Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Toward Practical Decentralized Proof-of-Location via Physical Witnessing Zones

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 decentralized proof-of-location witnessing zone can be physically realized on commodity UWB, mesh, and BFT-ledger hardware, producing sub-meter proof objects in a controlled indoor setting.

desk verdict A credible physical baseline for decentralized proof-of-location, with security framing that overreaches in the abstract but is honest in the body. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04957 v1 pith:Q7ISPIBY submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CR

Tamor Tomson , Eduardo Brito , Amnir Hadachi , Ulrich Norbisrath This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords DecentralizedProof-of-LocationLocationVerificationUWBrangingwitnessingzoneByzantinefaulttolerancemeshnetworkingindoorlocalizationdigitaltrustinfrastructure
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

Decentralized proof-of-location has mostly been studied in emulation or as isolated mechanisms; this paper claims the whole stack can be built and run on commodity hardware. The authors assembled four fixed witness nodes — ESP32 boards with ultra-wideband (UWB) ranging radios, Raspberry Pi bridges, a local mesh, and a permissioned Byzantine fault-tolerant (BFT) ledger — and measured a prover's position inside one indoor zone across 340 trials. In 80 nominal interior trials, mean position error was 0.180 m, mean RMS residual was 0.150 m, mean latency was 0.0546 s, and all proofs were accepted by quorum. The prototype also rejected out-of-zone claims, dropped a range-inflated witness contribution, and refused stale ledger references. The result is a reusable experimental baseline for turning presence claims into independently checkable evidence under real radio, timing, and networking conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the witnessing zone: fixed witnesses with known coordinates measure the prover's distance by witness-initiated double-sided two-way ranging (DS-TWR) over UWB, sign each accepted range as a claim, and commit claims to a permissioned BFT ledger over a local mesh. The prover later assembles a proof by solving a least-squares multilateration problem and applying acceptance predicates — at least three ledger-accepted witness claims, zone containment, bounded RMS residual and timestamp spread, and membership in a witness triangle — and a separate offline verifier recomputes the same checks without contacting the live network. Two adaptations carry the practical argument: witness-initiated ranging, which lets the witness control challenge freshness and radio scheduling, and block-hash binding, which embeds the latest ledger block hash in the UWB poll so a stale reference can be rejected at the bridge before it reaches consensus.

What would settle it

Run a relay/wormhole experiment in the same room: put a prover outside the configured zone and have a small radio relay forward the witness-initiated DS-TWR frames between it and the four witnesses so the measured distances look short. If the prototype assembles a quorum proof that the offline verifier accepts, then the claimed malicious-ranging detection is broken for this attack class, which the paper itself lists as not prevented.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the previously emulated decentralized witnessing-zone architecture can be physically realized. On commodity hardware the authors obtain sub-meter proof accuracy in a single controlled zone: across 80 interior trials the estimated position was 0.180 m from tape-measured ground truth on average (SD 0.086; P95 0.305), the multilateration RMS residual was 0.150 m, proof latency was 0.0546 s, and every proof was accepted with quorum. Against adversaries, an out-of-zone prover was rejected 20/20 by zone containment, a 4 m inflated range was rejected 80/80 by zone containment (and by a post-hoc 0.5 m RMS threshold), and a ten-block-old ledger reference was dropped before consensus. The authors are explicit that this establishes engineering feasibility for one indoor zone, not external validity across rooms, multipath, concurrent provers, or additional zones.

