Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Future-Proofing Authentication Against Insecure Bootstrapping for 5G Networks: Feasibility, Resiliency, and Accountability

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read BORG claims that 5G base-station bootstrapping can be secured against compromised base stations and future breaking of classical cryptography by using a hierarchical identity-based threshold signature with fail-stop properties, at a cost of

desk verdict The PQC feasibility study is solid, but BORG's fail-stop forgery detection does not survive its own threat model, and Algorithm 4 has an internal hash-input mismatch. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.23457 v3 pith:W6CNP3ID submitted 2025-10-27 cs.CR

Saleh Darzi , Mirza Masfiqur Rahman , Imtiaz Karim , Rouzbeh Behnia , Attila A Yavuz , Elisa Bertino This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords 5GbootstrappingsecuritybasestationauthenticationSIB1broadcastintegritythresholdsignatureshierarchicalidentity-basedfail-stoppost-quantumsignaturefeasibilityauditlogging
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's central claim is that 5G's initial bootstrapping — the moment a phone decides which base station to trust — can be future-proofed without paying the packet-size penalty of standardized post-quantum signatures. It first shows that standard lattice-based post-quantum signatures run to thousands of bytes and produce end-to-end delays near five seconds, making them unusable inside the 372-byte SIB1 broadcast constraint. It then proposes BORG, a hierarchical identity-based threshold signature with fail-stop properties, which lets any t of n base stations jointly sign SIB1 with 144 bytes of cryptographic overhead and roughly three milliseconds of latency, while adding post-mortem forgery detection and a post-quantum-protected audit log. If correct, BORG would give operators distributed trust, tamper-evident accountability, and a way to prove that a forgery occurred even after the underlying classical assumptions are broken.

What carries the argument

The central object is the HITFS scheme — a Hierarchical Identity-Based Threshold Signature with Fail-Stop property. It layers Schnorr-style threshold signing over hierarchical identity-based key derivation, so no certificates are broadcast: each base station holds a key share, and any t of n shares can be aggregated into one compact signature. The fail-stop layer uses preprocessing commitments E_i,j and D_i,j computed as powers of a generator from hashed secret nonces; the shared nonce component R_j is built from these commitments, so after a suspected forgery the signers can reveal their nonces and a higher authority recomputes R_j to check whether the signature was genuinely produced by th

What would settle it

Take the public commitments E_i,j and D_i,j from the preprocessing phase, compute their discrete logarithms in the actual group used in the parameter selection (e.g., a small-order or known-order subgroup), construct a BORG signature whose R'_j equals the legitimate R_j, and run BORG.PoF; if PoF returns 'Not A Forgery' for this adversarially produced signature, the post-mortem forgery-detection claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a feasible middle path for 5G bootstrapping security: distributed, accountable authentication that is not real-time post-quantum but detects forgeries after the fact. The discovery is that a Schnorr-style hierarchical identity-based threshold signature can be augmented with a fail-stop layer — preprocessing commitments and nonce revelation — so that a quorum of base stations produces one compact (R, z) signature verifiable by a phone with a pre-installed master public key, while a forgery proof can later be generated and checked by a higher authority. The paper reports that this fits into a single SIB1 packet, avoids fragmentation, keeps UE verificatio

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on discrete-logarithm hardness for day-to-day unforgeability, and the fail-stop layer additionally assumes that no adversary can recover the random nonces behind the public commitments E_i,j and D_i,j — an assumption that disappears exactly when the discrete-logarithm problem is solved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standardized lattice post-quantum signatures (around 2,420 bytes for the signature alone) cannot fit inside a 372-byte SIB1 packet and create end-to-end delays of 0.66 to 5.28 seconds, so direct replacement is protocol-breaking.
  • With BORG, compromising fewer than t of n base stations is insufficient to forge a valid SIB1 signature, removing the single point of failure of today's single-BS trust.
  • After classical assumptions like discrete-logarithm hardness fail, honest signers can reveal their commitment nonces and prove that a suspicious signature is a forgery, allowing the core network to halt and attribute the breach.
  • Audit logs sealed with a post-quantum threshold signature remain tamper-evident and support non-repudiation, closing the accountability gap in current base-station logs.
  • The total cryptographic overhead of 144 bytes fits in one SIB1 without fragmentation and keeps UE-side verification at roughly 1.27 ms, comparable to existing classical hierarchical schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An adversary who can solve the discrete-logarithm problem on the public commitments E_i,j and D_i,j can recover the underlying nonce exponents and forge a signature with the same R_j; BORG.PoF would then output 'Not A Forgery', so the advertised fail-stop guarantee may vanish precisely in the post-quantum scenario it targets.
  • The accountability story depends on at least t honest signers willing to reveal nonces and on the audit logs surviving tampering; in a widely compromised RAN these preconditions may fail simultaneously.
  • BORG is naturally a policy gate before 5G-AKA rather than a replacement for it, so it could be adopted incrementally by operators already running multi-connectivity deployments.
  • The same compact fail-stop design could apply to other broadcast trust roots with strict packet limits, such as V2X safety messages or IoT firmware announcements, where compromise inevitability and size constraints are similar.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates the feasibility of embedding NIST post-quantum signatures into 5G SIB1 broadcast authentication, concludes that direct PQC adoption is impractical due to packet-size, fragmentation, and latency constraints, and proposes BORG, a hierarchical identity-based threshold signature scheme with a fail-stop (FS) mechanism intended to provide distributed trust, post-mortem forgery detection, and post-quantum audit logging. The feasibility analysis and over-the-air testbed measurements are presented as the first comprehensive study of NIST-PQC integration into 5G bootstrapping. The central security claim is that even if classical assumptions such as DLP are broken by a quantum adversary, honest signers can still detect and prove forgeries. The manuscript also includes an open-source implementation and a real 5G testbed evaluation.

