Game Analysis of Access Control Based on User Behavior Trust

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is interesting. However, the authors must include Conclusion section, add more references. Also, the proposed game model was not discuss in detailed.

Author Response

Dear review:

        Thank you  for your professional advice, it is helpful to our paper. I have replied your review in attachment file. we hope our response and revisions can meet with your request!

   

       kind regards

 author wangyan  tianliqin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Summary: "A general access control model based on game theory that can reflect both trust and risk is established. First, the authors evaluate the user behavior trust value based on the sliding window. Then, the authors construct a game model that is combined with the user behavior trust between the user and the service provider, which quantifies the benefits and losses using adaptive regulatory factors and user trust level and enhances the rationality of the policymaking. Meanwhile, the authors propose solutions for the prisoner's dilemma in the traditional game model."

- The related works are too few and do not provide a strong in-depth of existing works.

-There are many trust-establishing works available, which the authors must consider and how their work fits well for user-policies. Some of the works to consider are: 

(a) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X17312748

(b) https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07526

(c) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253517302518

-How the behavior policies defined for evaluations and what impact do these have on user profiling?

-The parts on vulnerability assessment need further elaborations as it is unclear how the model is configured to provide error/attack free user assessments.

- Experimental setup seems incomplete and proper details are required on how the testbed was established and details of data (formalized, if any).

-In actual approaches, similar results are reported where average trust increases with iterations. The issue is how this approach resolves concepts of redundant evaluations, single point of failure and non-repudiation of user-behaviors.

-The scientific notation of this article can be improved (it is very confusing at the moment); as well as a table of symbols can be provided for better readability.

- Additionally, the workflow of this approach needs further elaborations, maybe a diagram or flowcharts can help.

Author Response

Dear review:

Thank you for your professional advice, it is helpful to our paper. I have replied your review in attachment file. we hope our response and revisions can meet with your request!

kind regards

author wangyan tianliqin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Major concerns - Authors should highlight major work contribution against existing work. It is not clear.

Paper needs conclusion section and improvements in english and formatting

Section 3 and sections 4. Traditional game model of access control, needs more context for current work

Minor corrections

All Figure are not readable due small size and bad quality

Table 1 and 2 should appear in the same page

After page 7 all equation labels were not correct

Author Response

Dear review:

Thank you for your professional advice, it is helpful to our paper. I have replied your review in attachment file. we hope our response and revisions can meet with your request!

kind regards

author wangyan  tianliqin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is interesting and well written. It addressed the review comments of the reviewers. This can be published in a journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

     Thank you for your approving my paper. thank you for your suggestions, which make our contents be more rich and rigorous.

      kind regards.

                                                                                  yan Wang, li qin Tian, zhenguo Chen

Reviewer 3 Report

Figure still needs improvement, but editor will go through this.

Most of then blur picture with small size

Simulation to validate proposed approach still needs improvements.

Author Response

dear reviewer:

       thank you for your professional suggestions. This suggestions make our contents more rich and rigorous. I have revised according to your advice. Hope our revisions can meet your approval.

    kind regards

                                                                     yan Wang, Liqin Tian, Zhenguo  Chen    

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf