Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Vehicular Communication Security: Multi-Channel and Multi-Factor Authentication

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a vehicle's headlights can carry a second authentication factor for Vehicle-to-Infrastructure communication: after radio credentials are verified, the vehicle answers a challenge by flashing a 14-bit security frame…

desk verdict A credible empirical study of headlight-flash authentication, but the security protocol is too underspecified to support the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00340 v2 pith:VJGQ6LHL submitted 2025-05-01 cs.CR

Marco De Vincenzi , Shuyang Sun , Chen Bo Calvin Zhang , Manuel Garcia , Shaozu Ding , Chiara Bodei , Ilaria Matteucci , Sanjay E. Sarma
show 1 more author
Dajiang Suo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords vehicularcommunicationsecurityvehicle-to-infrastructureauthenticationmulti-factorvisiblelightopticalcameraSlowFastnetworkheadlightflashingchallenge-response
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

This paper aims to make Vehicle-to-Infrastructure authentication harder to spoof by adding a physical, visual factor on top of standard wireless credentials. The proposed scheme asks the infrastructure to send a random challenge over the non-line-of-sight radio channel; the vehicle's headlights then answer by flashing a structured 14-bit security frame that a roadside camera captures. A SlowFast convolutional network classifies the flashing sequence, so authentication proves not only that the vehicle holds the right credentials but that something that can produce the correct optical response is physically in front of the camera. The authors validate the idea on an RC-car testbed and a real car with aftermarket LED headlights, reporting average test accuracies of 95% and 96.6% across day and night, varying distances, and speeds, with inference times of a few milliseconds. If correct, this turns standard headlights into a practical second authentication factor for restricted lanes, signal preemption, and access to sensitive zones, without requiring a new in-vehicle display or dedicated infrared hardware in production.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the security frame combined with on-off keying and a SlowFast CNN. The security frame is a 14-bit structured flash sequence (preamble 11-00; payload of three data flashes interleaved with two 00 interrupts), giving 27 valid codewords; headlight on and off states encode bits, and the two headlights together encode the pair values 11, 10, 01, and 00. The frame length is chosen from the timing bound n <= (d/v - t_c)/t_f, with t_f = 0.15 seconds, so the whole challenge-response can complete in the roughly 1.5-3 second window before the vehicle passes the camera. The decoder is a SlowFast R50 CNN: a slow pathway captures spatial context at low frame rate, a fast pathway captures flashing dynamics at high frame rate, and lateral connections let fast motion features enrich the slow stream; the whole clip is classified without ROI extraction. This combination carries the argument because it turns a physical light pattern into a machine-readable second factor that is fast enough for near-real-time roadside use.

