Fig 1.
Authentication process of the GLOMONET environment.
Fig 2.
Example of user anonymity not being satisfied.
Fig 3.
Example of user non-traceability not being satisfied.
Table 1.
Notation used in Ahmed et al.’s scheme.
Fig 4.
Incomplete verification of identity and password in Ahmed et al.’s scheme.
Fig 5.
Session key derived attack in Ahmed et al.’s scheme.
Fig 6.
Registration phase of proposed scheme.
Fig 7.
Login phase of proposed scheme.
Fig 8.
Authentication phase of proposed scheme.
Fig 9.
Password change phase of proposed scheme.
Fig 10.
ProVerif simulation code for channels, constants, secret key, shared key, and functions.
Fig 11.
ProVerif simulation code for mobile node process.
Fig 12.
ProVerif simulation code for foreign node process.
Fig 13.
ProVerif simulation code for the home node process.
Fig 14.
ProVerif simulation code for queries.
Fig 15.
ProVerif simulation result for proposed scheme.
Fig 16.
Architecture of the AVISPA Tool.
Fig 17.
AVISPA simulation result for proposed scheme.
Table 2.
Security comparison of the proposed scheme and other related schemes.
Fig 18.
Resistance of proposed scheme to mobile mode impersonation attack.
Table 3.
Notation for the execution time of each operation.
Fig 19.
Computation time for each GLOMONET environment scheme.
Table 4.
Computation time of each operation.
Fig 20.
Computation cost analysis between proposed scheme and existing schemes.
Table 5.
Communication cost(bit) of each operation.
Fig 21.
Detailed analysis by each communication message between our proposed scheme and existing scheme.
Fig 22.
Communication cost analysis between our proposed scheme and existing scheme.
Fig 23.
Comparison of memory capacity of the smartcard in our proposed scheme with those of existing schemes.
Fig 24.
Topology of our simulation environment (when there are 10 mobile nodes).
Fig 25.
Throughput according to the number of mobile nodes.
Fig 26.
Packet loss ratio according to the number of mobile nodes.
Fig 27.
End-to-end delay according to the number of mobile nodes.