Significance. If the security claims were correct, BORG would be a practically relevant alternative to direct PQC for 5G bootstrapping, offering compact signatures, distributed trust, and post-mortem accountability. The PQC feasibility study with concrete packet-size and latency numbers, and the reproducible over-the-air measurements, are useful contributions. However, the central future-proofing property—post-mortem forgery detection when DLP is broken—is not established. The fail-stop mechanism can be bypassed by exactly the adversary it targets, and the PoF procedure is internally inconsistent. As a result, the main advertised contribution of the paper is unsupported, and the protocol cannot be considered a future-proof authentication framework as claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Theorem 2 / Algorithm 4] The proof assumes that any successful forgery must reproduce the commitments without access to the original nonces, reducing fail-stop security to second-preimage resistance of H1. This assumption is false for the paper's own threat model. In Algorithm 2 (lines 4–5), the commitments E_{i,j}=g^{e_{i,j}} and D_{i,j}=g^{d_{i,j}} are public group elements; Section IV-C3 states the commitment list may be published, and Section II-B grants the adversary control of the wireless medium. An adversary with a DLP solver—the precise quantum-era break the fail-stop property is meant to handle—can recover e_{i,j},d_{i,j}, reconstruct the honest R_j (Algorithm 3 lines 3–4), and forge a valid signature with the same R_j. Running BORG.PoF (Algorithm 4 lines 9–10) then outputs 'Not A Forgery', so the forgery is undetectable. This bypasses the proof without finding any preimage and invalidates Definition I
  2. [Section IV, Algorithms 2 and 4] The preprocessing algorithm hashes nonces with the participant identity: e_{i,j} <- H1(\hat e_{i,j} || j || ID_{k,i}) (Algorithm 2 line 4). The forgery-detection algorithm re-derives the same values using the message: e_{i,j} <- H1(\hat e_{i,j} || j || m_j) (Algorithm 4 line 5). For an honestly generated signature, PoF reconstructs different E,D values and therefore a different R_j, causing lines 9–12 to flag a valid signature as a forgery. As written, PoF cannot reconstruct the committed values used in Algorithm 3. The hash inputs must be made consistent before any security analysis is meaningful.
  3. [Section II-D, Definition II.4 vs. protocol] Definition II.4 excludes adversaries that have 'obtained the commitment values ... from uncorrupted signers', but the protocol makes those commitment values available by design: Algorithm 2 line 6 sends them to the other n−1 signers, and Section IV-C3 explicitly allows publication of the commitment list. Under the stated threat model of a wireless adversary with eavesdropping capability, a quantum-capable adversary can observe the commitments. The security definition therefore does not cover the protocol's own operational setting, which contributes to the failure of Theorem 2 and should be addressed explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-C4] Typographical errors: 'faul-tolerant' should be 'fault-tolerant', and there is a duplicated 'and and' in the description of the audit logging phase.
  2. [Definition II.1] The word 'commitmetn' appears in the formal definition of HITFS.Preprocess; should be 'commitment'.
  3. [Tables I and II] The paper reports averages over 10,000 iterations for cryptographic timings but only 10 iterations for the over-the-air testbed. Reporting standard deviations or ranges for the testbed measurements would strengthen the comparison, especially for ML-DSA's 5282 ms upper bound.
  4. [Section III-A] The paper refers to FN-DSA as a NIST-PQC algorithm, but FN-DSA is not a finalized NIST standard. Please clarify the status of the referenced schemes and align the terminology ('NIST-PQC', 'NIST candidate', 'NIST standard') throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: BORG is a constructive composition of external building blocks; the fail-stop defect is a soundness gap, not an equation-level circularity.

full rationale

I found no load-bearing step in which the paper's output is defined in terms of its conclusion or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. BORG is assembled from published, independently verifiable components: Schnorr-HIBS [8], FROST [23], and classical fail-stop signature ideas [43,44,50]. The performance claims are empirical (srsRAN over-the-air measurements compared with OpenSSL/OQS/Ringtail baselines), and the quoted 144-byte overhead and E2E delays are measured outputs, not constraints that force compactness. The security theorems reduce to DLP (Theorem 1) and to second-preimage resistance (Theorem 2) without assuming the target fail-stop event. The paper's admitted limitations (e.g., no real-time PQ security, relay attacks not prevented, DLP failure as the motivating scenario) are scope statements, not hidden inputs. The strongest concern — that Algorithm 2 broadcasts E=g^e, D=g^d so a DLP-breaker can recover e,d, recreate R_j, and make PoF return 'Not A Forgery', and that Algorithm 4 line 5 hashes nonces with m_j while Algorithm 2 line 4 uses ID_{k,i} — is a correctness/proof soundness bug in the fail-stop claim, not a circularity: it does not make the derivation equivalent to its own input by construction. Accordingly no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cryptographic assumptions (DLP, random oracle, second-preimage resistance), on a strong threshold adversary bound, and on deployment assumptions about USIM provisioning, SIB1 constraints, secure control channels, and the security of Ringtail for audit logs. There are no fitted numerical free parameters; the constants in the feasibility analysis are derived from 3GPP sizes and measured testbed values.

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Hardness of the (Elliptic Curve) Discrete Logarithm Problem in group G.
    Theorem 1 and the EUF-sID-CMIA proof rely on (EC)DLP hardness, Definition II.2.
  • domain assumption H1 and H2 behave as random oracles.
    The security model in Definition II.3 and Theorem 1 use the random oracle model.
  • domain assumption Second preimage resistance of the hash function H1.
    Theorem 2 bases signer-side fail-stop security and non-repudiation on second preimage resistance.
  • domain assumption The adversary controls fewer than t out of n base stations.
    Threat model Section II-B limits corruption to at most t-1 BSs.
  • domain assumption The master public key PK_ID0 is securely pre-installed in the UE's USIM/eSIM.
    Section IV-C requires the UE to verify SIB signatures against a pre-provisioned master key; if provisioning is compromised, UE-side verification fails.
  • domain assumption SIB1 is limited to 372 bytes and broadcast with 20–160 ms periodicity.
    Taken from 3GPP TS 38.331 and used throughout the PQC feasibility analysis.
  • domain assumption Fragmented SIB1 delivery follows a uniformly random packet order model.
    Section III-B computes an expected 19 packets under this model; it is a modeling assumption, not empirically measured.
  • domain assumption BS keys and audit records are distributed over authenticated control channels such as XnAP/TLS.
    Section IV-C assumes secure key distribution; compromise of these channels undermines the threshold trust model.
  • domain assumption Ringtail (ThPQ) is a secure post-quantum threshold signature scheme.
    The audit-logging guarantee depends on the security of the cited Ringtail construction [52].
invented entities (1)
  • Core Key Generator (CKG)
    purpose: New logical entity in the 5G core that runs BORG.Setup and derives AMF/BS keys in the hierarchical identity structure.
    The paper introduces CKG for key generation; no independent standard or implementation evidence is provided beyond the paper's own architecture, though co-location with existing key-management entities is mentioned.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Future-Proofing Authentication Against Insecure Bootstrapping for 5G Networks: Feasibility, Resiliency, and Accountability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6CNP3ID

@misc{pith2026251023457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Future-Proofing Authentication Against Insecure Bootstrapping for 5G Networks: Feasibility, Resiliency, and Accountability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6CNP3ID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.23457}
}
read the original abstract

The 5G protocol lacks a robust base station (BS) authentication mechanism during the initial bootstrapping phase, leaving it susceptible to fake BSs, spoofed broadcasts, and large-scale manipulation of System Information Blocks (SIBs). Existing solutions incur high communication overhead, rely on centralized trust, and lack accountability and long-term breach resiliency. Given the inevitability of BS compromise and the severe impact of forged SIBs as the root of trust (e.g., fake alerts, tracking, false roaming), distributed trust, verifiable forgery detection, and audit logging are essential yet remain largely unexplored. These challenges are further amplified by the emergence of quantum-capable adversaries. While NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) standards are widely viewed as a path toward long-term security, their feasibility under 5G's strict packet-size, latency, and broadcast constraints has not been systematically studied. This work presents, to our knowledge, the first comprehensive network-level performance characterization of integrating NIST-PQC standards and conventional digital signatures into 5G BS authentication, showing that direct PQC adoption is impractical due to excessive signature sizes, fragmentation, and protocol-level delays. To address these challenges, we propose BORG, a future-proof authentication framework based on a Hierarchical Identity-Based Threshold Signature with Fail-Stop (HITFS) properties. BORG distributes trust across multiple BSs via threshold signing, enables post-mortem verifiable forgery detection, and provides tamper-evident, PQ-secure audit logging, while maintaining compact signatures that fit within a single SIB1 packet without fragmentation and incurring minimal UE overhead, as validated through our real over-the-air 5G testbed implementation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.23457 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial 5G network connection setup and protocol stack. 2) Initial BS-UE Communication: In 5G protocol stack ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SIB1 message structure in 5G. message—to the UE, announcing its configuration parameters. SI consists of the Master Information Block (MIB) and the System Information Block (SIB). The MIB, a short message, assists in decoding the first SIB: SIB1. Broadcast over the Downlink Shared Channel (DL-SCH), SIB1 contains schedul￾ing and availability information for other SIB messages. As per 3GPP specifications [15], SIB1 ha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Outline of Our Threat Models. of integers modulo q, and let G be a cyclic group of prime order p with generator g. We define two cryptographically secure hash functions: H1 : {0, 1} ∗ → Zq and H2 : {0, 1} ∗ → Zq. x $←− S indicates that x is sampled uniformly at random from the set S. Vectors are denoted by ⃗x, and {xi} n i=1 = {x1, x2, . . . , xn} represents a set of n elements. Finally, sk, PK, and ID refer to the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Testbed setup for 5G end-to-end communication. The gNB (USRP: bottom-left) and UE (USRP: top-right) are connected to a laptop and GPSDO. We evaluate existing schemes alongside our solution, BORG, in an over-the-air setup, measuring both cryptographic and network-induce…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our protocol for authenticating 5G cellular BSs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Instantiation of Forgery Proof and Verification Phase. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Lightweight Post-Quantum Authentication Framework for 5G Base Station Bootstrapping