What would settle it

Repeat the real-car experiment with a stock vehicle whose own headlights are driven by its factory electronics, while a second vehicle with unrelated lights shares the camera frame, and measure classification accuracy over the 27 valid security frames under the same day/night and distance conditions; if accuracy drops substantially below 95-96.6%, or the stock lights cannot switch fast enough to encode the 0.15-second flashes, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that an optical challenge-response channel built from ordinary headlights can serve as the second factor in a multi-factor V2I authentication protocol, and that a SlowFast CNN can decode the response from raw video without bounding boxes. The infrastructure first verifies the vehicle's cryptographic credential over the secure NLOS channel; it then issues a challenge, and the vehicle flashes a 14-bit frame: a fixed preamble (11-00) plus five payload flashes (three data flashes chosen from 11, 10, or 01, and two 00 interrupts), giving 27 valid sequences plus an all-zero class and, in the real-car dataset, a random-flash class. The camera feeds the whole clip to a SlowFast R50, and the network classifies the sequence with 95.04% average accuracy on the RC-car data and 96.6% on the real-car data, at roughly 1-3.8 ms per clip. The paper further argues, via ablations, that both the slow and fast pathways and their lateral connections are needed: removing the slow pathway costs 19.4% accuracy, and removing lateral connections costs 29.3%, relative to the full architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 95% and 96.6% accuracies assume the authenticated vehicle is the only meaningful flashing source in the camera frame, and that production headlights can physically reproduce the 0.15-second encoded flashes; the first was addressed only as future object-detection-and-tracking work, and the second was tested with aftermarket LED headlights driven by an external microcontroller, not the vehicle's stock lights.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Remote impersonation over radio becomes insufficient: an attacker must also produce a physically correct optical response in front of the camera.
  • The timing analysis shows the protocol can fit inside the camera visibility window: at 25 meters the available authentication time is about 3 seconds at 8.3 m/s and 1.5 seconds at 16.6 m/s with 0.15-second flashes.
  • The SlowFast decoder runs in 1-3.8 ms per clip on the testbeds, so the visual second factor adds negligible latency compared with the QR-code baseline that takes 75-100 ms.
  • Because the model classifies whole video clips without bounding boxes, it tolerates different headlight shapes and lighting conditions, which is what the paper needs for deployment in restricted lanes, signal preemption, and sensitive zones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If stock headlights can meet the switching speed, the same optical channel could be carried by brake lights, daytime running lights, or taillights, letting the vehicle authenticate from more than one orientation.
  • The payload space contains only 27 valid sequences, so a deployed system would likely need to bind each visual frame to a fresh nonce or randomized challenge; otherwise a nearby adversary with a camera and a programmable light source could replay a previously observed valid sequence.
  • Adding the proposed object-detection and tracking front end for multi-vehicle scenes is not a cosmetic change: cropping to a single vehicle's headlight region will alter the temporal context the SlowFast network sees, and the interaction needs empirical validation.
  • A successful visual response also proves the vehicle is in the camera's field of view at authentication time, so the scheme implicitly fuses identity verification with coarse physical-location verification.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-factor V2I authentication scheme that combines cryptographic credentials over an NLOS channel with a visual challenge-response carried by vehicle headlight flashing. In the scheme, the RSU issues a randomized challenge, and the vehicle responds by flashing a 14-bit security frame consisting of a preamble (11-00) and a payload of three data flashes and two interrupt flashes, yielding 27 possible sequences. A SlowFast CNN on the infrastructure side decodes the flashing sequence from camera video. The authors report real-world experiments on an RC-car testbed (3,242 videos, 28 classes) and a real-car testbed (975 videos, 29 classes), with average accuracies of about 95% and 96.6%, respectively. They also compare SlowFast with a 3D CNN and with the QR-based approach of Dwyer et al., and they present an ablation of the fast/slow pathways. The paper claims the scheme mitigates remote impersonation, proximity-based attacks, and traffic-signal preemption attacks.

Significance. If the empirical accuracy figures are reliable and the challenge-response protocol were fully specified, using vehicle headlights as a visible second authentication factor would be a practically attractive contribution for restricted-lane and signal-preemption scenarios. The paper's strengths are its two real-world testbeds covering day/night conditions, varying distances and speeds, the comparison with alternative visual decoding architectures, and the pathway ablation study. The protocol-level security claims, however, are not yet established: the response space is small, replay is not addressed, and the mapping from challenge to response is unspecified. The paper is best read as a feasibility study of SlowFast-based decoding of headlight flashes, with the security contribution still at a conceptual stage. The authors are honest in Section VII that the scheme 'should be formalized into a protocol,' but this admission directly limits the reach of the security claims made in Sections I and V.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VI-C.2, §VI-D, Table II] The central empirical claim is ambiguous because the paper states in §VI-C.2 that the dataset was split 80/20 into training and validation with no separate test set, yet §VI-D and Table II report 'test accuracies' and 'best accuracy on test set' (95.29%, 96.1%, 97.9%, and so on). Since the same split is used for model selection, including best-epoch selection and learning-rate scheduling, the reported numbers are at best validation accuracies and may be optimistically biased. The authors should either create a proper train/validation/test split and report held-out test accuracy, or explicitly relabel all reported numbers as validation accuracy and discuss the implications for the claimed generalization.
  2. [§IV-A, §V, §VII] The security claim that the LOS channel is a strong second factor is not supported by the current protocol specification. Section IV-A defines a 14-bit security frame whose payload has only 27 possible sequences, i.e., log2(27) ≈ 4.75 bits of entropy. The paper does not specify how the RSU's randomized challenge is mapped to a response, whether a per-vehicle secret is involved, or how replay of an observed flashing sequence is prevented. Section V asserts that a correct visual response is required but does not quantify an attacker's guessing probability or provide a freshness argument. Section VII explicitly defers protocol formalization to future work. Given that a full 14-bit frame at t_f = 0.15 s takes about 1.05 s and the available authentication window is 1.5–3 s, a physically present adversary could plausibly replay or enumerate responses within the window. The authors should provide a concrete protocol (including nonce binding and keyed response generation) and quantify the adversary's success probability under the stated timing constraints.
  3. [§VI-A.2, §VI-H, Abstract] The claim that the scheme requires no additional hardware is not tested. The real-car testbed in §VI-A.2 uses aftermarket LED headlights (Xprite and TRUE MODS) driven by an Arduino Nano and an external 12 V battery, so the experiments do not demonstrate that a production vehicle's standard headlight electronics can switch at the 0.15 s flash rate. In addition, the reported accuracies come from single-vehicle clips; §VI-H proposes a YOLO+ByteTrack ROI extraction stage for multi-vehicle scenarios but presents it as future work. The abstract motivates restricted-lane and signal-preemption scenarios in which multiple vehicles may be present, so the experimental evidence currently covers a narrower setting than the paper claims. The authors should either add experiments with stock headlights and multi-vehicle scenes or substantially temper the deployment claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§VI-D] The statement that 'a misclassification includes both true negatives... and false positives on invalid attempts, where a vehicle flashes an incorrect pattern and the model correctly detects it' is logically inconsistent: a correctly detected invalid attempt is not a misclassification. Please report separate false-accept and false-reject rates instead of this combined description.
  2. [§VI-G] The per-class metric described as Average Precision ('ratio of true positives to the sum of true positives and false negatives') is actually recall. Please rename it or compute standard average precision from precision-recall curves.
  3. [§VI-B.1] The RC-car dataset is described as having 28 classes, but the all-zero class is numbered 29 while classes 1–27 are the security sequences. Please renumber the classes consistently or explain the numbering convention.
  4. [§IV-A] The derivation of the maximum frame length n is plausible, but the computation time t_c is never evaluated or reported. Please state the assumed value of t_c used to justify the n=14 choice.
  5. [Figure 13] The note about vehicle-perspective versus camera-perspective binary reversal (10 seen as 01 and vice versa) should be introduced and explained in the main text before the misclassification examples are presented.
  6. [References] References [18] and [33] are duplicate entries of the same YOLO paper; please consolidate them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's headline accuracies are measured classifier results, and the security argument is underspecified rather than derived from its own outputs.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain from the proposed 14-bit security frame (Section IV-A), the timing constraint n ≤ (d/v − t_c)/t_f, the qualitative security analysis (Section V), and the classification experiments (Sections VI-B through VI-D). No step reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input. The 27-sequence payload space is a definitional count, not a security prediction; the timing equation is a design bound, not a fitted model. The reported 95% and 96.6% accuracies are empirical measurements on the reported test/validation splits, so they are not constructed from the claimed security properties. The related-work citations to Suo and Sarma [16] and Dwyer et al. [17] are self-citations involving current co-authors, but they are used for lineage and comparison only, not as load-bearing evidence; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them, and the experimental evaluation does not depend on their correctness. Section VII explicitly states that the scheme 'should be formalized into a protocol,' confirming that the missing formal security argument is an acknowledged completeness gap rather than a circular derivation. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The 'security frame' is a message format and the 'SlowFast dual-channel' is a neural architecture, not invented entities in the sense of new physical objects. The free parameters are hand-chosen protocol and model design choices that affect the measured accuracy, but they are not fitted to force a particular security conclusion.

free parameters (4)
  • flash duration t_f = 0.15 s
    Set by hand as a trade-off between reliability and timing (Section IV-A, Section VI-A); used to derive the 14-bit frame length and to collect all datasets.
  • security frame length n = 14 bits
    Chosen from the latency equation as a design trade-off (Section IV-A); determines the 27-message vocabulary and the number of classifier output classes.
  • payload composition = 3 data flashes + 2 interrupt flashes (each 00)
    Design choice for frame structure (Section IV-A); the 27 classes come from 3^3 data placements, and the classifier is trained to distinguish them.
  • SlowFast input frames and sampling factor = 32 frames, alpha=4
    Model design choices from Table I; not derived, but standard for the architecture, and the reported accuracy results depend on them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Adversary is Dolev-Yao: can intercept, modify, and inject messages but cannot break cryptography or physical constraints.
    Section III adopts the DY model; Section V's security analysis assumes the attacker cannot subvert the optical channel beyond what the model describes.
  • domain assumption PKI/TLS infrastructure (IEEE 1609.2, trusted RA) provides a secure NLOS credential channel.
    Section IV's NLOS phase relies on a trusted Registration Authority and PKI; no implementation or test of this component is provided.
  • domain assumption A visible flashing response proves the responding entity is the legitimately present vehicle.
    Section V claims remote impersonation is impossible because attackers 'lack physical presence and the correct response'; this conflates light emission with identity and is not validated against replay or projection attacks.
  • domain assumption The camera view contains only the target vehicle's flashes.
    Section VI-C.2 feeds whole frames with no bounding boxes; Section VI-H admits multi-vehicle scenarios need an additional ROI stage, which is not implemented or evaluated.
  • domain assumption Production vehicle headlights can be controlled to flash at 0.15 second intervals.
    Section VI-A.2 uses aftermarket LED headlights and an external Arduino; the claim that no additional hardware is needed (Section I-B) is an assumption about production vehicles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vehicular Communication Security: Multi-Channel and Multi-Factor Authentication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJGQ6LHL

