Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Lightweight Electronic Signatures and Reliable Access Control Included in Sensor Networks to Prevent Cyber Attacks from Modifying Patient Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a layered authorization protocol—Shamir secret sharing, ECDSA signed with Lesamnta-LW, SAML, and AES-192—resists seven attack types on healthcare sensor networks while outperforming earlier methods.

desk verdict A protocol mashup with one useful performance idea, but the security proofs do not cover the routing attacks claimed, the parameters are inconsistent, and a copied passage makes it unready for peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08828 v1 pith:WVA7FBRH submitted 2025-06-10 cs.CR

Mishall Al-Zubaidie This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords AES-192NGACLesamnta-LWSAMLsensornetworksdatatamperingvampireaccesscontrol
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

Medical data gathered by wireless sensors is a prime target for attackers, and previous authorization schemes leave openings: weak hashing inside signatures, exposure of request metadata, and reliance on single access-control models. This paper proposes an authorization protocol for healthcare sensor networks that straps together Shamir secret sharing, ECDSA signatures using the Lesamnta-LW lightweight hash, SAML-based policies, and AES-192 encryption. The claim is that this combination prevents attackers from modifying patient data or authorization requests, and that the switch from SHA-1 to Lesamnta-LW plus AES-192 makes the protocol faster and lighter on sensor nodes. If true, it would give constrained medical sensors a practical way to enforce fine-grained access control without opening the door to tampering or the battery-draining attacks that plague wireless sensor networks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the signed-and-masked authorization request: each entity computes an ECDSA signature with Lesamnta-LW over $SS \parallel Sen_N \parallel Sen_{ID}$ (or the recipient's ID), XORs it with a timestamp and an ID into a temporary value $V_{tm} = Sen_S \oplus BS_{ID} \oplus T_{Si}$, embeds $V_{tm}$ in a SAML request, and encrypts the whole message with AES-192 before sending it. At every hop the receiver decrypts, recomputes the expected signature from the Shamir secret share and nonces, and checks the timestamp, so a message that fails verification cannot trigger data access. The Shamir threshold of 3 means no single compromised device can reconstruct the master secret, and the separation of the information server (which validates requests) from the repository server (which stores data) keeps patient records one step away from sensors. Access decisions are governed by NGAC policies that combine role-based and attribute-based rules.

What would settle it

Run the described protocol in a wireless-sensor-network simulator with a malicious node that forwards route requests faster than legitimate nodes and one that drains neighbors' batteries with protocol-compliant packets; if the routing-layer attack still degrades delivery or consumes excess energy while all application-layer signatures and timestamps verify, the claimed resistance to rushing, vampire, neglect-and-greed, and packet-drop attacks is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that replacing the standard hash inside ECDSA with Lesamnta-LW, and layering Shamir secret sharing with threshold 3, SAML v2.0 authorization, and AES-192 encryption into a single request-response flow among the sensor, base station, information server, and repository server, yields an authorization protocol that resists node-outage, man-in-the-middle, impersonation, rushing, vampire, neglect-and-greed, and packet-drop attacks while outperforming earlier schemes. The protocol has every request signed with ECDSA-Lesamnta-LW, masked in a temporary value, embedded in a SAML request, encrypted with AES-192, and checked against timestamps and a session secret at each server hop. The performance comparisons show Lesamnta-LW running faster than SHA-1 and ECDSA-Lesamnta-LW faster than ECDSA-SHA1, and the reported execution time is lower than the compared baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that verifying signatures, timestamps, and secret shares on application-layer messages is enough to stop attacks such as vampire, rushing, neglect-and-greed, and packet drop, even though those attacks work by misbehaving during packet routing and the protocol does not alter routing behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the protocol is adopted, medical sensors can sign and verify requests with ECDSA-Lesamnta-LW instead of ECDSA-SHA1, gaining the same integrity and non-repudiation properties with lower computation time.
  • The threshold-3 Shamir sharing means an attacker who compromises one or even two network devices still cannot reconstruct the secret needed to forge a valid authorization request.
  • Separating the information server from the repository server means sensors never talk directly to the data store, so a captured sensor cannot issue a direct read or modify operation on patient records.
  • The performance table reports an execution time of 0.002358 ms for six requests totaling 253 bits, below the compared WSN authentication baselines, supporting the claim that the added security does not sacrifice sensor performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence the author does not develop is that the same signed-request pipeline could be reused outside healthcare, for any sensor network where a base station mediates access to a remote data store; the mechanism is not tied to medical records.
  • The attack-resistant claims for rushing, vampire, neglect-and-greed, and packet-drop rest on application-layer verification alone; a testable extension would be to simulate these attacks with real routing protocols to see whether the authentication checks actually prevent the routing misbehavior.
  • Because the signature scheme's security is anchored to Lesamnta-LW, the protocol inherits the hash's cryptanalytic status; if future analysis weakens Lesamnta-LW, the design would need a drop-in replacement hash rather than a change to the overall protocol shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a lightweight authorization protocol for healthcare wireless sensor networks that combines Shamir secret sharing, ECDSA signatures using the Lesamnta-LW hash, SAML-based access control, and AES-192 encryption. It claims to resist seven attacks—including node outage, man-in-the-middle, impersonation, rushing, vampire, neglect-and-greed, and packet drop—and reports performance measurements showing the protocol outperforms prior schemes. The paper includes a protocol specification, an informal security analysis labeled 'Proof 1'–'Proof 7', and a comparative evaluation against several existing authorization protocols.

