryption,” in Advances in Cryp- tology—CRYPTO’93: 13th Annual International Cryptology Conference Santa Barbara, California, USA August 22–26, 1993 Proceedings 13 , pp. 480–491, Springer, 1994

    1993

  10. [18]

    Ciphertext-policy attribute- based encryption,

    J. Bethencourt, A. Sahai, and B. Waters, “Ciphertext-policy attribute- based encryption,” in 2007 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP’07), pp. 321–334, IEEE, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption: An expressive, efficient, and provably secure realization,

    B. Waters, “Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption: An expressive, efficient, and provably secure realization,” in International workshop on public key cryptography , pp. 53–70, Springer, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Improved dual system abe in prime-order groups via predicate encodings,

    J. Chen, R. Gay, and H. Wee, “Improved dual system abe in prime-order groups via predicate encodings,” in Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pp. 595–624, Springer, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Fame: Fast attribute-based message encryp- tion,

    S. Agrawal and M. Chase, “Fame: Fast attribute-based message encryp- tion,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pp. 665–682, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Fabeo: Fast attribute-based encryption with optimal security,

    D. Riepel and H. Wee, “Fabeo: Fast attribute-based encryption with optimal security,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pp. 2491–2504, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Fabesa: Fast (and anonymous) attribute-based encryption under standard assumption,

    L. Meng, L. Chen, Y . Tian, and M. Manulis, “Fabesa: Fast (and anonymous) attribute-based encryption under standard assumption,” Cryptology ePrint Archive , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Fease: Fast and expressive asymmetric searchable encryption.,

    L. Meng, L. Chen, Y . Tian, M. Manulis, and S. Liu, “Fease: Fast and expressive asymmetric searchable encryption.,” IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., vol. 2024, p. 54, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Instability of the present leo satellite populations,

    J.-C. Liou and N. L. Johnson, “Instability of the present leo satellite populations,” Advances in Space Research , vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1046– 1053, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Population of global offline continues steady decline to 2.6 billion people in 2023

    ITU, “Population of global offline continues steady decline to 2.6 billion people in 2023.” https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/ PR-2023-09-12-universal-and-meaningful-connectivity-by-2030.aspx. Online; accessed December-2024

    2023

  19. [27]

    Satellite communications in the new space era: A survey and future challenges,

    O. Kodheli, E. Lagunas, N. Maturo, S. K. Sharma, B. Shankar, J. F. M. Montoya, J. C. M. Duncan, D. Spano, S. Chatzinotas, S. Kisseleff, et al., “Satellite communications in the new space era: A survey and future challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 23, n...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Robust beamforming optimization for self-sustainable intelligent reflecting surface assisted wireless networks,

    Y . Zou, Y . Long, S. Gong, D. T. Hoang, W. Liu, W. Cheng, and D. Niy- ato, “Robust beamforming optimization for self-sustainable intelligent reflecting surface assisted wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 856–870, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    User scheduling and power allocation for precoded multi-beam high throughput satellite systems with individual quality of service con- straints,

    T. Van Chien, E. Lagunas, T. H. Ta, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “User scheduling and power allocation for precoded multi-beam high throughput satellite systems with individual quality of service con- straints,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 72, no. 1, ...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Resource efficiency optimization for robust beamforming in multi-beam satellite communications,

    W. Wang, L. Gao, R. Ding, J. Lei, L. You, C. A. Chan, and X. Gao, “Resource efficiency optimization for robust beamforming in multi-beam satellite communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 6958–6968, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    {UCBlocker}: Unwanted call blocking using anonymous authentica- tion,

    C. Du, H. Yu, Y . Xiao, Y . T. Hou, A. D. Keromytis, and W. Lou, “{UCBlocker}: Unwanted call blocking using anonymous authentica- tion,” in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , pp. 445–462, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Aaka: An anti-tracking cellular authentication scheme leveraging anonymous credentials,

    H. Yu, C. Du, Y . Xiao, A. Keromytis, C. Wang, R. Gazda, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, “Aaka: An anti-tracking cellular authentication scheme leveraging anonymous credentials,” in Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) , 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Mobile tracking in 5g and beyond networks: Problems, challenges, and new directions,

    C. Du, H. Yu, Y . Xiao, W. Lou, C. Wang, R. Gazda, and Y . T. Hou, “Mobile tracking in 5g and beyond networks: Problems, challenges, and new directions,” in 2022 IEEE 19th International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Smart Systems (MASS) , pp. 426–434, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Bijack: Break- ing bitcoin network with tcp vulnerabilities,

    S. Li, S. Shi, Y . Xiao, C. Zhang, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, “Bijack: Break- ing bitcoin network with tcp vulnerabilities,” in European Symposium on Research in Computer Security , pp. 306–326, Springer, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Mindfl: Mitigating the impact of imbalanced and noisy-labeled data in federated learning with quality and fairness-aware client selection,