@misc{pith2026250500340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vehicular Communication Security: Multi-Channel and Multi-Factor Authentication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJGQ6LHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00340}
}
read the original abstract

Secure and reliable communications are crucial for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSs), where Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication plays a key role in enabling mobility-enhancing and safety-critical services. Current V2I authentication relies on credential-based methods over wireless Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) channels, leaving them exposed to remote impersonation and proximity attacks. To mitigate these risks, we propose a unified Multi-Channel, Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) scheme that combines NLOS cryptographic credentials with a Line-of-Sight (LOS) visual channel. Our approach leverages a challenge-response security paradigm: the infrastructure issues challenges and the vehicle's headlights respond by flashing a structured sequence containing encoded security data. Deep learning models on the infrastructure side then decode the embedded information to authenticate the vehicle. Real-world experimental evaluations demonstrate high test accuracy, reaching an average of 95% and 96.6%, respectively, under various lighting, weather, speed, and distance conditions. Additionally, we conducted extensive experiments on three state-of-the-art deep learning models, including detailed ablation studies for decoding the flashing sequence. Our results indicate that the optimal architecture employs a dual-channel design, enabling simultaneous decoding of the flashing sequence and extraction of vehicle spatial and locational features for robust authentication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Critical Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) scenarios requiring authentication mechanisms, with attacker devices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-channels (NLOS and LOS) authentication process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 14-bit security frame and its components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Implementation of our vehicle setup with RC-car and real-car, showcasing different headlight configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Phase 2 road set up: RSU simulation with camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of our primary day/night dataset scenarios. The first row corresponds to Phase 1, and the second to Phase 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Class distribution for the RC-car dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Class distribution for the real-car dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Loss and accuracy curves of our tests. array representing the recognized authentication pattern. As stated in the article, this approach achieved variable accuracy, ranging from 42% to 100% according to the dimension of the QR code and the distance (over 7 m the declar…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pipeline comparison among the visual-based authen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance comparison among the visual-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Misclassifications examples. Note: The patterns are flashed from the vehicle’s perspective. Therefore, binary values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Per-class Average Precision (AP) across 29 classes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of message decoding latencies between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    From hardware-functional to software-defined vehicles and their security issues,

    C. Bodei, M. De Vincenzi, and I. Matteucci, “From hardware-functional to software-defined vehicles and their security issues,” in2023 IEEE 21st International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2023, pp. 1–10

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Contextualizing security and privacy of software-defined vehicles: State of the art and industry perspectives,

    M. De Vincenzi, M. D. Pesé, C. Bodei, I. Matteucci, R. R. Brooks, M. Hasan, A. Saracino, M. Hamad, and S. Steinhorst, “Contextualizing security and privacy of software-defined vehicles: State of the art and industry perspectives,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2411.10612

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Benefits of V2V Communication for Autonomous and Connected Vehicles,

    S. Darbha, S. Konduri, and P. R. Pagilla, “Benefits of V2V Communication for Autonomous and Connected Vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1954–1963, 2019

    work page 1954

  4. [4]

    Traffic light recognition and V2I communications of an autonomous vehicle with the traffic light for effective intersection navigation using YOLOv8 and MA VS simulation,

    M. Rahman, F. Islam, J. E. Ball, and C. Goodin, “Traffic light recognition and V2I communications of an autonomous vehicle with the traffic light for effective intersection navigation using YOLOv8 and MA VS simulation,” inAutonomous Systems: Sensors, Processing, and Security for Ground, Air, Sea, and Space Vehicles and Infrastructure 2024, M. C. Dudzik, S...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Abu-Nimeh,Three-Factor Authentication

    S. Abu-Nimeh,Three-Factor Authentication. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2011, pp. 1287–1288. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5906-5_7 93

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5906-5_7 2011

  6. [6]

    Security risks and designs in the connected vehicle ecosystem: In-vehicle and edge platforms,

    M. De Vincenzi, J. Moore, B. Smith, S. E. Sarma, and I. Matteucci, “Security risks and designs in the connected vehicle ecosystem: In-vehicle and edge platforms,”IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology, vol. 6, pp. 442– 454, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    An innovative attack modeling and attack detection approach for a waiting time-based adaptive traffic signal controller,

    S. Dasgupta, C. Hollis, M. Rahman, T. Atkison, and S. Jones, “An innovative attack modeling and attack detection approach for a waiting time-based adaptive traffic signal controller,” inInternational Conference on Transportation and Development 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers, Aug. 2022, p. 72–84. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9...

    work page doi:10.1061/9780784 2022

  8. [8]

    Reinforcement learning based cyberattack model for adaptive traffic signal controller in connected transportation systems,

    M. S. Irfan, M. Rahman, T. Atkison, S. Dasgupta, and A. Hainen, “Reinforcement learning based cyberattack model for adaptive traffic signal controller in connected transportation systems,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.01845

    arXiv 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    State-of-the- art review on traffic control strategies for emergency vehicles,

    W. Yu, W. Bai, W. Luan, and L. Qi, “State-of-the- art review on traffic control strategies for emergency vehicles,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 109 729–109 742, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    An empirical study of vehicle to infrastructure communications - an intense learning of smart infrastructure for safety and mobility,

    D. Kanthavel, S. Sangeetha, and K. Keerthana, “An empirical study of vehicle to infrastructure communications - an intense learning of smart infrastructure for safety and mobility,”International Journal of Intelligent Networks, vol. 2, pp. 77–82, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijin.2021...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    A survey of security and privacy issues in V2X communication systems,

    T. Yoshizawa, D. Singelée, J. T. Mühlberg, S. Delbruel, A. Taherkordi, D. Hughes, and B. Preneel, “A survey of security and privacy issues in V2X communication systems,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 185:1–185:36, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3558052

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Survey on security and privacy in 5G V2X,

    J. Qian, W. Wang, X. Yang, and H. Xu, “Survey on security and privacy in 5G V2X,” in2022 6th International Conference on Electronic Information Technology and Computer Engineering, EITCE 2022, Xiamen, China, October 21-23, 2022. ACM, 2022, pp. 1056–1062. [Online]. Available: h...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Vision- based two-factor authentication and localization scheme for autonomous vehicles,

    A. Alsoliman, M. Levorato, and Q. A. Chen, “Vision- based two-factor authentication and localization scheme for autonomous vehicles,” inThird International Work- shop on Automotive and Autonomous Vehicle Security (AutoSec) 2021 (part of NDSS), 2021, doi: 10.14722/aut osec.2021.23021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Olive: Flexible, portable, and sustainable V2Xmulti-factor authentication,

    M. De Vincenzi, C. Bodei, and I. Matteucci, “Olive: Flexible, portable, and sustainable V2Xmulti-factor authentication,” in39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, ser. SAC ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, p. 215–217. [Online]. Availab...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Action- state joint learning-based vehicle taillight recognition in diverse actual traffic scenes,

    W. Song, S. Liu, T. Zhang, Y . Yang, and M. Fu, “Action- state joint learning-based vehicle taillight recognition in diverse actual traffic scenes,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 18 088–18 099, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.20...

    2022

  8. [16]

    A two-factor authentication scheme for moving connected vehicles,

    D. Suo and S. E. Sarma, “A two-factor authentication scheme for moving connected vehicles,” in2022 IEEE 96th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2022-Fall). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/VTC2022-Fall57202 .2022.10012773

    2022

  9. [17]

    Enabling secure vehicle to infrastructure communication via two-factor authentication,

    B. Dwyer, S. E. Sarma, and D. Suo, “Enabling secure vehicle to infrastructure communication via two-factor authentication,” inIEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2023, pp. 5663–5668, doi: 10.1109/ITSC57777.2023.10421946

    2023

  10. [18]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 779–788, doi: 10.1109/ CVPR.2016.91

    2016

  11. [19]

    Physical layer security for visible light communication systems: A survey,

    M. A. Arfaoui, M. D. Soltani, I. Tavakkolnia, A. Ghrayeb, M. Safari, C. M. Assi, and H. Haas, “Physical layer security for visible light communication systems: A survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1887–1908, 2020