Significance. If the security and performance claims were rigorously supported, the protocol would offer a concrete, lightweight option for safeguarding patient data in sensor networks, a practically important domain. The paper does provide a detailed protocol description, a stated threat model (Dolev-Yao with internal adversaries), and a comparison table against prior work. However, the security analysis is informal and does not justify the claimed resistance to routing-layer attacks, and the performance evaluation is not statistically grounded. These issues affect the central claims of the paper, not merely its presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Proofs 4–7] The claimed resistance to rushing, vampire, neglect-and-greed, and packet-drop attacks is not established by the protocol described in Section 4.3. The protocol uses application-layer authentication, signatures, timestamps, nonces, and Shamir secrets, but it includes no routing-layer defense: no authenticated neighbor discovery, no forwarding accountability, no acknowledgment or retransmission scheme, and no energy-use monitoring. Proof 4 asserts that because a connection is not accepted until all security parameters in Vtm are met, 'the hacker cannot change the routing path'; however, Vtm is an application-layer token, and verifying endpoint credentials does not constrain an intermediate node's forwarding decisions. Proof 6 claims SAML authorization 'limits and detects' neglect-and-greed, but SAML assertions do not govern which next hop a packet takes. Proof 7 says TSi ensures timely arrival, but a timestamp only certifies when a message was generated; it cannot prevent a node that has passed authentication from dropping the message afterward. Since resistance to these attacks is part of the headline claim, the central security argument is unsupported.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Figure 11] The cryptographic specification is internally inconsistent regarding AES. Section 3 states that AES-192 uses 12 rounds, while Section 4.2 says 'we rely on AES-256 with 10 rounds'; Figure 11 then compares 'AES 192 bits with 10 rounds' against 'AES with 12 rounds.' If the proposal uses a 10-round variant of AES-192, that is non-standard and would require a security justification; if it uses the standard 12 rounds, the comparison in Figure 11 is against a strawman. This ambiguity affects the core cryptographic configuration and the validity of the performance claim.
  3. [Section 5.2, Table 6 and Figures 9–11] The performance evaluation reports single numbers without error bars, repetitions, or statistical tests. The comparison is self-confirming: the proposal uses a lightweight hash (Lesamnta-LW) while the compared protocols (Ghani et al., Gope et al., Das et al.) use a 'Standard' hash, so the outcome is heavily favored by design. Table 6 lists an execution time of 0.002358 ms for the proposed protocol but does not describe how end-to-end authorization latency was measured—whether it includes network transmission, encryption, signature verification, or only hash operations. The 'superior performance' claim is therefore not substantiated.
  4. [Section 5.1 (general)] The paper labels its security arguments as 'Proof 1' through 'Proof 7,' but they are informal narrative arguments, not formal proofs under the Dolev-Yao threat model described in Section 1.1. There is no adversary model, no protocol state, no invariant, and no reduction. For a paper whose central contribution is a security protocol, this level of rigor is insufficient to support unconditional claims such as 'successfully repels the MitM attack' (Proof 2) and 'deters threats made in the form of a false identity' (Proof 3). The proofs also do not address internal adversaries, even though the threat model explicitly includes internal attackers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.2] The paragraph beginning 'The remainder of the research is structured as follows' describes QDFaultInjector, a fault-injection framework for kernel modules, which is unrelated to this paper and misdescribes the actual structure of the manuscript.
  2. [Throughout] The hash function name is written inconsistently as 'Lesamnta-L W', 'Lesamnta-LW', and 'LLW'; please choose one notation and use it consistently, including in figures and tables.
  3. [Figure 8] The message sequence chart uses the same variable names (e.g., RIS1, RRS2) in the IS and RS columns, which is confusing; prefixing variables to indicate the sender would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 4.2] The paper alternates between 'AES-192' and 'AES-256' without explanation; the title and abstract mention AES-192, but Section 4.2 states 'AES-256 with 10 rounds.' Please clarify which cipher and key length is actually used.
  5. [Section 4.2] The paper sets the Shamir threshold to 3 but does not justify why this value is secure for the given network size and adversary model; a brief discussion of threshold choice would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the protocol's claims are not equivalent to their inputs by construction; the routing-attack proofs are weak but not circular.