    C. Zhang, N. Wang, S. Shi, C. Du, W. Lou, and Y . T. Hou, “Mindfl: Mitigating the impact of imbalanced and noisy-labeled data in federated learning with quality and fairness-aware client selection,” in MILCOM 2023-2023 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM) , pp. 331...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hermes: Boosting the performance of machine-learning-based intrusion detection system through geometric feature learning,

    C. Zhang, S. Shi, N. Wang, X. Xu, S. Li, L. Zheng, R. Marchany, M. Gardner, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, “Hermes: Boosting the performance of machine-learning-based intrusion detection system through geometric feature learning,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth International Sym-...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Machine learning- based intrusion detection systems: Capabilities, methodologies, and open research challenges,

    C. Zhang, N. Wang, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, “Machine learning- based intrusion detection systems: Capabilities, methodologies, and open research challenges,” Authorea Preprints, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Closing the visibility gap: A monitoring framework for verifiable open RAN operations,

    H. Yu, M. Barat, Y . Xiao, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, “Closing the visibility gap: A monitoring framework for verifiable open RAN operations,” in Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS) , IEEE, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Enabling Trustworthy Federated Learning via Remote Attestation for Mitigating Byzantine Threats,

    C. Zhang, H. Jin, S. Shi, H. Yu, S. Johns, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, “Enabling Trustworthy Federated Learning via Remote Attestation for Mitigating Byzantine Threats,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM) , IEEE, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    State-of-the-art approaches to enhancing privacy preservation of machine learning datasets: A survey,

    C. Zhang and S. Li, “State-of-the-art approaches to enhancing privacy preservation of machine learning datasets: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16847, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Satellite-based com- munications security: A survey of threats, solutions, and research challenges,

    P. Tedeschi, S. Sciancalepore, and R. Di Pietro, “Satellite-based com- munications security: A survey of threats, solutions, and research challenges,” Computer Networks, vol. 216, p. 109246, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    A secure and efficient authentication protocol for satellite-terrestrial networks,

    Y . Liu, L. Ni, and M. Peng, “A secure and efficient authentication protocol for satellite-terrestrial networks,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 5810–5822, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    The use of pki in next generation uhf satcom,

    A. Godhwani, M. Murfield, T. Delaney, K.-S. Fong, P. Browne, and S. Hryckiewicz, “The use of pki in next generation uhf satcom,” in 2011-MILCOM 2011 Military Communications Conference , pp. 1733– 1738, IEEE, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    A fpga-based heterogeneous implemen- tation of ntruencrypt,

    H. Yu, C. Zhang, and H. Jiang, “A fpga-based heterogeneous implemen- tation of ntruencrypt,” in Advances in Parallel & Distributed Processing, and Applications: Proceedings from PDPTA’20, CSC’20, MSV’20, and GCC’20, pp. 461–475, Springer, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    High-performance and energy-efficient fpga-gpu-cpu heterogeneous system implementation,

    C. Zhang, H. Yu, Y . Zhou, and H. Jiang, “High-performance and energy-efficient fpga-gpu-cpu heterogeneous system implementation,” in Advances in Parallel & Distributed Processing, and Applications: Proceedings from PDPTA’20, CSC’20, MSV’20, and GCC’20 , pp. 477– 492, Springer, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Gpu acceleration of ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption,

    K. Fan, C. Zhang, R. Shan, H. Yu, and H. Jiang, “Gpu acceleration of ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption,” in 2019 20th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelli- gence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD), pp. 94–...

    2019

  39. [47]

    Fuzzy identity-based encryption,

    A. Sahai and B. Waters, “Fuzzy identity-based encryption,” in Advances in Cryptology–EUROCRYPT 2005: 24th Annual International Confer- ence on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Aarhus, Denmark, May 22-26, 2005. Proceedings 24 , pp. 457–473, Springer, 2005

    2005

  40. [48]

    Fully secure functional encryption: Attribute-based encryption and (hierarchical) inner product encryption,

    A. Lewko, T. Okamoto, A. Sahai, K. Takashima, and B. Waters, “Fully secure functional encryption: Attribute-based encryption and (hierarchical) inner product encryption,” in Advances in Cryptology– EUROCRYPT 2010: 29th Annual International Conference on the The- ory and Applic...

    2010

  41. [49]

    Practical constructions and new proof methods for large universe attribute-based encryption,

    Y . Rouselakis and B. Waters, “Practical constructions and new proof methods for large universe attribute-based encryption,” in Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security, pp. 463–474, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Unbounded hibe and attribute-based encryp- tion,

    A. Lewko and B. Waters, “Unbounded hibe and attribute-based encryp- tion,” in Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applica- tions of Cryptographic Techniques , pp. 547–567, Springer, 2011

    2011

  43. [51]

    Starlink direct to cell

    Starlink, “Starlink direct to cell.” https://www.starlink.com/business/ direct-to-cell. Online; accessed December-2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Charm: a framework for rapidly proto- typing cryptosystems,

    J. A. Akinyele, C. Garman, I. Miers, M. W. Pagano, M. Rushanan, M. Green, and A. D. Rubin, “Charm: a framework for rapidly proto- typing cryptosystems,” Journal of Cryptographic Engineering , vol. 3, pp. 111–128, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.