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    EMULSION authenticates 5G base-station SIB broadcasts with a symmetric key chain plus one compact MAYO signature per epoch, fitting in one packet and showing 33x lower delay than ML-DSA on a real testbed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fake base station detection and blacklisting,

    S. Wuthier, J. Kim, J. Kim, and S.-Y . Chang, “Fake base station detection and blacklisting,” in2024 33rd International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–9

    2024

  2. [2]

    Insecure connection bootstrapping in cellular networks: the root of all evil,

    S. R. Hussain, M. Echeverria, A. Singla, O. Chowdhury, and E. Bertino, “Insecure connection bootstrapping in cellular networks: the root of all evil,” inProceedings of the 12th conference on security and privacy in wireless and mobile networks, 2019, pp. 1–11

    2019

  3. [3]

    A survey on security aspects for 3gpp 5g networks,

    J. Cao, M. Ma, H. Li, R. Ma, Y . Sun, P. Yu, and L. Xiong, “A survey on security aspects for 3gpp 5g networks,”IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 170–195, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    An extended certificate-based authentication and security protocol for mobile networks,

    C.-C. Lee, I.-E. Liao, and M.-S. Hwang, “An extended certificate-based authentication and security protocol for mobile networks,”Information Technology and Control, vol. 38, no. 1, 2009

    2009

  5. [5]

    An authentication and security protocol for mobile com- puting,

    Y . Zheng, “An authentication and security protocol for mobile com- puting,” inMobile Communications: Technology, tools, applications, authentication and security IFIP World Conference on Mobile Commu- nications Sep. 1996, Canberra, Australia. Springer, 1996, pp. 249–257

    1996

  6. [6]

    Fixing insecure cellular system information broadcasts for good,

    A. J. Ross, B. Reaves, Y . Nasser, G. Cukierman, and R. P. Jover, “Fixing insecure cellular system information broadcasts for good,” inProceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses, 2024, pp. 693–708

    2024

  7. [7]

    Baron: Base-station authentication through core network for mobility management in 5g networks,

    A. Lotto, V . Singh, B. Ramasubramanian, A. Brighente, M. Conti, and R. Poovendran, “Baron: Base-station authentication through core network for mobility management in 5g networks,” inProceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks, 2023, pp. 133–144

    2023

  8. [8]

    Look before you leap: Secure connection bootstrapping for 5g networks to defend against fake base-stations,

    A. Singla, R. Behnia, S. R. Hussain, A. Yavuz, and E. Bertino, “Look before you leap: Secure connection bootstrapping for 5g networks to defend against fake base-stations,” inProceedings of the 2021 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2021. [9]3GPP TS 33.809 Study on 5G security enhancements against False Base Stations (FBS): Cert...

    2021

Show all 79 references
  1. [10]

    On evaluating delegated digital signing of broadcasting messages in 5g,

    H. Gao, Y . Zhang, T. Wan, and J. Zhang, “On evaluating delegated digital signing of broadcasting messages in 5g,” in2021 IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  2. [11]

    Innovative security measures: A comprehensive framework for safeguarding the internet of things,

    Z. G. Al-Mekhlafi and S. A. Alfhaid, “Innovative security measures: A comprehensive framework for safeguarding the internet of things,” in AI-Driven: Social Media Analytics and Cybersecurity. Springer, 2025

    2025

  3. [12]

    Fast verification of on- line/offline threshold signatures for 5g iot,

    B. Sengupta and A. Lakshminarayanan, “Fast verification of on- line/offline threshold signatures for 5g iot,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommunications Systems (ANTS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  4. [13]

    Identity-based signature with server-aided verification scheme for 5g mobile systems,

    M. Ramadan, Y . Liao, F. Li, and S. Zhou, “Identity-based signature with server-aided verification scheme for 5g mobile systems,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 51 810–51 820, 2020

    2020

  5. [14]

    Protecting unauthenticated messages in lte/5g mobile networks: A two-level hierarchical identity-based signature (hibs) solution,

    C. Yu, S. Chen, and Q. Xing, “Protecting unauthenticated messages in lte/5g mobile networks: A two-level hierarchical identity-based signature (hibs) solution,”Computer Networks, vol. 254, p. 110814, 2024. [15]3GPP RRC Specification, 2024, https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi ts/...

    2024

  6. [16]

    Understanding o-ran: Architecture, interfaces, algorithms, security, and research challenges,

    M. Polese, L. Bonati, S. D’oro, and S. Basagni, “Understanding o-ran: Architecture, interfaces, algorithms, security, and research challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, 2023

    2023

  7. [17]

    Software-defined vehicular networks (sdvn),

    Z. G. Al-Mekhlafi, “Software-defined vehicular networks (sdvn),”In- ternational journal of computer science and network security: IJCSNS, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 231–243, 2022

    2022

  8. [18]

    Breaking lte on layer two,

    D. Rupprecht, K. Kohls, T. Holz, and C. P ¨opper, “Breaking lte on layer two,” in2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1121–1136

    2019

  9. [19]

    Oh no, my {RAN}! breaking into an{O-RAN}5g indoor base station,

    L. Janzen, L. Becker, C. Wiesen ¨acker, and M. Hollick, “Oh no, my {RAN}! breaking into an{O-RAN}5g indoor base station,” in18th USENIX WOOT Conference on Offensive Technologies (WOOT 24), 2024, pp. 101–115

    2024

  10. [20]

    A formal analysis of 5g authentication,

    D. Basin, J. Dreier, L. Hirschi, S. Radomirovic, R. Sasse, and V . Stettler, “A formal analysis of 5g authentication,” inProceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC conf. on computer and communications security, 2018. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, DEC 2025 17 [21]Interim Findings on KT...

    2018

  11. [22]

    Ran virtualization: How hard is it to fully achieve?

    M. Kassi and S. Hamouda, “Ran virtualization: How hard is it to fully achieve?”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 38 030–38 047, 2024

    2024

  12. [23]

    Frost: flexible round-optimized schnorr threshold signatures,

    C. Komlo and I. Goldberg, “Frost: flexible round-optimized schnorr threshold signatures,” inSelected Areas in Cryptography: 27th Interna- tional Conference, Halifax, NS, Canada (Virtual Event), October 21-23, 2020, Revised Selected Papers 27. Springer, 2021, pp. 34–65

    2020

  13. [24]

    Perfor- mance and availability challenges in designing resilient 5g architectures,

    L. De Simone, M. Di Mauro, R. Natella, and F. Postiglione, “Perfor- mance and availability challenges in designing resilient 5g architectures,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 2024

    2024

  14. [25]

    Multi-sim support in 5g evolution: Challenges and opportunities,

    O. Vikhrova, S. Pizzi, A. Terzani, L. Araujo, A. Orsino, and G. Araniti, “Multi-sim support in 5g evolution: Challenges and opportunities,”IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2022

    2022

  15. [26]

    Counter denial of service for next-generation networks within the artificial intelligence and post-quantum era,

    S. Darzi and A. A. Yavuz, “Counter denial of service for next-generation networks within the artificial intelligence and post-quantum era,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04725, 2024. [27]Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025, https://www.ibm.com/reports/ data-breach. [28]2025 Data Brea...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [30]

    Envisioning the future of cyber security in post-quantum era: A survey on pq standardization, applications, challenges and opportunities,

    S. Darzi, K. Ahmadi, S. Aghapour, A. A. Yavuz, and M. M. Kermani, “Envisioning the future of cyber security in post-quantum era: A survey on pq standardization, applications, challenges and opportunities,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12037, 2023. [31]ETSI TS 104 015 v1.1.1, Cyber...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [33]

    Post-quantum authentication in TLS 1.3: A performance study,

    D. Sikeridis, P. Kampanakis, and M. Devetsikiotis, “Post-quantum authentication in TLS 1.3: A performance study,” in27th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2020, San Diego, California, USA, February 23-26, 2020. The Internet Society,

    2020

  18. [34]

    Module-lattice-based digital signature standard,

    T. Dang, J. Lichtinger, Y .-K. Liu, C. Miller, D. Moody, R. Peralta, and R. Perlner, “Module-lattice-based digital signature standard,”National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Thinh Dang, Jacob, 2024

    2024

  19. [35]

    Comprehensive survey on self-organizing cellular network approaches applied to 5g networks,

    H. Fourati, R. Maaloul, L. Chaari, and M. Jmaiel, “Comprehensive survey on self-organizing cellular network approaches applied to 5g networks,”Computer Networks, vol. 199, p. 108435, 2021

    2021

  20. [36]

    Touching the untouchables: Dynamic security analysis of the lte control plane,

    H. Kim, J. Lee, E. Lee, and Y . Kim, “Touching the untouchables: Dynamic security analysis of the lte control plane,” in2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2019, pp. 1153–1168

    2019

  21. [37]

    This is your president speaking: Spoofing alerts in 4g lte networks,

    G. Lee, J. Lee, J. Lee, Y . Im, M. Hollingsworth, E. Wustrow, D. Grun- wald, and S. Ha, “This is your president speaking: Spoofing alerts in 4g lte networks,” inProceedings of the 17th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, ser. MobiSys ...