full rationale

I looked for reductions of the paper's claims to its own definitions, fitted parameters, or self-citations. The security analysis in Section 5.1 is informal: Proofs 1-7 assert that cryptographic authentication, SAML, Shamir shares, and timestamps resist listed attacks. For routing-layer attacks (Proofs 4-7), the proofs do not supply a routing-layer mechanism and the inferences do not follow; that is a correctness gap, not circularity, because the asserted resistance is not defined as the presence of those mechanisms. The performance evaluation in Section 5.2 (Figures 9-11, Table 6) benchmarks the author's implementation of Lesamnta-LW and AES-192/10-round against SHA-1 and longer-round AES; it is a measured comparison, not a prediction fitted from the same data. The many self-citations are background or motivational and are not load-bearing; the core primitives are attributed to external standards and independent papers (e.g., Lesamnta-LW in [44]). No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, no ansatz is smuggled via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. Section 2 even contains an unrelated template paragraph about QDFaultInjector, a writing artifact unrelated to circularity. Overall, the central security and performance claims are not equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction; score 1 reflects only the mild self-citation pattern.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central security claims rest on trust assumptions about the adversary model and the servers, the security of standard cryptographic primitives, and a questionable assumption that application-layer authentication stops routing-layer attacks. The paper adds no new entities; it only assembles existing primitives. The only hand-chosen numeric parameter is the Shamir threshold of 3, and the '10 rounds' for AES-192 is both non-standard and inconsistently reported.

free parameters (2)
  • Shamir threshold t = 3
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.2; the protocol's security depends on at least three shares being required to reconstruct the secret, but no analysis justifies this value.
  • AES rounds = 10
    The paper states AES-192 with 10 rounds in Section 4.2 and 5.2, which is non-standard (AES-192 uses 12 rounds); this is an inconsistency that affects performance claims.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dolev-Yao adversary model with a trusted attribute server
    Section 1.1 assumes an attacker that is passive/active/external/internal but that the attribute server is reliable; this excludes insider compromise of BS/IS/RS.
  • standard math Security of underlying primitives (AES, ECDSA, Lesamnta-LW, Shamir)
    The protocol inherits the security of these primitives without proof; e.g., ECDLP hardness, AES security, Lesamnta-LW collision resistance.
  • domain assumption Secure channel for distributing Shamir shares
    Section 4.2 states shares are delivered through a secure communication channel, but no mechanism is specified; if compromised, the secret SS is exposed.
  • ad hoc to paper Authentication at the application layer prevents routing-layer attacks
    Proofs 4-7 (Section 5.1) assume that node authentication and timestamps stop vampire, rushing, neglect-and-greed, and packet-drop attacks, but these are routing-layer attacks that may not be mitigated by application-layer authentication.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lightweight Electronic Signatures and Reliable Access Control Included in Sensor Networks to Prevent Cyber Attacks from Modifying Patient Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVA7FBRH

