Underlying Security Transmission Design for Orthogonal Time Frequency Space (OTFS) Modulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An abstract is a lack in the following

·       Problem statement

·       Results and conclusion

The related work is entirely missing. Therefore, I suggest the author provide the related work and the comparison table on existing similar techniques (or works) in this domain.

I suggest the authors merge sections 2, 3 and 4 with their proper subsections.

Have you considered or thought about the effectiveness of this proposed method for the other attacks?

 

I suggest the authors consider some security tools to provide the scheme's robustness, as this method requires providing detailed analytics of the security mechanism. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper sound okay in regards to the Scientific content but many sentences are not quit understandable  

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper describes an idea to use symmetric cipher (GOST) with channel status as a common secret key to enhance performance.

Here are some comments I have:

line 4: use "SeLective" to fit the acronym SLM

line 5: spell out PAPR (Peak to Average Power Rate) the 1st time you use it

line 11: Explain 6G as a mobile network

line 14: Low Earth Orbit (LEO) communication satellite

line 16: missing space before [3]

line 28: Capitalize the initials of acronyms: Cyclic Prefix (CP); same in lines 44 (OMP, MSP), 85 (KGR)

line 31: Recently

line 35: Time Freq

line 44: spell out DD

line 50: remove "in"

line 55: as far as we know (also line 87)

line 60: MAC is Medium Access Control

line 61: remove "legally"

line 63: remove "()" from WPA

line 67 change "can" to "might"

line 81: encoding

line 90: remove one of the "However,"s

line 106: Brute Force (same in lines 211, 216, 220, 221)

line 118: change "keep static" to "are static"

line 130: the lower part of figure 1 is in the reversed order

line 134: 4 instead of IV

line 136, equation (5) should be M instead of square root of M

line 144: \ldots instead of \cdots

line 151: change "in order to against" to "to avoid"

line 167: change "not enough" to "less than"

line 167: 2^n should be 2^{32} (same )

line 167 (after (18)): represents ... and .. respectively

line 167 (table 1): change 64 to 63 and space before (17), (180) and (19)

line 174: secret key

line 178: 10,000

line 179: define or give a reference to chaotic mapping

line 184: quantized instead of symbolized

line 186: define complexity count

line 192: the results surprise me. I would have guessed DES to have similar results

line 196: you can run DieHard test suites as well

line 224,225: when did the factorial came from?

line 231: chosen plaintext attack were used in world war, much earlier than 1991

line 234: space before "("

line 248: absence of proof is not a proof of absence

line 264: checking only in simulation (matlab) is partial. If you would have implemented it I guess you'd realized that the channel estimation is slightly different between two sides, like you hint on line 310

line 270: you are comparing encryption to encoding

line 282: remove "ve-"

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did great work

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for answering most of my questions.

I think that you should use "Brute force" instead of "Brutal force" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack)