BCDAIoD: An Efficient Blockchain-Based Cross-Domain Authentication Scheme for Internet of Drones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper introduces a de-centralized blockchain based cross-domain authentication scheme for internet of drones. The topic is interesting and promising, reviewer has the following comments:

-          We can see that the proposed UAV group cross-domain authentication method has certain advantages on reducing the authentication timing, which is great. However, in reviewer’s understanding, the blockchain would require much more communication among different UAVs. In the simulation part, it looks like authors are simulating different UAVs in the same hardware, which might not represent the real scenario, it would be great if Authors can clarify this.

Besides that, it is a great paper overall.

The reviewer is OK with the english language. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

a) It will be important in the abstract to present not only the framework of the theme, but the methodology used and the main results achieved.

b) The authors move from the literature review to the Overview of BCDAIoD chapter, but the methodology used is never understood. They present, and well, all the process, but what methodology is this? Exist other methodologies that could be used?

c) Moreover, throughout the process, the literature review that supported the entire process throughout the article is not noticeable. It seems that the article is built on two different bases. Need to review this part

d) In conclusion, what are the limitations of the study? What are the contributions to the state of the art? There are future studies that may be develop from that research? All this information is neglected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors proposed a Blockchain-based Cross-Domain Authentication scheme for Internet of Drones (BCDAIoD) to improve the efficiency of cross-domain authentication and ensure the security of this process. The BCDAIoD method includes single drone cross-domain authentication method, establishment mechanism of drone groups, drone group cross-domain authentication method and notification mechanism between domains. BCDAIoD were evaluated through simulations.

It is an interesting paper. However, some parts of the paper are not very clear, need more explanation and justification. Please check below:

- There are many notations used in the paper, it is suggested to have a table of all notations for readers to reference.

- What is the difference between Did and Pid? Why a drone needs a public and private ID? What is the security concern?

- Figure 4, 1.5, why send public key but not private key to d_1? Also in section 3.3.1, should cn_i send the private key of d_j to d_j in step 4 or step 5?

- In section 4.1 Figure 5 and equation (7), it uses Enc_{SK_{cn_i}}(Did_{d_j}), but in the text, is says “… Enc_{SK_{cn_i}}(Did_{d_j}, PK_{d_j})”, which is not consistent. 

Generally, if d_j and cn_n knows each other’s public key, then they can authenticate with each other by using similar method of steps 2, 3, 4 in figure 5. So what is the benefit of involving cn_i (i.e. Enc_{SK_{cn_i}}(Did_{d_j})) in the authentication between d_j and cn_n?

- In simulation, the total communication cost of the SC is 7372N bits. While the total communication cost of the DGC is 7786N-350 bits. Since 7372 < 7786, does it indicate that when communication cost dominates the performance (e.g. computation is fast while communication is slow), the SC will outperform DGC?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Following Suggestions are encouraged to include into your final version:

1.       It would be better to refine your abstract.

2.       Identify the main motivation behind your research study.

3.       Mention the main limitations of your proposed study.

4.       Following research articles can be considered as possible reference in your article:

a.       Hassan, Muhammad Abul, et al. "Reinforcing communication on the internet of aerial vehicles." IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking 6.3 (2022): 1288-1297.

b.       Farah, Maya F., et al. "Handle with Care: Adoption of Drone Delivery Services." Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing: Seventh International Conference, 2020. Springer International Publishing, 2020.

c.       Arafeh, Mohamad, et al. "A blockchain based architecture for the detection of fake sensing in mobile crowdsensing." 2019 4th International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech). IEEE, 2019.

 

d.       Al-Hilo, Ahmed, et al. "Cooperative content delivery in UAV-RSU assisted vehicular networks." Proceedings of the 2nd ACM MobiCom Workshop on Drone Assisted Wireless Communications for 5G and Beyond. 2020.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The article is well argued and structured. The only improvements I can ask for are:

- Resize the tables because some protrude from the margin and some do not;

- Distinguish with two main paragraphs the materials and methods and the results because it might all look like the same topic.

- Discuss the results better by including some literature based on the results obtained.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have taken my suggestions, and clearly explain my concerns in the response to my comments. I think the revision is fine and I have no further questions.