@misc{pith2026250608828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lightweight Electronic Signatures and Reliable Access Control Included in Sensor Networks to Prevent Cyber Attacks from Modifying Patient Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVA7FBRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08828}
}
read the original abstract

Digital terrorism is a major cause of securing patient/healthcare providers data and information. Sensitive topics that may have an impact on a patient's health or even national security include patient health records and information on healthcare providers. Health databases and data sets have been continually breached by many, regular assaults, as well as local and remote servers equipped with wireless sensor networks (WSNs) in diverse locations. The problem was addressed by some contemporary strategies that were created to stop these assaults and guarantee the privacy of patient data and information transferred and gathered by sensors. Nevertheless, the literature analysis outlines many indications of weakness that persist in these methods. This study suggests a novel, reliable method that bolsters the information security and data gathered by sensors and kept on base station datasets. The proposed approach combines a number of security mechanisms, including symmetric cryptography for encryption, asymmetric cryptography for access control and signatures, and the Lesamnta-LW method in the signature process. Users' information is shielded from prying eyes by the careful application of these measures and a sound approach. Investigational comparisons, security studies, and thorough results show that the suggested method is better than earlier methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08828 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cyberthreats and data breaches in several crucial industries [8] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AES algorithm for encryption and decryption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ECDSA algorithm for signature and verification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: XACML architecture with a number of features, including ease of creating a MS from a group of secrets, development of a new secret for one-time use, a MS size equal to Cis’ SSs sizes, and complete security in hiding Cis’ SSs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Shamir threshold scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proposed authorization approach 4.2 Developing the Suggested Authorization Strategy In this section, we shall outline the privacy implications of the suggested permission strategy. • Combining the signatures of ECDSA, and Lesamnta-LW To ensure that security standards a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Proposed authorization approach policy based on attributes such as user/sensor roles in the NGAC model, group memberships, or custom attributes defined in the SAML assertion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Proposed authorization protocol sensor nodes, communication links, and master nodes. As a result, the connection to other cluster head nodes located in other areas is severed. The attacker is trying to disconnect a specific Seni or Cli. In our protocol, the data collec…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between SHA1 and Lesamnta-LW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between ECDSA-SHA1 and ECDSA-Lesamnta-LW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance comparison between AES with 10 rounds and AES with 12 rounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Integrating trustworthy mechanisms to support data and information security in health sensors,

    M. Al-Zubaidie and R. A. Muhajjar, “Integrating trustworthy mechanisms to support data and information security in health sensors,”Procedia Computer Science, vol. 237, pp. 43–52, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.05.078

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.05.078 2024

  2. [2]

    Applying detection leakage on hybrid cryptography to secure transaction information in e-commerce apps,

    M. Al-Zubaidie and G. S. Shyaa, “Applying detection leakage on hybrid cryptography to secure transaction information in e-commerce apps,”Future Internet, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 262, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15080262

    work page doi:10.3390/fi15080262 2023

  3. [3]

    Cloud-assisted ehr sharing with security and privacy preservation via consortium blockchain,

    Y. Wang, A. Zhang, P. Zhang, and H. Wang, “Cloud-assisted ehr sharing with security and privacy preservation via consortium blockchain,”Ieee Access, vol. 7, pp. 136 704–136 719, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Security and privacy issues in e-health cloud-based system: A comprehensive content analysis,

    N. A. Azeez and C. Van der Vyver, “Security and privacy issues in e-health cloud-based system: A comprehensive content analysis,”Egyptian Informatics Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 97–108, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    PRMS: Design and develop- ment of patients’ e-healthcare records management system for privacy preservation in third party cloud platforms,

    K. Zala, H. K. Thakkar, R. Jadeja, P. Singh, K. Kotecha, and M. Shukla, “PRMS: Design and develop- ment of patients’ e-healthcare records management system for privacy preservation in third party cloud platforms,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 85 777–85 791, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Security and privacy in remote healthcare: Issues, solutions, and standards,