Load-bearing premise

The whole security argument rests on the UWB ranging exchange being honest — a prover who can relay, replay, or wormhole the ranging packets to fake a short distance defeats the zone, the ledger, and the verifier, because every downstream proof starts from those measured ranges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-cost decentralized proof-of-location is within reach: each witness node cost about EUR 200, so a multi-witness zone is affordable for experimental deployments.
  • Sub-meter evidence granularity means the system can distinguish presence inside a room-scale zone from outside it, at least in controlled indoor conditions.
  • Defense-in-depth works but must be tuned per deployment: zone containment caught a 4 m range inflation that the initially chosen 1.5 m RMS threshold missed, and a post-hoc 0.5 m threshold would add one false rejection under mobility.
  • The 55 ms proof latency suggests proof assembly is not the limiting factor for real-time use; ranging and consensus would be the parts to optimize next.
  • Freshness binding at the application layer can reject stale ledger references before they enter consensus, but it is not a substitute for authenticated UWB ranging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fast-relay or wormhole test would be the decisive next experiment: if forwarded DS-TWR frames let an outside prover produce an accepted quorum proof, the remaining exposure is exactly the ranging layer the paper flags as unprotected.
  • The 0.5 m RMS threshold was selected and evaluated on the same campaign, so its false-rejection rate on independent benign data is unknown; a held-out calibration study would settle whether it generalizes.
  • The mobility phase did not exercise the 30 s timestamp bound because all claims landed in the same IBFT block (recorded spread 0.00 s); a phase that spreads claims across blocks would test the temporal predicate.
  • Extending the testbed to seven validators would let the consensus layer tolerate two faults, matching the geometry's need to resist two colluding witnesses; the paper describes but does not test that configuration.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a physical prototype of a decentralized proof-of-location witnessing zone built from commodity hardware: an ESP32-DWM3000 prover, four Raspberry Pi-based witness nodes with UWB ranging, a B.A.T.M.A.N.-Adv Layer-2 mesh, and a GoQuorum IBFT permissioned ledger. It adapts the previously emulated witnessing-zone architecture of Brito et al. through witness-initiated DS-TWR ranging, block-hash freshness binding, and a global RMS residual check, and evaluates 340 proof attempts in a single indoor room across four phases: nominal operation, mobility with a 10 s witness delay, a software-injected 4 m range offset on one witness, and a stale ten-block-old hash injected at a witness bridge. The headline results are 80/80 interior nominal proofs accepted with a mean error of 0.180 m, 20/20 out-of-zone attempts rejected by zone containment, 80/80 range-inflated proofs rejected by zone containment (and by a post-hoc 0.5 m RMS threshold), and all stale-reference contributions dropped before ledger submission. The paper honestly lists several limitations, including untested radio-layer replay/relay, post-hoc threshold selection, incomplete verifier independence, and the single-zone indoor scope.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, this is a useful engineering baseline: it shows that the decentralized witnessing-zone concept can be realized end-to-end on low-cost hardware with sub-meter location accuracy in one controlled indoor setting. The main strengths are the public artifact with normalized data and reproducibility scripts, the explicit reporting of Wilson intervals, and the unusually candid enumeration of what was and was not tested. The scientific value is primarily as a feasibility and integration study, not as a security proof: the nominal accuracy result is well supported, but the security-related claims in the abstract and introduction are broader than what the campaign actually exercised. This distinction matters because the protocol's downstream checks all consume UWB range measurements whose integrity is assumed rather than tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sections 1, 3.3, 5.2, 7] The claimed detection of 'simulated replay and malicious-ranging attacks' (abstract and Section 1) overstates the exercised adversarial space. Section 5.2 explicitly says that Phase 4 tests 'bridge rejection of stale references, not captured UWB replay', and Section 3.3 states that witness-initiated ranging 'does not by itself prevent fast relay or wormhole attacks'. Phase 3 is a software-injected 4 m offset in one witness-reported range (Section 5.2), not an attack on the UWB ranging exchange. Because the zone, ledger, and verifier checks all consume the measured DS-TWR ranges, an adversary that can relay, replay, or wormhole those packets is exactly the untested case. Please either add a physical-layer relay/replay experiment or rephrase the headline claims to say that application-layer stale references and one simulated faulty witness were tested, with UWB radio integrity assumed.
  2. [Section 6.2, Table 3] The 0.5 m RMS threshold is selected post hoc on the same campaign used to evaluate it; Section 6.2 itself states 'Selection and evaluation used the same campaign, so 0.5 m is a candidate for this dataset.' Consequently, the paper does not establish that the system detects range inflation directly through the RMS predicate: under the original 1.5 m RMS predicate, the manipulated Phase 3 trials were caught by zone containment, not by RMS. Please report the original predicate behavior as the primary detection result, present the 0.5 m threshold as a calibration hypothesis for future data, and avoid framing the post-hoc 80/80 rejection as evidence of detection.
  3. [Sections 3.1, 4; Abstract] The 'independent verifier' claim is not yet realized. Section 4 says the current proof format 'does not include complete witness signatures or transaction-inclusion proofs; the verifier therefore does not yet establish an authenticated witness quorum or ledger inclusion without additional ledger evidence.' The prover assembles the proof and provides the fields the verifier checks, so verification is not independent of the prover in the sense implied by the abstract. Either extend the proof format with per-claim witness signatures and ledger-inclusion evidence, or explicitly scope the claim to a policy checker over prover-supplied fields rather than an independent verifier of witness evidence.
  4. [Sections 5.2, 6.2] The temporal-alignment predicate is not exercised by the campaign. Section 6.2 reports that 'the recorded block-timestamp spread was 0.00 s in all 80 trials, so this phase did not exercise the 30 s rejection bound.' Phase 2 is therefore a mobility and geometry test, not a test of the timestamp-spread check, and the paper should not imply that the 30 s bound was validated. Please state explicitly that the timestamp-spread rejection bound remains an untested policy parameter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.3] The latency metric is defined as 'measured from claim collection to proof assembly', but Table 2 labels it simply 'Lat.'; please rename it to proof-assembly latency to avoid implying that end-to-end ranging and consensus latency are included.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Table 3] Phase 4 is described as 'replay defense' in the scenario list, but the text immediately clarifies that it tests stale block references rather than captured UWB replay; using the consistent label 'stale-reference rejection' throughout would reduce ambiguity.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] In the version under review, the Figure 1 caption appears to contain garbled text artifacts; please check the rendering and ensure the caption reads as a clean sentence.
  4. [Sections 3.1 and 4] The absence of an application-level allowlist binding witness keys to configured coordinates is stated in both Sections 3.1 and 4; consider consolidating the two statements to avoid redundancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasibility and security-behavior results are measured outputs of a physical campaign, and the only same-campaign threshold is explicitly labeled post-hoc, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical, not derived from its definitions. The sub-meter accuracy, latency, and acceptance rates in Section 6.1 come from the 80-trial physical campaign; they are not implied by the multilateration equations (Eq. 1-2) or the metric definitions (Eq. 3). The 0.5 m RMS candidate in Section 6.2 is selected from the same campaign and then described as a candidate: 'Selection and evaluation used the same campaign, so 0.5 m is a candidate for this dataset.' This is an honest disclosure of a post-hoc, exploratory analysis rather than an out-of-sample prediction, so it does not rise to fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The architecture builds on the same authors' prior witnessing-zone model [7], but the present contribution is the physical integration and evaluation; the geometric checks are recomputed locally and the prior work is not used as proof of the measured results. The paper also explicitly limits its attack coverage: Section 3.3 states witness-initiated ranging 'does not by itself prevent fast relay or wormhole attacks,' and Section 5.2 states Phase 4 'tests bridge rejection of stale references, not captured UWB replay.' The abstract's broader wording about detecting 'simulated replay' is a scope overstatement, but a scope gap is not a circular derivation. No step in the claimed chain reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system's accuracy and security claims rest on domain assumptions about radio ranging fidelity, operator-controlled witness admission, and the BFT ledger implementation, none of which are independently established in the paper. The main hand-selected values are the RMS residual threshold, including the post-hoc 0.5 m candidate, and the 30 second timestamp bound. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the witnessing-zone notion is inherited from Brito et al.

