Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Deployment Feasibility Analysis of Post-Quantum Digital Signatures in Safety-Critical C-V2X Communication for Urban Mobility Scenario

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Falcon-512 is the only NIST post-quantum signature that fits today's C-V2X sidelink profile, but even it fails the 90% packet-delivery threshold except at the lightest traffic level under line-of-sight propagation.

desk verdict Clean TBS arithmetic makes Falcon-512 the only viable NIST PQC scheme under SAE J3161, but the simulated LOS A-only PDR boundary rests on a scheduler the paper itself concedes is non-compliant. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05087 v1 pith:V5LIKSQB submitted 2026-08-05 cs.PF

Akid Abrar , Sagar Dasgupta , Abdullah Al Mamun , Minhaj Uddin Ahmad , Mizanur Rahman , Mashrur Chowdhury , Ahmad Alsharif This is my paper
classification cs.PF
keywords post-quantumcryptographyC-V2XMode4sidelinkSAEJ3161Falcon-512packetdeliveryratiotransportblocksizevehicularsafetycommunication
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

The paper asks whether NIST's post-quantum digital signatures can replace ECDSA in safety-critical C-V2X sidelink messaging without breaking the current standards profile, a question that matters because vehicles fielded now may still be operating when a quantum computer arrives. It computes the full secured-message sizes for ECDSA P-256, Falcon-512, Dilithium-2, and SPHINCS+ and checks them against the SAE J3161 transport-block ceiling. Dilithium-2 and SPHINCS+ are too large for any permitted configuration, while Falcon-512 just fits. In a full-stack Mode 4 co-simulation across six traffic levels-of-service and two propagation conditions, Falcon-512 meets the 90% packet-delivery threshold only at the lightest traffic level under line-of-sight propagation, whereas ECDSA meets it through the third level. The paper concludes that spectrum efficiency, not cryptographic computation time, is the primary deployment constraint.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the transport-block size (TBS) ceiling of 2,481 bytes that SAE J3161 imposes at modulation-and-coding index 11 with a full ten-subchannel allocation, combined with the IEEE 1609.2 secured protocol data unit format and the SAE J2945/1 certificate policy (one full pseudonym certificate in every five basic safety messages, a compact 8-byte HashedId8 digest in the other four). The TBS ceiling acts as the feasibility filter that eliminates Dilithium-2 and SPHINCS+; the Mode 4 semi-persistent scheduling grant fixes how many subchannels each packet occupies; and the certificate policy determines how often the expensive full-certificate packet appears. For Falcon-512 the mechanism that produces the reliability penalty is that the grant stabilizes at four subchannels, occupying 40% of the available sidelink pool per transmission, and the certificate-bearing packet is split by radio link control unacknowledged-mode fragmentation over two transmission periods, so losing either fragment discards the whole message.