    P. K. D. Pramanik, G. Pareek, and A. Nayyar, “Security and privacy in remote healthcare: Issues, solutions, and standards,” inTelemedicine technologies. Elsevier, 2019, pp. 201–225

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Providing security for flash loan system using cryptocurrency wallets supported by xsalsa20 in a blockchain environment,

    M. Al-Zubaidie and W. A. Jebbar, “Providing security for flash loan system using cryptocurrency wallets supported by xsalsa20 in a blockchain environment,”Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 14, p. 6361,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Data breaches and cyber attacks quarterly review: Q2 2021,

    L. Irwin, “Data breaches and cyber attacks quarterly review: Q2 2021,” July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/data-breaches-and-cyber-attacks-quarterly-review-q2-2021

    work page 2021

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Establishing an optimized searching approach with e-signatures based on blockchain for electronic agriculture applications,

    D. H. Tahayur and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Establishing an optimized searching approach with e-signatures based on blockchain for electronic agriculture applications,” inAIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 3264, no. 1. AIP Publishing LLC, 2025, p. 030001. [Online]. Available: https://doi...

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Intermediary decentralized computing and private blockchain mechanisms for privacy preservation in the internet of medical things,

    R. H. Razzaq, M. Al-Zubaidie, and R. G. Atiyah, “Intermediary decentralized computing and private blockchain mechanisms for privacy preservation in the internet of medical things,” Mesopotamian Journal of CyberSecurity, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 152–165, 2024. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Maintaining security of patient data by employing private blockchain and fog computing technologies based on internet of medical things,

    R. H. Razzaq and M. H. Al-Zubaidie, “Maintaining security of patient data by employing private blockchain and fog computing technologies based on internet of medical things,”Informatica, vol. 48, no. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.31449/inf.v48i12.6047

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Harmonization over the regulations of electronic medical records and its potential to be abused,

    M. Maskun, R. Nugraha, H. Assidiq, M. Tayyib, and A. Syafira, “Harmonization over the regulations of electronic medical records and its potential to be abused,”Medico-legal Update, vol. 21, no. 1, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Web application attacks in healthcare,

    Office of Information Security, “Web application attacks in healthcare,” Health Sector Cybersecurity Coordination Center, Tech. Rep., July 21, 2022, viewed 05 September 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/web-application-attacks-in-healthcare.pdf. 19

    2022

  6. [14]

    Hhs alerts to ongoing healthcare web app attacks, urges review of tactics,

    J. Davis, “Hhs alerts to ongoing healthcare web app attacks, urges review of tactics,” Tech. Rep., July 25, 2022, viewed 06 September 2022, https://www.scmagazine.com/analysis/application-security/ hhs-alerts-to-ongoing-healthcare-web-app-attacks-urges-review-of-tactics

    2022

  7. [15]

    Improve the effectiveness of sensor networks and extend the network lifetime using 2BSs and determination of area of CHs choice,

    Awaad, Mishall Hammed, “Improve the effectiveness of sensor networks and extend the network lifetime using 2BSs and determination of area of CHs choice,”Journal of Computer Science and Control Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 15, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    On the security of public key protocols,

    D. Dolev and A. Yao, “On the security of public key protocols,”IEEE Transactions on information theory, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 198–208, 1983

    1983

  9. [17]

    Transaction-based blockchain systems security improvement employing micro-segmentation controlled by smart contracts and detection of saddle Goatfish,

    W. A. Jebbar and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Transaction-based blockchain systems security improvement employing micro-segmentation controlled by smart contracts and detection of saddle Goatfish,” SN Computer Science, vol. 5, no. 7, p. 898, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Privacy-preserving attribute-based access control model for xml-based electronic health record system,

    K. Seol, Y.-G. Kim, E. Lee, Y.-D. Seo, and D.-K. Baik, “Privacy-preserving attribute-based access control model for xml-based electronic health record system,”IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 9114–9128, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Securing transactions using hybrid cryptography in e-commerce apps,