    1908

  12. [20]

    Heterogeneous visible light and radio communication for improving safety message dissemination at road intersection,

    G. Singh, A. Srivastava, V . A. Bohara, Z. Liu, M. Noor- A-Rahim, and G. Ghatak, “Heterogeneous visible light and radio communication for improving safety message dissemination at road intersection,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. ...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Securing vehicle to vehicle com- munications using blockchain through visible light and acoustic side-channels,

    S. Rowan, M. Clear, M. Gerla, M. Huggard, and C. Mc Goldrick, “Securing vehicle to vehicle com- munications using blockchain through visible light and acoustic side-channels,” 04 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Cyber security vulnerabilities for outdoor vehicular visible light communication in secure platoon network: Review, power distribution, and signal to noise ratio analysis,

    R. Shaaban and S. Faruque, “Cyber security vulnerabilities for outdoor vehicular visible light communication in secure platoon network: Review, power distribution, and signal to noise ratio analysis,” Physical Communication, vol. 40, p. 101094, 2020. [Online]. Available: https...

    2020

  15. [23]

    United States Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Com- munications; Day One Deployment Guide

    5GAA. United States Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Com- munications; Day One Deployment Guide. Last accessed on March 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://5gaa.org/content/uploads/2023/10/5gaa-wi-usdpl oy-231667-technical-report-guidance-day-1.pdf

    2025

  16. [24]

    (2023) STRIDE model

    OW ASP. (2023) STRIDE model. Last accessed on March 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://owasp.org/ www-community/Threat_Modeling_Process

    2023

  17. [25]

    On the security of public key protocols,

    D. Dolev and A. C. Yao, “On the security of public key protocols,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 198–207, 1983. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1983.1056650

    1983

  18. [26]

    (2024) Dutch government to replace hackable traffic lights

    CyberNews - Gintaras Radauskas. (2024) Dutch government to replace hackable traffic lights. Last accessed on March 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://cybernews.com/news/dutch-government-will-rep lace-hackable-traffic-lights/

    2024

  19. [27]

    Last accessed on March 1st, 2025

    IEEE 1609.2 Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments. Last accessed on March 1st, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/st amp.jsp?arnumber=7426684

    2025

  20. [28]

    IEEE approved draft standard for wire- less access in vehicular environments–security services for applications and management messages,

    IEEE Standards, “IEEE approved draft standard for wire- less access in vehicular environments–security services for applications and management messages,”IEEE Std 1609.2-2022 (Revision of IEEE Std 1609.2-2016), pp. 1– 349, 2023

    2022

  21. [29]

    A security cre- dential management system for V2X communications,

    B. Brecht, D. Therriault, A. Weimerskirch, W. Whyte, V . Kumar, T. Hehn, and R. Goudy, “A security cre- dential management system for V2X communications,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 3850–3871, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TI TS.2018.2797529

    2018

  22. [30]

    Slowfast networks for video recognition,

    C. Feichtenhofer, H. Fan, J. Malik, and K. He, “Slowfast networks for video recognition,”CoRR, vol. abs/1812.03982, 2018. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/1812.03982

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Slowfast video models for PyTorch,

    PyTorch, “Slowfast video models for PyTorch,” https://py torch.org/hub/facebookresearch_pytorchvideo_slowfast/, 2021, last accessed on March 10, 2025

    2021

  24. [32]

    The kinetics human action video dataset,

    W. Kay, J. Carreira, K. Simonyan, B. Zhang, C. Hillier, S. Vijayanarasimhan, F. Viola, T. Green, T. Back, P. Natsev, M. Suleyman, and A. Zisserman, “The kinetics human action video dataset,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06950

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 779–788

    2016

  26. [34]

    Bytetrack: Multi-object tracking by associating every detection box,

    Y . Zhang, P. Sun, Y . Jiang, D. Yu, F. Weng, Z. Yuan, P. Luo, W. Liu, and X. Wang, “Bytetrack: Multi-object tracking by associating every detection box,” inEuropean conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022. Marco De Vincenziis a researcher at the Italian National Researc...

    2022

  27. [2024]

    Before that, Shuyang got his M.Phil

    During his Ph.D., he also collaborated closely with researchers at Google DeepMind, Google Re- search, Intel ISL and ByteDance etc. Before that, Shuyang got his M.Phil. degree from the University of Sydney in 2019 and B.Eng. degree from Wuhan University in 2016. His research p...

    1941

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.