    2019

  22. [38]

    Gotta detect ’em all: Fake base station and multi-step attack detection in cellular networks,

    K. S. Mubasshir, I. Karim, and E. Bertino, “Gotta detect ’em all: Fake base station and multi-step attack detection in cellular networks,” 2025

    2025

  23. [39]

    Ransacked: A domain-informed approach for fuzzing lte and 5g ran-core interfaces,

    N. Bennett, W. Zhu, B. Simon, R. Kennedy, and W. Enck, “Ransacked: A domain-informed approach for fuzzing lte and 5g ran-core interfaces,” inProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association ...

    2024

  24. [40]

    Safeguarding telecom networks against advance threats with ericsson’s cyber defense solutions,

    “Safeguarding telecom networks against advance threats with ericsson’s cyber defense solutions,” https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2025/1/ safeguarding-telecom-networks-with-ericssons-defense-solutions, 2025, accessed: October, 2025

    2025

  25. [41]

    Breaking lte on layer two,

    D. Rupprecht, K. Kohls, T. Holz, and C. P ¨opper, “Breaking lte on layer two,” in2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2019

    2019

  26. [42]

    The impact of quantum computing on real-world security: A 5g case study,

    C. J. Mitchell, “The impact of quantum computing on real-world security: A 5g case study,”Computers & Security, vol. 93, 2020

    2020

  27. [43]

    Fail-stop signatures: Principles and applications,

    B. Pfitzmann, “Fail-stop signatures: Principles and applications,” inProc. Compsec, vol. 91. Citeseer, 1991, pp. 125–134

    1991

  28. [44]

    That’s not my signature! fail-stop signatures for a post-quantum world,

    C. Boschini, H. Dahari, M. Naor, and E. Ronen, “That’s not my signature! fail-stop signatures for a post-quantum world,” inAnnual International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 2024, pp. 107–140

    2024

  29. [45]

    Enhancing the 5g-aka protocol with post-quantum digital signature method,

    G. Rossi Figlarz and F. Passuelo Hessel, “Enhancing the 5g-aka protocol with post-quantum digital signature method,” inIntl. Conf. on Advanced Information Networking and Applications. Springer, 2024, pp. 99–110

    2024

  30. [46]

    A beyond-5g authentication and key agreement protocol,

    M. T. Damir, T. Meskanen, S. Ramezanian, and V . Niemi, “A beyond-5g authentication and key agreement protocol,” inInternational Conference on Network and System Security. Springer, 2022, pp. 249–264

    2022

  31. [47]

    Secure hierarchical identity based signature and its application,

    S. S. Chow, L. C. Hui, S. M. Yiu, and K.-P. Chow, “Secure hierarchical identity based signature and its application,” inInformation and Com- munications Security: 6th International Conference, ICICS 2004, Spain, October 27-29, 2004. Proceedings 6. Springer, 2004, pp. 480–494

    2004

  32. [48]

    A schnorr-like lightweight identity-based signature scheme,

    D. Galindo and F. D. Garcia, “A schnorr-like lightweight identity-based signature scheme,” inProgress in Cryptology: AFRICACRYPT 2009: Second International Conference on Cryptology in Africa, Gammarth, Tunisia, June, Proceedings 2. Springer, 2009, pp. 135–148

    2009

  33. [49]

    A survey on threshold signature schemes,

    S. Ergezer, H. Kinkelin, and F. Rezabek, “A survey on threshold signature schemes,”Network, vol. 49, 2020

    2020

  34. [50]

    Fail-stop threshold signa- ture schemes based on elliptic curves,

    W. Susilo, R. Safavi-Naini, and J. Pieprzyk, “Fail-stop threshold signa- ture schemes based on elliptic curves,” inAustralasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy. Springer, 1999, pp. 103–116

    1999

  35. [51]

    Extremely simple (almost) fail-stop ecdsa signatures,

    M. Yaksetig, “Extremely simple (almost) fail-stop ecdsa signatures,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2024

    2024

  36. [52]

    Ringtail: Practical two-round threshold signatures from learning with errors,

    C. Boschini, D. Kaviani, R. W. Lai, G. Malavolta, A. Takahashi, and M. Tibouchi, “Ringtail: Practical two-round threshold signatures from learning with errors,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2024