What would settle it

Run the same 24-scenario comparison in a Mode 4 simulator that implements SPS+One-Shot and the SPS_004 subchannel constraint, or in an over-the-air field test on production-spec LTE-V2X radios, and check whether Falcon-512's line-of-sight PDR stays above 90% only at traffic level-of-service A; if a compliant allocator keeps it above 90% at level B, the paper's specific deployment boundary is wrong, and if PDR drops further, the spectrum-efficiency conclusion is strengthened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a two-part feasibility result. The SAE J3161 transport-block size ceiling of 2,481 bytes at modulation-and-coding index 11 with all ten subchannels eliminates Dilithium-2, whose digest-only secured packet alone is 2,495 bytes, and SPHINCS+, whose signature alone is 7,856 bytes; only Falcon-512 fits, with a certificate-bearing secured packet of 1,735 bytes needing seven subchannels and a digest-mode packet of 741 bytes needing four. Fitting is not sufficient: under Mode 4 semi-persistent scheduling the grant settles at four subchannels because four of every five basic safety messages carry only a compact 8-byte digest, and certificate-bearing packets are fragmented across two transmission periods by the unacknowledged radio link control layer. In the line-of-sight case Falcon-512 sustains 92.76% mean packet delivery at traffic level-of-service A, drops to 79.86% at level B, and never meets the 90% threshold again, while ECDSA stays above 90% through level C; under non-line-of-sight neither algorithm reaches 90% at any distance. Mean latency stays near 52 ms and the 95th percentile within 96-98 ms, under the 100 ms safety budget, so the paper's stated conclusion is that spectrum efficiency, not cryptographic computation time, is the primary deployment constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulator's Mode 4 resource-selection behavior represents real compliant operation, yet the paper concedes it omits SPS+One-Shot and the J3161 SPS_004 subchannel rule, so the 7-subchannel allocation used for Falcon certificate transmissions is one a fully compliant implementation would not use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dilithium-2 and SPHINCS+ cannot be deployed on the current SAE J3161 profile without protocol changes such as packet segmentation, hybrid schemes, or a wider permitted MCS range.
  • Falcon-512 is physically deployable but only at very light traffic under line-of-sight; at traffic level-of-service B and above its PDR falls below 90% even at close range, so any near-term PQC migration on LTE-V2X Mode 4 would be confined to sparse, LOS-dominated conditions.
  • Under non-line-of-sight propagation neither ECDSA nor Falcon-512 meets the 90% threshold, so improving PDR in urban canyons requires infrastructure changes such as RSU placement, antenna orientation, or relay integration rather than a different signature algorithm.
  • The latency results show that PQC signing and verification time is not a bottleneck for Mode 4; delivered packets meet the 100 ms safety budget with mean latency near 52 ms, so standards work should focus on payload size and resource allocation.
  • If the standard were extended to higher MCS indices or if NR-V2X's higher data rates were available, Falcon-512's subchannel requirement could shrink and its viable traffic range could widen.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its 7-subchannel certificate operating point is not what a fully J3161-compliant allocator would use; the SPS_004 rule would round that allocation up to a full ten subchannels, so a compliant implementation would likely show worse, not better, PDR for Falcon-512.
  • Because ECDSA fails as badly as Falcon-512 under non-line-of-sight, the inference for deployment planners is that PQC migration should not be blocked on NLOS performance alone; the binding fix in urban canyons is coverage design, and algorithm choice only matters once coverage is adequate.
  • A testable extension would be to run the same comparison with SPS+One-Shot enabled; if half-duplex repetitive collisions are a major loss source at higher traffic levels, Falcon-512's penalty at level B could shrink, whereas if the dominant loss is interference from its four-subchannel occupancy, the paper's threshold would stand.
  • The near-constant latency across algorithms suggests that for capacity planning on Mode 4, PQC signature generation and verification can be treated as negligible; the scarce resource is subchannels, not CPU cycles, which points standards work toward payload compression, MCS extensions, or NR-V2X rather than faster hardware.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript asks which NIST-standardized post-quantum digital signature schemes can be carried by the current SAE J3161 C-V2X PC5 Mode 4 sidelink profile and what communication-level penalty the viable scheme incurs. The authors compute IEEE 1609.2 secured-message SPDU sizes for ECDSA P-256, Falcon-512, Dilithium-2, and SPHINCS+, and show that Dilithium-2 and SPHINCS+ exceed the 2,481-byte SAE J3161 transport-block ceiling even under the most permissive MCS/subchannel configuration. Falcon-512 is carried forward and compared with ECDSA P-256 in an OpenCV2X/SUMO co-simulation across six traffic levels-of-service and LOS/NLOS propagation, using PDR and end-to-end latency at a roadside unit as KPIs. The reported results are that Falcon-512 meets the 90% PDR threshold only at LOS traffic level-of-service A, ECDSA meets it through LOS level-of-service C, neither scheme meets it under NLOS, and latency is essentially unaffected by algorithm choice.