free parameters (2)
  • RMS residual acceptance threshold = 1.5 m initial; 0.5 m post-hoc candidate
    Used by the geometric consistency predicate to accept or reject proofs. The initial 1.5 m threshold missed all 80 range-inflation trials, and the 0.5 m value was selected on the same campaign it is used to evaluate, so it is a fit to this dataset (Section 6.2).
  • Timestamp spread bound = 30 s
    Proof assembly accepts claims only within a 30 second spread, chosen to accommodate prototype batching and clock recovery rather than derived from consensus latency and motion policy (Section 3.5).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DS-TWR UWB range measurement equals the physical distance between prover and witness in benign conditions.
    Invoked throughout Sections 3.3 to 3.5. All proofs descend from these measured ranges, so any relay, wormhole, or clock manipulation that falsifies a range invalidates the system, and the paper excludes such attacks.
  • domain assumption The GoQuorum and IBFT ledger provides Byzantine fault-tolerant ordering and finality under n >= 3f + 1.
    Used in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. With four validators, the system tolerates one faulty validator, and the paper notes that two Byzantine validators exceed the bound.
  • domain assumption Witness coordinates and key membership are correctly configured by the operator.
    Sections 3.1 and 4 state there is no application-level registry binding keys to coordinates, so witness admission is an operational trust assumption.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional geometry and tape-measured ground truth are sufficient for the indoor test.
    Section 5.1 defines a 2D local coordinate frame and uses tape-measured positions as ground truth, ignoring vertical offset and floor-level effects.
  • standard math Multilateration by least-squares residual minimization is a valid estimator for the witness-at-distance localization problem.
    Equations (1) and (2) in Section 3.5 use ordinary least squares on Euclidean distances, a standard technique requiring no special evidence beyond its standard derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Practical Decentralized Proof-of-Location via Physical Witnessing Zones." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7ISPIBY