    2024

  37. [53]

    Efficient identification and signatures for smart cards,

    C.-P. Schnorr, “Efficient identification and signatures for smart cards,” in Advances in Cryptology: CRYPTO’89 Proceedings 9. Springer, 1990

    1990

  38. [54]

    Threshold fail-stop signature schemes based on discrete logarithm and factorization,

    R. Safavi-Naini and W. Susilo, “Threshold fail-stop signature schemes based on discrete logarithm and factorization,” inInternational Work- shop on Information Security. Springer, 2000, pp. 292–307

    2000

  39. [55]

    Fail-stop group signature scheme,

    J. J.-R. Chen, Y .-Y . Chiang, W.-H. Hsu, and W.-Y . Lin, “Fail-stop group signature scheme,”Security and Communication Networks, no. 1, 2021

    2021

  40. [56]

    D. Soni, K. Basu, M. Nabeel, N. Aaraj, M. Manzano, and R. Karri, “Falcon,”Hardware Architectures for Post-Quantum Digital Signature Schemes, pp. 31–41, 2021

    2021

  41. [57]

    Stateless hash-based digital signature standard,

    D. Cooperet al., “Stateless hash-based digital signature standard,” 2024

    2024

  42. [58]

    How to share a secret,

    A. Shamir, “How to share a secret,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 612–613, 1979. [59]ETSI TS 138 423 V15.8.0, 5G, NG-RAN, Xn Application Protocol (XnAP), https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi ts/138400 138499/138423/15. 08.00 60/ts 138423v150800p.pdf

    1979

  43. [60]

    System and method for secure review of audit logs,

    A. A. Yavuz, “System and method for secure review of audit logs,” Jun. 11 2019, uS Patent 10,318,754

    2019

  44. [61]

    Practical cryptographic forensic tools for lightweight internet of things and cold storage systems,

    S. E. Nouma and A. A. Yavuz, “Practical cryptographic forensic tools for lightweight internet of things and cold storage systems,” inProceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE Conference on Internet of Things Design and Implementation, 2023, pp. 340–353

    2023

  45. [62]

    Efficient dynamic proof of retrievability for cold storage,

    T. Le, P. Huang, A. A. Yavuz, E. Shi, and T. Hoang, “Efficient dynamic proof of retrievability for cold storage,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2022

    2022

  46. [63]

    Rfc 8588: Personal assertion token (passport) extension for signature-based handling of asserted information using tokens (shaken),

    C. Wendt and M. Barnes, “Rfc 8588: Personal assertion token (passport) extension for signature-based handling of asserted information using tokens (shaken),” 2019

    2019

  47. [64]

    Multi-signatures in the plain public-key model and a general forking lemma,

    M. Bellare and G. Neven, “Multi-signatures in the plain public-key model and a general forking lemma,” inProceedings of the 13th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, 2006

    2006

  48. [65]

    Secure proxy signature schemes for delegation of signing rights,

    A. Boldyreva, A. Palacio, and B. Warinschi, “Secure proxy signature schemes for delegation of signing rights,”Journal of Cryptology, vol. 25, pp. 57–115, 2012

    2012

  49. [66]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM symp. on The. of comp., 1996. [67]Network Signal Guru User Manual, https://m.qtrun.com/docs/NSG Manual Aug 2017.pdf

    1996

  50. [68]

    Status report on the third round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process,

    G. Alagic, D. Apon, D. Cooper, Q. Dang, T. Dang, J. Kelsey, J. Lichtinger, and Y .-K. Liu, “Status report on the third round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process,” 2022

    2022

  51. [69]

    Short signatures from the weil pairing,

    D. Boneh, B. Lynn, and H. Shacham, “Short signatures from the weil pairing,” inInternational conference on the theory and application of cryptology and information security. Springer, 2001, pp. 514–532

    2001

  52. [70]

    Efficient signature generation by smart cards,

    C.-P. Schnorr, “Efficient signature generation by smart cards,”Journal of cryptology, vol. 4, pp. 161–174, 1991

    1991

  53. [71]

    Simple schnorr multi-signatures with applications to bitcoin,

    G. Maxwell, A. Poelstra, Y . Seurin, and P. Wuille, “Simple schnorr multi-signatures with applications to bitcoin,”Designs, Codes and Cryptography, vol. 87, no. 9, pp. 2139–2164, 2019

    2019

  54. [72]

    The elliptic curve digital sig- nature algorithm (ecdsa),

    D. Johnson, A. Menezes, and S. Vanstone, “The elliptic curve digital sig- nature algorithm (ecdsa),”International journal of information security, vol. 1, pp. 36–63, 2001. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, DEC 2025 18 [73]ETSI TS 138 423 V16.2.0, 5G; NG-RAN; Xn Application Protoco...