Significance. If the deployment boundary is correct, the paper makes a useful and timely contribution: it gives standards bodies a concrete, checkable feasibility screen and identifies spectrum efficiency rather than cryptographic computation time as the binding constraint for PQC on LTE-V2X Mode 4. The transport-block arithmetic in Tables 1-3 is transparent, uses standard sizes, and is internally consistent. The simulation is a forward model with no fitted parameters, and the use of OpenCV2X plus liboqs is a reasonable and reproducible setup. The main quantitative claim, however, rests on a Mode 4 SPS implementation that the paper itself concedes is not SAE J3161-compliant in two named ways, so the specific 'LOS A only' threshold cannot currently be regarded as a standards-grounded result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Co-Simulation Platform; Conclusion (Limitations)] The central LOS-A-only deployment boundary is produced by an OpenCV2X Mode 4 SPS model that the manuscript itself concedes omits two SAE J3161 mechanisms. The Conclusion states that SPS+One-Shot (J3161 Section 7.3.3) is not implemented and that the SPS_004 subchannel constraint (J3161 Section 8.6) is not implemented, so the 7-subchannel allocation used for Falcon-512 certificate-bearing SPDUs is one that a fully compliant implementation would round up to 10 subchannels. Because the reported failure at LOS level-of-service B is the empirical hinge of the paper, this is load-bearing. Please rerun the evaluation with both mechanisms implemented, or, if that is not possible, rewrite the abstract, discussion, and conclusion so that the threshold is explicitly conditional on a non-J3161-compliant scheduler. The direction of the resulting bias is not determined a priori: SPS+One-Shot could raise Falcon-512 PDR by breaking persistent half-duplex collisions, while SPS_004 rounding would consume more resources and could lower it.
  2. [Sidelink Resource Allocation Feasibility] The explanation for Falcon-512's short-range failures rests on the claim that the SPS grant settles at a steady-state 4-subchannel allocation and that certificate-bearing SPDUs are then fragmented by RLC UM across two transmission periods. This is a strong claim about Mode 4 behavior, but the paper gives no standards citation or simulator code trace showing that a packet-size change from certificate mode to digest mode does not trigger grant regeneration. If this behavior is an artifact of OpenCV2X's simplified grant management rather than a property of a compliant SPS implementation, then the '40% subchannel occupancy' mechanism used to explain the LOS B PDR drop is unsupported. Please provide the relevant OpenCV2X code path or a 3GPP/SAE reference establishing that the grant remains at the digest size when a larger certificate-bearing packet arrives.
  3. [Evaluation Outcomes; Discussion] The aggregate PDR values that support the headline threshold are reported only in prose in the Discussion (94.89%, 95.40%, 95.02% for ECDSA at LOS A-C; 92.76% and 79.86% for Falcon at LOS A-B). They do not appear in any table, and Figure 3 shows PDR versus distance curves without a corresponding aggregate-PDR table or confidence intervals. Since the central claim is a threshold comparison, the paper should provide a table of mean PDR (with standard deviation or confidence intervals) for every scenario, in addition to the distance-resolved curves.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The Falcon-512 certificate-mode SPDU size is listed as 1,739 bytes in Table 3 but as 1,735 bytes in Table 2 and in the text of the Method section; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Preliminaries (V2X Security and Post-Quantum Cryptography)] The acronym 'SLH-DHA' appears in the text where 'SLH-DSA' is intended; please correct the typo.
  3. [References and Standard Designation] The text and references use both 'SAE J3161' and 'SAE J3161/1' for the deployment profile; the manuscript should use one consistent designation.
  4. [Method (SAE J3161 Deployment Profile)] The fact that OpenCV2X does not implement SPS+One-Shot and SPS_004 is disclosed only in the Conclusion; it should also be stated in the Method section where the simulator is described, so that the reader knows the compliance status of the scheduler before seeing the results.
  5. [Figure 3] The six subplots of Figure 3 would be easier to read if each subplot had labeled axes and the legend were placed once; as printed, the small subplot style makes it hard to compare the short-range PDR values that carry the LOS B threshold argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: TBS feasibility is arithmetic from standards, and PDR/latency are forward simulation outputs; the admitted SPS-compliancy gaps are validity caveats, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward model. SPDU sizes are computed from IEEE 1609.2 fixed overheads, SAE J2735 BSM sizes, and published NIST algorithm key/signature sizes (Tables 1 and 2); the TBS feasibility analysis then applies the SAE J3161 MCS/subchannel constraints and 3GPP TS 36.213 TBS tables, eliminating Dilithium-2 and SPHINCS+ by direct arithmetic (2,495, 3,904, and 8,060 bytes versus the 2,481-byte ceiling). Falcon-512 and ECDSA are then run through OpenCV2X with no parameter fitted to the target PDR or latency outcomes; the 4-subchannel steady state and the resulting 40% occupancy follow from the digest-SPDU size and the simulator's SPS grant mapping, and the PDR curves are emergent simulation outputs rather than regression fits to the conclusions. The only overlapping-author citation (Mamun et al. 2026) supports the background harvest-now-decrypt-later motivation and is not load-bearing. The Conclusion's explicit admission that OpenCV2X omits SPS+One-Shot (SAE J3161 Section 7.3.3) and the SPS_004 subchannel constraint (Section 8.6), and that a fully compliant implementation would round the Falcon certificate allocation to 10 subchannels, is a validity limitation that could shift the quantitative LOS A/B threshold, but it does not make the derivation circular: the simulation remains a forward model whose results are not equivalent to its inputs. One minor overreach is that the end-to-end latency metric excludes signing and verification time by definition, so Table 6 alone cannot confirm that cryptographic computation is negligible; this is a measurement-interpretation issue, not a circular step, and the paper's central spectrum-efficiency conclusion rests on the PDR and subchannel-occupancy results, which are independent of that overreach.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. Its central claims rest on standard-based size calculations (with two hand-chosen overhead approximations), the OpenCV2X simulator's Mode 4 model, and standard channel and traffic models.