    G. S. Shyaa and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Securing transactions using hybrid cryptography in e-commerce apps,”Journal of Education for Pure Science-University of Thi-Qar, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 27–52, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Utilizing trusted lightweight ciphers to support electronic-commerce transaction cryptography,

    G. S. Shyaa and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Utilizing trusted lightweight ciphers to support electronic-commerce transaction cryptography,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 7085, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/app13127085

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Security and privacy of electronic health records: Decentralized and hierarchical data sharing using smart contracts,

    E. Zaghloul, T. Li, and J. Ren, “Security and privacy of electronic health records: Decentralized and hierarchical data sharing using smart contracts,” in2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 375–379

    2019

  14. [22]

    A smart-contract-based access control framework for cloud smart healthcare system,

    A. Saini, Q. Zhu, N. Singh, Y. Xiang, L. Gao, and Y. Zhang, “A smart-contract-based access control framework for cloud smart healthcare system,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 5914–5925, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    A secure electronic medical record authorization system for smart device application in cloud computing environments,

    C.-L. Chen, P.-T. Huang, Y.-Y. Deng, H.-C. Chen, and Y.-C. Wang, “A secure electronic medical record authorization system for smart device application in cloud computing environments,”Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–31, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Security and privacy of patient information in medical sys- tems based on blockchain technology,

    H. Wu, A. D. Dwivedi, and G. Srivastava, “Security and privacy of patient information in medical sys- tems based on blockchain technology,”ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), vol. 17, no. 2s, pp. 1–17, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Secure decentralized electronic health records sharing system based on blockchains,

    K. Shuaib, J. Abdella, F. Sallabi, and M. A. Serhani, “Secure decentralized electronic health records sharing system based on blockchains,”Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 5045–5058, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Privacy-preserving multi-factor authentication and role-based access control scheme for the e-healthcare system,

    M. Fareed and A. A. Yassin, “Privacy-preserving multi-factor authentication and role-based access control scheme for the e-healthcare system,”Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 2131–2141, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Formulating an advanced security protocol for internet of medical things based on blockchain and fog computing technologies,

    R. H. Razzaq and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Formulating an advanced security protocol for internet of medical things based on blockchain and fog computing technologies,”Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 723–734, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    10 clock-periods pipelined imple- mentation of aes-128 encryption-decryption algorithm up to 28 gbit/s real throughput by xilinx zynq ultrascale+ mpsoc zcu102 platform,

    P. Visconti, S. Capoccia, E. Venere, R. Vel´ azquez, and R. d. Fazio, “10 clock-periods pipelined imple- mentation of aes-128 encryption-decryption algorithm up to 28 gbit/s real throughput by xilinx zynq ultrascale+ mpsoc zcu102 platform,”Electronics, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1665, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Blockchain and cryptography framework of e-apps with big data,

    W. A. Jebbar, R. H. Razzaq, D. H. Tahayur, and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Blockchain and cryptography framework of e-apps with big data,”Journal of Education for Pure Science-University of Thi-Qar, vol. 14, no. 3, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.32792/jeps.v14i3.545

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Combining fog computing and blockchain based on the internet of medical things to preserve patient information privacy,

    M. H. Al-Zubaidie and R. H. Razzaq, “Combining fog computing and blockchain based on the internet of medical things to preserve patient information privacy,” inSustainable Information Security in the Age of AI and Green Computing. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2025, pp. 52...

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Enhancing traffic data security in smart cities using optimized quantum-based digital signatures and privacy-preserving techniques,

    T. G. Tregi and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Enhancing traffic data security in smart cities using optimized quantum-based digital signatures and privacy-preserving techniques,”Mesopotamian Journal of CyberSecurity, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 256–272, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/1...

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    PAX: Using pseudonymization and anonymization to protect patients’ identities and data in the healthcare system,

    M. Al-Zubaidie, Z. Zhang, and J. Zhang, “PAX: Using pseudonymization and anonymization to protect patients’ identities and data in the healthcare system,”International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 9, p. 1490, 2019. [Online]. Available: http...

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ecdsa),

    W. J. Buchanan, “Elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ecdsa),” https://asecuritysite.com/ signatures/ecdsa2, Asecuritysite.com, 2022, accessed: September 14, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://asecuritysite.com/signatures/ecdsa2

    2022

  26. [34]

    Extending the WSN lifetime by dividing the network area into a specific zones,

    M. H. Awaad and W. A. Jebbar, “Extending the WSN lifetime by dividing the network area into a specific zones,”International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 33–39, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Dependable concealing algorithm of e-apps repositories combined with a robust blockchain approach,

    D. Tahayur, W. Jebbar, R. Razzaq, and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Dependable concealing algorithm of e-apps repositories combined with a robust blockchain approach,”Advanced Research on Information Systems Security, an International Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 32–56, 2024. [Online]. Avai...

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Prolong the lifetime of WSN by determining a correlation nodes in the same zone and searching for the best not the closest CH,

    M. H. Awaad and W. A. Jebbar, “Prolong the lifetime of WSN by determining a correlation nodes in the same zone and searching for the best not the closest CH,”International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, vol. 6, no. 11, p. 31, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Enhancing electronic agriculture data security with a blockchain-based search method and e-signatures,

    D. H. Tahayur and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Enhancing electronic agriculture data security with a blockchain-based search method and e-signatures,”Mesopotamian Journal of CyberSecurity, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–21, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.58496/MJCS/2024/012

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Sturdy blockchain combined with e-apps repositories based on reliable camouflaging and integrating mechanisms,

    R. H. Razzaq, D. H. Tahayur, W. A. Jebbar, and M. Al-Zubaidie, “Sturdy blockchain combined with e-apps repositories based on reliable camouflaging and integrating mechanisms,”I. J. Computer Network and Information Security, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 35–53, 2025. [Online]. Available:...

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Zero trust architecture (zta): A comprehensive survey,

    N. F. Syed, S. W. Shah, A. Shaghaghi, A. Anwar, Z. Baig, and R. Doss, “Zero trust architecture (zta): A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 57 143–57 179, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Security cooperation in the protection concerns of agriculture data using efficient signatures and artificial bee colony manner,

    M. H. Al-Zubaidie and D. H. Tahayur, “Security cooperation in the protection concerns of agriculture data using efficient signatures and artificial bee colony manner,” inSustainable Information Security in the Age of AI and Green Computing. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 20...

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Iot light weight (lwt) crypto functions,

    N. Nabeel, M. Habaebi, N. C. Mustapha, and R. Islam, “Iot light weight (lwt) crypto functions,” vol. 13, pp. 117–129, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Study to analyze and compare the LEACH protocol with three methods to improve it and determine the best choice,

    M. H. Awaad and W. A. Jebbar, “Study to analyze and compare the LEACH protocol with three methods to improve it and determine the best choice,”Journal of Computer Science and Control Systems, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 5, 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    Reduce energy consumption by improving the LEACH protocol,

    A. F. Marhoon and M. H. Awaad, “Reduce energy consumption by improving the LEACH protocol,” International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 01–09, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    A lightweight 256- bit hash function for hardware and low-end devices: Lesamnta-lw,

    S. Hirose, K. Ideguchi, H. Kuwakado, T. Owada, B. Preneel, and H. Yoshida, “A lightweight 256- bit hash function for hardware and low-end devices: Lesamnta-lw,” inInternational Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Springer, 2010, pp. 151–168

    2010

  37. [45]

    Catalog and illustrative examples of lightweight cryptographic primitives,

    A. Mileva, V. Dimitrova, O. Kara, and M. J. Mihaljevi´ c, “Catalog and illustrative examples of lightweight cryptographic primitives,” inSecurity of Ubiquitous Computing Systems. Springer, 2021, pp. 21–47

    2021

  38. [46]

    Computer networking and cloud-based learning/teaching environment using virtual labs tools: A review and future aspirations,

    M. Al-Zubaidie, R. A. Muhajjar, and L. A. Shihabe, “Computer networking and cloud-based learning/teaching environment using virtual labs tools: A review and future aspirations,” Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science, vol. 2024, pp. 176–203, 2024. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Rbac-lbrm: An rbac-based load balancing assisted efficient resource man- agement framework for iot-edge-fog network,

