Review of Physical Layer Security in 5G Wireless Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Author has made his research as a core survey towards 5G physical layer security. Following suggestions need to be addressed to improve the quality of the proposed manuscript.
- Author has considered 15 papers relevant to the research based on PRISMA model, but no recent research was found (2020 and above till date) for analysis.
- Section 4, outlines the review works with respect to Table 2 only, which is just a repetition.
- Author could have highlighted his work based on significant upcoming social applications of 5G and beyond to support the researchers working on this topic.
- Author can justify , why only 15 works considered and no recent works considered for analysis.
- Also, conclusion section only generally concludes that paper 2 is best. Author can include some significant aspects of second paper to improve the quality.
- The abbreviation for PRISMA must be given initially itself under section 2, line 2.
Author Response
Dear Reviewr No.1, attached is the response of all the comments.
Regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
* Author mention some progress has been made in developing physical layer security solutions for 5G networks list the progress.
* In equation no.1 how each varaiable to affect the channel capacity? * Figure 2, 3, 4, & 5 not refrer in the content?
* physical layer security channel model,have three nodes how its each node interconnected?
* What is DCE?
* From reviwe the paper how author suggest the method? without testing any method?
*Literature Review content is same same as . Summary of related works?
* Result title only used if author test any method?
* Future research also from reviwe paper or author coined the concptes?
* Need to reframe title include reviwe keyword in title.
* What author infer frm Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion criteria?
* . PRISMA flow chart need to redraw mention each steps with all clear points.
Author carefully check the paper one more time for grammatical.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer No.2, attached is the response to all the comments.
Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is an interesting piece of study but mainly literature review with certain analysis technologies used. The conclusions are not quite strong but clearly presented some clues for future researchers. The main concern is that the newest literature reviewed in this work was published in 2019 whilst there are significant development happened in past three/four years and new security risks may not be covered yet.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer No.3, attached is the response to all the comments.
Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Why the research in the paper is important:
5G wireless networks promise to revolutionize the way we communicate and connect to the internet. However, as with any new technology, 5G networks also bring new security challenges that need to be addressed. One of the key areas of concern is physical layer security, which refers to the protection of the physical layer of the network against attacks that could compromise its integrity and availability.
Contributions and novelty of the paper with respect to the state of the art:
In this systematic review, authors examined the current state of research on physical layer security in 5G wireless networks. Their search identified 13 relevant studies that focused on various aspects of physical layer security, including threat models, vulnerabilities, and mitigation techniques. The findings of the review suggest that while some progress has been made in developing physical layer security solutions for 5G networks, there is still much work to be done. Further research is needed to develop more effective security solutions and risk assessment frameworks, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of existing solutions under different conditions and scenarios. Collaboration between industry, academia, and government agencies will also be essential to address the physical layer security challenges in 5G wireless networks. The idea of the proposal is physical layer security in
5G wireless networks. We conduct proper research on this paper and analyze 15 papers to understand this topic in depth.
The comments with respect to shortcomings and to improve the paper quality of the state-of-the-art:
The followings are the Major issues might include problems with the study’s methodology, techniques, analyses, missing controls or other serious flaws. Please address them carefully to avoid multiple revisions.
Two other categories, even just in one paragraph each with appropriate references, need to be added:
- 1. With the advent of post-quantum cryptography (PQC), it is better to add some relevant works to make sure you cover that topic too. This is the hottest topic in cryptography now. When PQC replaces ECC/RSA every security application from smart phones to block chains will be affected. With PQC, ARM Cortex M4 and Cortex-A implementations are important for embedded systems, add previous work on: Curve448 and Ed448 on Cortex-M4, SIKE on Cortex-M4, SIKE Round 3 on ARM Cortex-M4, Kyber on 64-Bit ARM Cortex-A.
- 2. NIST lightweight standardization was finalized in Feb. 2023. Also mention fault attacks as side-channel attacks, these topics to explore and add references. Fault detection of architectures of Pomaranch cipher, reliable architectures of grostl hash, fault diagnosis of low-energy Midori cipher, fault diagnosis of RECTANGLE cipher.
- References are not uniformly formatted.
- Please add a subsection and one or more future works for enhancing your presentation
N/A
Author Response
Dear Reviewer No.4, attached is the response to all the comments.
Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have addressed some of my comments but they need to address all the followings as well.
1. Ref. [34] of your revised paper, the authors list and the venue are wrong, correct it. It is an Arxiv paper not JCE.
2. This is an acceptable paper on important topic, so you need to include prior works for each of these separately, add a recent work on PQC and on fault detection of each of these separately: (a) Curve448 and Ed448 on Cortex-M4, (b) SIKE on Cortex-M4, (c) SIKE Round 3 on ARM Cortex-M4, (d) Kyber on 64-Bit ARM Cortex-A, (e) Cryptographic accelerators on Ed25519.
3. Note that PQC is the most important topic in cryptography and lightweight ciphers are also needed in constrained environments. Same thing for fault attack of lightweight ciphers, add for each of these a work: (a) Fault detection of architectures of Pomaranch cipher, (b) reliable architectures of grostl hash, (c) fault diagnosis of low-energy Midori cipher, (d) fault diagnosis of RECTANGLE cipher.
4. Can you also comment on hardware/software platforms, ASIC vs. FPGA vs. ARM/RISC-V, adding 1-2 sentences is enough.
Author Response
Respected Review #4
here are the requested comments.
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