free parameters (2)
  • IEEE 1609.2 header overhead = 28 bytes
    Hand-chosen approximation for protocol version, content type, PSID, generation time/location overhead; directly shifts SPDU sizes and the Dilithium-2 digest-mode infeasibility margin.
  • Certificate fixed overhead = 105 bytes
    Approximate fixed certificate fields (version, type, issuer, permissions, validity, verification key indicator); assumed independent of signature algorithm, which may omit the CA's algorithm-dependent signature.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SAE J3161 defines MCS set {5,6,7,11} and maximum TBS of 2481 bytes at MCS 11 with 10 subchannels.
    The feasibility analysis rests on this standard profile; cited to SAE J3161.
  • standard math 3GPP TS 36.213 TBS table correctly maps PRB count and MCS to transport block size.
    Used in Eq. (2) and the subchannel requirement calculations.
  • domain assumption OpenCV2X faithfully models Mode 4 SPS resource allocation, RLC fragmentation, and PHY abstraction.
    The central PDR results depend on the simulator's behavior; the paper itself notes missing SPS+One-Shot and SPS_004 constraints.
  • domain assumption IEEE 1609.2 SPDU overhead and J2945/1 certificate-every-fifth-BSM policy.
    Determines SPDU sizes and which transmission is the binding feasibility constraint.
  • domain assumption ITU-R M.2135-1 LOS and UMi NLOS path loss models apply to the urban intersection geometry.
    Underpins LOS/NLOS comparison; applies NLOS model to all links in NLOS scenarios.
  • domain assumption Traffic density-flow relationship q = k*v at constant free-flow speed 72.4 km/h holds for all LOS levels, including oversaturated LOS F.
    Used to generate the six density scenarios; at 100 veh/km free-flow conditions are unrealistic, but the assumption only affects traffic input, not the crypto comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deployment Feasibility Analysis of Post-Quantum Digital Signatures in Safety-Critical C-V2X Communication for Urban Mobility Scenario." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5LIKSQB

@misc{pith2026260805087,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deployment Feasibility Analysis of Post-Quantum Digital Signatures in Safety-Critical C-V2X Communication for Urban Mobility Scenario},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5LIKSQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05087}
}
read the original abstract