@misc{pith2026260804957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Practical Decentralized Proof-of-Location via Physical Witnessing Zones},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7ISPIBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04957}
}
read the original abstract

Digital services increasingly rely on claims that a person, device, or asset was in a specific place at a specific time. Today, those claims often depend on self-reported location data, which is easy to falsify and difficult to verify after the fact. Proof-of-Location (PoL) systems address this gap by turning presence claims into evidence that an independent verifier can later inspect. This paper builds upon recent theoretical work on decentralized PoL architectures and demonstrates how they can move from emulation to a physical prototype built with low-cost hardware. We implement a witnessing zone in which fixed nearby devices measure a prover's presence, exchange claims over a local mesh, and record them in a tamper-evident ledger. Building the prototype required adapting the abstract protocol to physical constraints through witness-initiated ranging, cross-witness consistency checks, and freshness binding against replay. Our controlled indoor evaluation shows that the system can produce accurate, low-latency proof objects while detecting simulated replay and malicious-ranging attacks. The result is a reusable experimental baseline for next-generation digital trust infrastructure, that exposes the remaining calibration, verifier-independence, radio-integrity, and scaling requirements for decentralized location evidence, where physical presence claims can be independently checked under real radio, networking, and timing conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual witnessing-zone configuration with fixed witnesses, a prover inside the zone, and an independent verifier. 3 System Model and Design 3.1 Roles and Threat Model Building on the witnessing-zone configuration introduced in Section 2, this sec￾tion fixes the concrete assumptions used by the prototype. The prototype in￾stantiates a decentralized PoL model in which independently produced witness measurements ar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Assembled witness node with Raspberry Pi 4, ESP32 controller, DWM3000 UWB module, and SPI wiring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental environment in room 2018: measured room layout with four wit￾nesses and five test points, and the physical setup during the campaign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing20(1), 131–146 (2023).https: //doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2021.3128073

    Akand, M.M.R., Safavi-Naini, R., Kneppers, M., Giraud, M., Lafourcade, P.: Privacy-preserving proof-of-location with security against geo-tampering. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing20(1), 131–146 (2023).https: //doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2021.3128073

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion

    Amoretti, M., Brambilla, G., Medioli, F., Zanichelli, F.: Blockchain-based proof of location. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion. pp. 146–153 (2018).https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS-C. 2018.00038

    work page arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    In: Avail- ability, Reliability and Security

    Bogdanov, D., Brito, E., Jaakson, A., Laud, P., Rebane, R.M.: Zero-knowledge proof-of-location protocols for vehicle subsidies and taxation compliance. In: Avail- ability, Reliability and Security. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 15998, pp. 343–360. Springer (2025).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-00642-4_20

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-00642-4_20 2025

  4. [4]

    In: Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT ’93

    Brands, S., Chaum, D.: Distance-bounding protocols. In: Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT ’93. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 765, pp. 344–359 (1994).https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48285-7_30

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-48285-7_30 1994

  5. [5]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27883,https://arxiv.org/abs/2603

    Brito, E., Castillo, F., Hadachi, A., Norbisrath, U., Heiss, J.: Decentralized proof- of-location for content provenance: Towards capture-time authenticity (2026). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27883,https://arxiv.org/abs/2603. 27883, accepted for AEDT 2026, to appear in the Companion Proceedings of ICSA 2026

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.27883 2026

  6. [6]

    In: Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing

    Brito, E., Castillo, F., Kamm, L., Hadachi, A., Norbisrath, U.: A taxonomy and methodology for proof-of-location systems. In: Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 16213, pp. 228–244. Springer, Cham (2026).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-15140-7_13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15140-7_13 2026

  7. [7]

    Scientific Reports 15(1), 19808 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04566-4

    Brito, E., Hadachi, A., Kamm, L., Norbisrath, U.: Decentralized proof-of-location systems for trust, scalability, and privacy in digital societies. Scientific Reports 15(1), 19808 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04566-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-04566-4 2025

  8. [8]