    R. Kumar and N. Agrawal, “Rbac-lbrm: An rbac-based load balancing assisted efficient resource man- agement framework for iot-edge-fog network,”IEEE Sensors Letters, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1–4, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Abac: Alternative by alternative comparison based multi-criteria decision making method,

    A. Biswas, G. Baranwal, and A. K. Tripathi, “Abac: Alternative by alternative comparison based multi-criteria decision making method,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 208, p. 118174, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    A formal validation approach for xacml 3.0 access control policy,

    C. Caserio, F. Lonetti, and E. Marchetti, “A formal validation approach for xacml 3.0 access control policy,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 8, p. 2984, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Improvement on pdp evaluation performance based on neural networks and sgdk-means algorithm,

    F. Deng, Z. Yu, H. Song, L. Zhang, X. Song, M. Zhang, Z. Zhang, and Y. Mei, “Improvement on pdp evaluation performance based on neural networks and sgdk-means algorithm,”Soft Computing, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 3075–3089, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    An efficient density peak cluster algorithm for improving policy evaluation performance,

    Z. Yu, Y. Yan, F. Deng, F. Zhang, and Z. Li, “An efficient density peak cluster algorithm for improving policy evaluation performance,”Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Optimization solution proposal for smart transaction security of smart blockchain contracts in e-banking applications,

    M. H. Al-Zubaidie and W. A. Jebbar, “Optimization solution proposal for smart transaction security of smart blockchain contracts in e-banking applications,” inSustainable Information Security in the Age of AI and Green Computing. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2025, pp. 295...

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    Improved bound on the local leakage- resilience of shamir’s secret sharing,

    H. K. Maji, H. H. Nguyen, A. Paskin-Cherniavsky, and M. Wang, “Improved bound on the local leakage- resilience of shamir’s secret sharing,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2678–2683

    2022

  46. [54]

    A modified shamir secret sharing scheme with efficient encoding,

    A. Hineman and M. Blaum, “A modified shamir secret sharing scheme with efficient encoding,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 758–762, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Centralized threshold key generation protocol based on shamir secret sharing and hmac authentication,

    S. A. Abdel Hakeem and H. Kim, “Centralized threshold key generation protocol based on shamir secret sharing and hmac authentication,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 331, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Wireless sensor networks: Active and passive attacks- vulnerabilities and countermeasures,

    M. Keerthika and D. Shanmugapriya, “Wireless sensor networks: Active and passive attacks- vulnerabilities and countermeasures,”Global Transitions Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 362–367, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    A comparative study of security issues and attacks on underwater sensor network,

    S. Kumari, K. K. Singh, P. Nand, G. S. Mishra, and R. Astya, “A comparative study of security issues and attacks on underwater sensor network,” inProceedings of Third International Conference on Computing, Communications, and Cyber-Security: IC4S 2021. Springer, 2022, pp. 59–74

    2021

  50. [58]

    Network layers threats & its countermeasures in WSNs,

    V. Pruthi, K. Mittal, N. Sharma, and I. Kaushik, “Network layers threats & its countermeasures in WSNs,” in2019 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 156–163

    2019

  51. [59]

    Security and key management in iot-based wireless sensor networks: An authentication protocol using symmetric key,

    A. Ghani, K. Mansoor, S. Mehmood, S. A. Chaudhry, A. U. Rahman, and M. Najmus Saqib, “Security and key management in iot-based wireless sensor networks: An authentication protocol using symmetric key,”International Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 32, no. 16, p. e4139, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Lightweight and physically secure anonymous mu- tual authentication protocol for real-time data access in industrial wireless sensor networks,

    P. Gope, A. K. Das, N. Kumar, and Y. Cheng, “Lightweight and physically secure anonymous mu- tual authentication protocol for real-time data access in industrial wireless sensor networks,”IEEE transactions on industrial informatics, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 4957–4968, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    A secure smartcard-based anonymous user authentication scheme for healthcare applications using wireless medical sensor networks,

    A. K. Das, A. K. Sutrala, V. Odelu, and A. Goswami, “A secure smartcard-based anonymous user authentication scheme for healthcare applications using wireless medical sensor networks,”Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 1899–1933, 2017. 22

    1933

  54. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146361

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146361

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.