The transition from the classical ECDSA to PQC creates substantially larger authentication payloads for safety-critical C-V2X sidelink communication. This study determines which NIST post-quantum signature algorithms are compatible with the current SAE J3161 deployment profile and quantifies their communication-level effects. A transport-block feasibility analysis was performed using IEEE 1609.2 secured-message structures, SAE J3161 radio parameters, and the signature and public-key sizes of ECDSA P-256, Falcon-512, Dilithium-2, and SPHINCS+. Falcon-512, the only post-quantum candidate that fit the applicable transport-block constraints, was compared with ECDSA P-256 through full-stack C-V2X PC5 Mode 4 co-simulation. The evaluation covered 24 scenarios spanning six traffic levels-of-service with line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight propagation. PDR and end-to-end latency were evaluated at a roadside unit receiver. Dilithium-2 and SPHINCS+ exceeded the available transport-block capacity, whereas Falcon-512 remained physically feasible. Falcon-512 maintained mean latency near 52 ms and 95th-percentile latency within 97-98 ms, but met the 90% packet-delivery threshold only at traffic level-of-service A, under line-of-sight propagation. ECDSA met the threshold through traffic level-of-service C. Neither algorithm met the threshold under non-line-of-sight propagation. The study provides a standards-grounded cross-layer evaluation that identifies both algorithm feasibility and traffic-dependent deployment boundaries for post-quantum signatures on C-V2X Mode 4 sidelink. The results show that spectrum efficiency, rather than cryptographic computation time, is the primary deployment constraint. They support standards development concerning payload structure, resource allocation, certificate transmission, and migration strategies for quantum-resistant vehicular communication.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018a.Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 14).Technical Specification TS 36.321 V14.8.0

    17 Abrar, Dasgupta, Mamun, Ahmad, Rahman, Chowdhury, and Alsharif 3GPP. 2018a.Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 14).Technical Specification TS 36.321 V14.8.0. 3rd Generation Partnership Project. 3GPP. 2018b.Physical layer procedures (Release 14).Technical Specification TS 36.213 V14.7.0. 3rd Generation Partnership Project. 5G Aut...

    work page 2019

  2. [7]

    IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Certificate Management Interfaces for End Entities

    “IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Certificate Management Interfaces for End Entities.”IEEE Std 1609.2.1-2022 (Revision of IEEE Std 1609.2.1-2020),1–261. https: //doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9810154. ITU-R. 2009.Guidelines for Evaluation of Radio Interface Technologies for IMT-Advanced.Report ITU-R M.2135-1. Internation...

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [16]

    Multiple Access in Cellular V2X: Performance Analysis in Highly Congested Vehicular Networks

    “Multiple Access in Cellular V2X: Performance Analysis in Highly Congested Vehicular Networks.”IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC),1–8. Transportation Research Board. 2016.Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Twardokus, Geoff, Nina Bindel, Hanif Rahbari, and Sara...

    work page 2016

  4. [17]

    When cryptography needs a hand: Practical post-quantum authentication for V2V communications

    “When cryptography needs a hand: Practical post-quantum authentication for V2V communications.” InNetwork and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS 2024).Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). Twardokus, Geoff, and Hanif Rahbari. 2025.Quantum-Resistant Safety Message Authentication for NextG C-V2X: A Cross-Layer Approach.TechRxiv ...

    work page 2024

  5. [18]

    2019.OMNeT++ Discrete Event Simulation System.Version 5.x, https://omnetpp.org

    Varga, András. 2019.OMNeT++ Discrete Event Simulation System.Version 5.x, https://omnetpp.org. OpenSim Ltd. Virdis, Antonio, Giovanni Stea, and Giovanni Nardini

    work page 2019

  6. [204]

    OpenSSLProject.2024.OpenSSL:CryptographyandSSL/TLSToolkit.https://www.openssl.org.Accessed:Jun.2026

    National Institute of Standards and Technology. OpenSSLProject.2024.OpenSSL:CryptographyandSSL/TLSToolkit.https://www.openssl.org.Accessed:Jun.2026. Qu, Fengzhong, Zhihui Wu, Fei-Yue Wang, and Woong Cho

    work page 2024

  7. [205]

    National Security Agency

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. National Security Agency. 2022.Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0.https://media.defense.gov/2025/ May/30/2003728741/-1/-1/0/CSA_CNSA_2.0_ALGORITHMS.PDF. Accessed: May

    work page 2022

  8. [1994]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring

    “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring.” InProceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,124–134. IEEE. Sinell,Felix,RenéTschirley,andPhilippJungklass.2025.“Evaluationofpost-quantumcryptographysignaturescheme onanautomotivemulticoremicrocontrollerforreal-timeapplication.”InFutureofinformationan...

    work page 2025

Show all 19 references
  1. [2011]

    Bidirectionally Coupled Network and Road Traffic Simulation for Improved IVC Analysis

    “Bidirectionally Coupled Network and Road Traffic Simulation for Improved IVC Analysis.”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing10 (1): 3–15. Stebila,Douglas,andMicheleMosca.2017.“Post-quantumKeyExchangefortheInternetandtheOpenQuantumSafe Project.” InSelected Areas in Cryptograph...

