Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Advances in intelligent systems and computing

An Improvement of Tseng–Wu Group Key Exchange Protocol

Min‐Shiang Hwang, Yung‐Chen Chou, Chia‐Chun Wu, Cheng‐Ying Yang

Published Aug 22, 2018• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-981-10-8944-2_79

Related papers

Design of Key Exchange Protocol Based on Short Group Signature

Sun Yu, Han Qingtong, Jianwei Liu

Journal of Computer Research and Development•Dec 15, 2012•0 citations

Attack on An ID-based Authenticated Group Key Exchange Protocol with Identifying Malicious Participants

Fushan Wei, Yun Wei, Chuangui Ma

An authenticated group key exchange (AGKE) protocol allows a group of participants to establish a common session key and then provides secure group communications in collaborative and distributed applications. Recently, Wu et al. proposed an ID-based authenticated group key exchange protocol based on bilinear pairings. They claimed that their protocol can detect and identify the malicious participants, which means it not only can check whether malicious participants exist in the protocol or not, but also can find out who the malicious participants are. However, their protocol is not as secure as claimed. In this letter, we show that Wu et al.'s protocol is insecure against an insider colluding attack. Two malicious participants can collude to impersonate several honest participants to the rest participants in the group. In addition, we also figure out what has gone wrong with Wu et al.'s protocol and how to fix it.

International journal of network security•Mar 1, 2016•6 citations

Analysis on Security Proof of Two Key Agreement Protocols

Hui Hua Zhou, Ming Hui Zheng

Recently, Tseng proposed two group key agreement protocols which are claimed to be provably secure against passive attackers and impersonation attacks over authenticated channel. In each of these works, a security proof of the proposed protocol was presented. In this paper, we revisit Tseng’s security proof and show that the reduction in the proof is invalid. As the replacement, we give a new security proof.

Advanced materials research•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Strengthening the security of key exchange protocols

Michèle Feltz

•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations

Analysis and Improvement of Two-Factor Authenticated Key Exchange Protocols in Public Wireless LANs

Chuangui Ma, Shumin Chen, Qingfeng Cheng

In 2009, Lee et al. proposed two password authenticated key exchange protocols based on Juang and Wu's protocols. In this paper, we will show that Lee et al.'s protocols cannot resist impersonation attack. It means that the adversary can impersonate the server to cheat the client and break their two protocols trivially. Furthermore, we propose an improvement of their protocols with impersonation attack resilience.

International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing•Sep 1, 2011•0 citations

Analysis and Improvement of an Authenticated Key Exchange Protocol

Jiaxin Pan, Libin Wang, Changshe Ma

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2011•3 citations
An authenticated group key exchange (AGKE) protocol allows a group of participants to establish a common session key and then provides secure group communications in collaborative and distributed applications. Recently, Wu et al. proposed an ID-based authenticated group key exchange protocol based on bilinear pairings. They claimed that their protocol can detect and identify the malicious participants, which means it not only can check whether malicious participants exist in the protocol or not, but also can find out who the malicious participants are. However, their protocol is not as secure as claimed. In this letter, we show that Wu et al.'s protocol is insecure against an insider colluding attack. Two malicious participants can collude to impersonate several honest participants to the rest participants in the group. In addition, we also figure out what has gone wrong with Wu et al.'s protocol and how to fix it.