    2001

  55. [75]

    Stream control transmission protocol,

    R. Stewart, “Stream control transmission protocol,” Tech. Rep., 2007

    2007

  56. [76]

    Sharing the luov: threshold post-quantum signatures,

    D. Cozzo and N. P. Smart, “Sharing the luov: threshold post-quantum signatures,” inIMA International Conference on Cryptography and Coding. Springer, 2019, pp. 128–153

    2019

  57. [77]

    Dilizium 2.0: Revisiting two- party crystals-dilithium,

    P. Laud, N. Snetkov, and J. Vakarjuk, “Dilizium 2.0: Revisiting two- party crystals-dilithium,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2022

    2022

  58. [78]

    Secure two-party dilithium signing protocol,

    Y . Fu and X. Zhao, “Secure two-party dilithium signing protocol,” in 2021 17th International conference on computational intelligence and security (CIS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 444–448

    2021

  59. [79]

    Two-round n- out-of-n and multi-signatures and trapdoor commitment from lattices,

    I. Damg ˚ard, C. Orlandi, A. Takahashi, and M. Tibouchi, “Two-round n- out-of-n and multi-signatures and trapdoor commitment from lattices,” Journal of Cryptology, vol. 35, no. 2, p. 14, 2022

    2022

  60. [80]

    Tesla broadcast au- thentication,

    A. Perrig, J. D. Tygar, A. Perrig, and J. Tygar, “Tesla broadcast au- thentication,”Secure Broadcast Communication: In Wired and Wireless Networks, pp. 29–53, 2003

    2003

  61. [81]

    Base station certificate and multi-factor authentication for cellular radio control communication security,

    S. Wuthier, J. Kim, I. Kim, and S.-Y . Chang, “Base station certificate and multi-factor authentication for cellular radio control communication security,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02133, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  62. [82]

    Strong privacy- preserving universally composable aka protocol with seamless handover support for mobile virtual network operator,

    R. Alnashwan, Y . Yang, Y . Dong, and P. Gope, “Strong privacy- preserving universally composable aka protocol with seamless handover support for mobile virtual network operator,” inProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC, 2024, pp. 2057–2071

    2024

  63. [83]

    {Privacy-Preserving}and{Standard- Compatible}{AKA}protocol for 5g,

    Y . Wang, Z. Zhang, and Y . Xie, “{Privacy-Preserving}and{Standard- Compatible}{AKA}protocol for 5g,” in30th USENIX security sympo- sium (USENIX security 21), 2021, pp. 3595–3612

    2021

  64. [84]

    5g-hcls: An authentication protocol to protect bootstrapping messages in 5g network,

    Z. Sun and C. Peng, “5g-hcls: An authentication protocol to protect bootstrapping messages in 5g network,” in2025 IEEE Wireless Com- munications and Networking Conference (WCNC). IEEE, 2025

    2025

  65. [85]

    On post-quantum identification in 5g,

    M. T. Damir and V . Niemi, “On post-quantum identification in 5g,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks, 2022, pp. 292–294

    2022

  66. [86]

    Post-quantum lattice-based forward-secure authentication scheme using fog computing in 5g-assisted vehicular networks,

    Z. G. Al-Mekhlafi, M. A. Al-Shareeda, B. A. Mohammed, and A. A. Alsadhan, “Post-quantum lattice-based forward-secure authentication scheme using fog computing in 5g-assisted vehicular networks,” 2024

    2024

  67. [87]

    Anti-quantum fast authentication and data transmission scheme for massive devices in 5g nb-iot system,

    J. Cao, P. Yu, X. Xiang, M. Ma, and H. Li, “Anti-quantum fast authentication and data transmission scheme for massive devices in 5g nb-iot system,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, pp. 9794–9805, 2019

    2019

  68. [88]

    Post-quantum secure hybrid methods for ue primary authentication in 6g with forward secrecy,

    R. C. Vuppala, D. Kumar, D. Je, N. Sharma, A. Nigam, and D. Kim, “Post-quantum secure hybrid methods for ue primary authentication in 6g with forward secrecy,” inGLOBECOM 2023-2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference. IEEE, 2023, pp. 2590–2595

    2023

  69. [89]

    5g-aka-hpqc: Hybrid post-quantum cryptography protocol for quantum-resilient 5g primary authentication with forward secrecy,

    Y . Ko, I. Pawana, and I. You, “5g-aka-hpqc: Hybrid post-quantum cryptography protocol for quantum-resilient 5g primary authentication with forward secrecy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02851, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  70. [90]

    An applied analysis of securing 5g/6g core networks with post-quantum key encapsulation methods,

    P. Scalise, R. Garcia, M. Boeding, M. Hempel, and H. Sharif, “An applied analysis of securing 5g/6g core networks with post-quantum key encapsulation methods,”Electronics, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 4258, 2024. Saleh Darziis a Ph.D. Candidate in the Bellini College of Artificial Inte...

    2024

  71. [2020]

    Available: https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/ post-quantum-authentication-in-tls-1-3-a-performance-study/

    [Online]. Available: https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/ post-quantum-authentication-in-tls-1-3-a-performance-study/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.