    2017

  2. [2014]

    SimuLTE – A Modular System-Level Simulator for LTE/LTE-A Networks Based on OMNeT++

    “SimuLTE – A Modular System-Level Simulator for LTE/LTE-A Networks Based on OMNeT++.” InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications (SIMULTECH),59–70. Wang,Wen,andMarcStöttinger.2020.“Post-quantumsecur...

    2020

  3. [2015]

    A Security and Privacy Review of VANETs

    “A Security and Privacy Review of VANETs.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems16 (6): 2985–2996. SAE International. 2020.On-Board System Requirements for V2V Safety Communications.Standard SAE J2945/1. SAE International. SAE International. 2022.V2X Communic...

    2020

  4. [2018]

    A security credential management system for V2X communications

    “A security credential management system for V2X communications.”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems19 (12): 3850–3871. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.Average Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Operation in the United States.https: //www.bts.gov/content/...

    2026

  5. [2019]

    OpenCV2X Mode 4: A Simulation Extension for Cellular Vehicular CommunicationNetworks

    “OpenCV2X Mode 4: A Simulation Extension for Cellular Vehicular CommunicationNetworks.”In2019IEEE24thInternationalWorkshoponComputerAidedModelingandDesign of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD),1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAMAD.2019.8858436. National Institute of Standar...

  6. [2020]

    Towards post-quantum blockchain: A review on blockchain cryptography resistant to quantum computing attacks

    “Towards post-quantum blockchain: A review on blockchain cryptography resistant to quantum computing attacks.”IEEE access8:21091–21116. Fouque, Pierre-Alain, Jeffrey Hoffstein, Paul Kirchner, Vadim Lyubashevsky, Thomas Pornin, Thomas Prest, Gregor Seiler, William Whyte, and Zh...

    2017

  7. [2021]

    On the Design of Sidelink forCellularV2X:ALiteratureReviewandOutlookforFuture

    “On the Design of Sidelink forCellularV2X:ALiteratureReviewandOutlookforFuture.”IEEEAccess9:97953–97980.https://doi.org/10. 1109/ACCESS.2021.3094161. Bazzi, Alessandro, Barbara M. Masini, Alberto Zanella, and Igor Thibault

    2021

  8. [2022]

    A tutorial on the LTE-V2X direct communication

    “A tutorial on the LTE-V2X direct communication.”IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology3:388–398. 18 Abrar, Dasgupta, Mamun, Ahmad, Rahman, Chowdhury, and Alsharif Howe,James,andBasWesterbaan.2023.“BenchmarkingandanalysingtheNISTPQClattice-basedsignatureschemes standards on...

    2023

  9. [2024]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCPCT61902.2024.10673280

    “Hybrid Scheme of Post-Quantum Cryptography and Elliptic-Curve Cryp- tography for Certificates - A Case Study of Security Credential Management System in Vehicle-to-Everything Communications.” In2024 7th International Conference on Circuit Power and Computing Technologies (IC-...

  10. [2026]

    2024.Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard.Federal Information Processing Standard FIPS

    NIST. 2024.Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard.Federal Information Processing Standard FIPS

    2024

  11. [2582]

    5GVehicle-to-EverythingServices:GearingUpfor Security and Privacy

    IEEE. Lu,Rongxing,LinZhang,JianbingNi,andYuguangFang.2020.“5GVehicle-to-EverythingServices:GearingUpfor Security and Privacy.”Proceedings of the IEEE108 (2): 373–389. Mamun,AbdullahAl,AkidAbrar,MizanurRahman,MSabbirSalek,andMashrurChowdhury.2026.“Post-quantum cryptography for ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.