Next Article in Journal
Transient Differentiation Maximum Power Point Tracker (Td-MPPT) for Optimized Tracking under Very Fast-Changing Irradiance: A Theoretical Approach for Mobile PV Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
Incorporating Cyber Threat Intelligence into Complex Cyber-Physical Systems: A STIX Model for Active Buildings
Previous Article in Journal
Virtual Reality Metaverse System Supplementing Remote Education Methods: Based on Aircraft Maintenance Simulation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Age and Gender Impact on Password Hygiene
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/app12052669
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Nanovised Control Flow Attestation

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(5), 2669; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052669
by Raz Ben Yehuda 1,†, Michael Kiperberg 2,† and Nezer Jacob Zaidenberg 3,*,†
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(5), 2669; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052669
Submission received: 12 January 2022 / Revised: 14 February 2022 / Accepted: 18 February 2022 / Published: 4 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-the-Art of Cybersecurity)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents an improvement of control flow attestation (C-FLAT) for Linux.

Presented problem and obtained results are interesting. However, the article has some weaknesses and points worth explaining.

- In introduction authors should mention other methods for attesting an application’s control flow on an embedded device.

- Section 6 authors should extend discussion of obtained results (tables and figures).
The presented conclusions are not obvious.

- Additionally, figures are too small and illegible.

- I suggest to extend the conclusions section.
Section Conclusions ought not be divided into subsections.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an technical improvement of a control flow attestation. While the authors have a valuable contribution, there are several problems with its presentation:

(1) the content is not matching very well the "applied science" topics, being highly specific for computer security specialists

(2) the contributions are mainly technical, with code snapshots un-specific for a scientific paper

(3) the presentation style  is not appropriate:

  • It is based on based on short and unclear sentences. E.g. "not available at the time of writing. Also, the authentication is done in " [N.R. why also?], "there are additional considerations. First of which is Multi-core."[N.R. Multi-core is a consideration?"] "We provide benchmarks and compare our solution to Normal runs. We use Raspberry 368 PI3 to demonstrate." [N.R. Where is the reference to Normal; to demonstrate what?
  • Table 4 with 1 line and no header (should be a figure!) 
  • typos like "Therefor,"

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Good approach, further engineering activity expected. Revision in presentation style and language would be appreciated.

Author Response

No comments

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been changed carefully following the request of the reviewers. The new text do not create new concerns.

Back to TopTop