    Where Trust Fails: Mapping Location-Data Provenance Risks in Europe

    Brito, E., Kamm, L.: Where trust fails: Mapping location-data provenance risks in europe (2026).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.13668,https://arxiv. org/abs/2604.13668, accepted for presentation at CPDP 2026, 19th International Conference on Computers, Privacy and Data Protection

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.13668 2026

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications24(2), 221–232 (2006).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/JSAC.2005.861380

    Capkun, S., Hubaux, J.P.: Secure positioning in wireless networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications24(2), 221–232 (2006).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/JSAC.2005.861380

    2006

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation

    Castro, M., Liskov, B.: Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. pp. 173–186 (1999) 14 T. Tomson et al

    1999

  3. [11]

    Accessed: 2026-06-13

    Circuit Digest: ESP32-DWM3000-UWB-Indoor-RTLS-Tracker: Real-time in- door position tracking system (2025),https://github.com/Circuit-Digest/ ESP32-DWM3000-UWB-Indoor-RTLS-Tracker, open-source code repository associ- ated with the Circuit Digest tutorial by Dharagesh. Accessed:...

    2025

  4. [12]

    com/Consensys/quorum, source-code repository

    ConsenSys: GoQuorum: A permissioned ethereum client (2024),https://github. com/Consensys/quorum, source-code repository. Accessed: 2026-07-30

    2024

  5. [13]

    IEEE: IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks – Amendment 1: Enhanced Ultra Wideband (UWB) Physical Layers (PHYs) and Associated Ranging Tech- niques (2020).https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9179124

    2020

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 18th SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems

    Luo, W., Hengartner, U.: Veriplace: A privacy-aware location proof architecture. In: Proceedings of the 18th SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. pp. 23–32 (2010).https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1869790.1869797

    2010

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03613 (2020).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.03613

    Moniz, H.: The istanbul bft consensus algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03613 (2020).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.03613

    2020 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    In: 13th Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and Communications

    Neirynck, D., Luk, E., McLaughlin, M.: An alternative double-sided two-way rang- ing method. In: 13th Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and Communications. pp. 1–4 (2016).https://doi.org/10.1109/WPNC.2016.7822844

    2016

  9. [17]

    In: IEEE Global Communications Conference

    Nosouhi, M.R., Yu, S., Grobler, M., Xiang, Y., Zhu, Z.: Sparse: Privacy-aware and collusion resistant location proof generation and verification. In: IEEE Global Communications Conference. pp. 1–6 (2018).https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOM. 2018.8647933

    2018

  10. [18]

    Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing136, 40–51 (2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2019.10.007

    Nosouhi, M.R., Yu, S., Zhou, W., Grobler, M., Keshtiar, H.: Blockchain for secure location verification. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing136, 40–51 (2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2019.10.007

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    In: 19th USENIX Security Symposium

    Rasmussen, K.B., Capkun, S.: Realization of rf distance bounding. In: 19th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, Washington, DC (Aug 2010),https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity10/ realization-rf-distance-bounding

    2010

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Appli- cations

    Saroiu, S., Wolman, A.: Enabling new mobile applications with location proofs. In: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Appli- cations. pp. 1–6 (2009).https://doi.org/10.1145/1514411.1514414

    2009

  13. [21]

    The Linux Kernel Developers: batman-adv – The Linux Kernel Documenta- tion (2026),https://docs.kernel.org/networking/batman-adv.html, accessed: 2026-06-13

    2026

  14. [22]

    IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking24(6), 3276–3289 (2016).https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2016.2515119

    Wang, X., Pande, A., Zhu, J., Mohapatra, P.: Stamp: Enabling privacy-preserving location proofs for mobile users. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking24(6), 3276–3289 (2016).https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2016.2515119

    2016

  15. [23]

    Waters, B., Felten, E.: Secure, private proofs of location. Tech. Rep. TR-667-03, Department of Computer Science, Princeton University (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Communications

    Wu, W., Liu, E., Gong, X., Wang, R.: Blockchain based zero-knowledge proof of location in iot. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications. pp. 1–7 (2020).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC40277.2020.9149366

    2020

  17. [25]

    In: IEEE INFOCOM

    Zhu, Z., Cao, G.: Applaus: A privacy-preserving location proof updating system for location-based services. In: IEEE INFOCOM. pp. 1889–1897 (2011).https: //doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2011.5934991

    2011

Pith tools

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