Encapsulating Secrets Using Lockable Obfuscation and a RMERS-Based Public Key Encryption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-         Page 1 Line 16 & 17, Page 2 Line 57, Page 4 line 174, page 5 line 185 & 207: Author used the word “our”, “we”. You are only single author. Please avoid such words like “our”, “I’ , “My” ,“we” instead of these word you may use “Proposed Technique” Proposed Model” etc.

-          Please define all keywords when you used first time in your manuscript. e.g; Page 1 Line 33: PUFs

-          Page 2 Line 65: Please remove the “.” Before “Motivational”.

-          Page 3 Line 134-136: Author stated that “It should be noted, with a bit of humor, that although the simple Diffie-Hellman key exchange (that we describe in Section 3.4) has been proposed  in the 70s, it was not until the middle of 1980s when the first Diffie-Hellman inspired public key encryption scheme has been proposed”. This statement need citation.

-          Page 4, Line 169: In Eq(1), when f(x)!=y, its value is “1”??? if yes then please correct it, otherwise define the symbol.

-          Page 4, line 169: In eq (1) f(x) and y both are scalar values, please un-bold these letter.  For scaler you used un-bold letters, for vector use small letters with bold and for matrix use Capital letters with bold.

-          Page 6 line 251: rewrite the equation

-          Page 6 Line 259: in Eq (2) Please check the “[“ and “]”. “]” Mentioned in superscript. Please correct it.

-          Page 6 line 290: please rewrite the eq(3)

-          Page 9 line 403: closing brackets “)” missing

-          Page 10 line 458: I think its log₂ instead of log2

-          Page 11 Line 477: first term should be B_i,1 instead of  B_i,j in L.H.S.

-          Page 11 line 480 & Line 482: why not you write 2*∑B_L(j) because on L.H.S both summation terms are same.

-          Page 11 Line 482: define symbol “q”.

-          Page 11 Line 492: Why “P” in superscript. Correct it.

-          Page 11 line 497, please remove “.” Before “Conclusion”.

-          Please add few latest published articles in 2021 & 2022. All cited articles are published before 2020.

Author Response

Cover Letter

1. Addressing the reviews

REVIEWER 1

>Page 1 Line 16 & 17, Page 2 Line 57, Page 4 line 174, page 5 line 185 & 207: Author used the word

>“our”, “we”. You are only single author. Please avoid such words like “our”, “I’ , “My” ,“we” instead

>of these word you may use “Proposed Technique” Proposed Model” etc.

The article has been changed and the indirect speech has been removed.

>Please define all keywords when you used first time in your manuscript. e.g; Page 1 Line 33: PUFs

The keywords have been added to ``abbreviation'', as suggested.

>Please remove the “.” Before “Motivational”.

Corrected. I have used finaly the LaTeX template to largely rewrite parts of the paper.

>Page 3 Line 134-136: Author stated that “It should be noted, with a bit of humor, that although the

>simple Diffie-Hellman key exchange (that we describe in Section 3.4) has been proposed  in the 70s,

>it was not until the middle of 1980s when the first Diffie-Hellman inspired public key encryption

>scheme has been proposed”. This statement need citation.

This paragraph has been changed.

>Page 4, Line 169: In Eq(1), when f(x)!=y, its value is “1”??? if yes then please correct it, otherwise

>define the symbol.

Corrected. It should return the secret s.

>Page 4, line 169: In eq (1) f(x) and y both are scalar values, please un-bold these letter.  For scaler you

>used un-bold letters, for vector use small letters with bold and for matrix use Capital letters with bold.

Changed

>Page 6 line 251: rewrite the equation

Corrected

>Page 6 Line 259: in Eq (2) Please check the “[“ and “]”. “]” Mentioned in superscript.

>Please correct it.

Corrected in Latex.

> Page 6 line 290: please rewrite the eq(3)

Corrected

>Page 9 line 403: closing brackets “)” missing

Corrected

>Page 10 line 458: I think its log2 instead of log2

Corrected in LaTeX equation editing

>Page 11 Line 477: first term should be Bi,1 instead of  Bi,j in L.H.S.

Corrected. I have updated the description, relying generically on the lockable obfuscator.

>Page 11 line 480 & Line 482: why not you write 2*∑BL(j) because on L.H.S both summation

>terms are same.

I have updated the description, relying generically on the lockable obfuscator.

>Page 11 Line 482: define symbol “q”.

I have updated the description, relying generically on the lockable obfuscator.

>Page 11 Line 492: Why “P” in superscript. Correct it.

I have updated the description, relying generically on the lockable obfuscator.

>Page 11 line 497, please remove “.” Before “Conclusion”.

Corrected in Latex

>Please add few latest published articles in 2021 & 2022. All cited articles are published before 2020.

Added two articles.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest improving the title “ One-Time Key-Encapsulation Mechanisms: Definitions, Con- 2 structions and Cybersecurity Applications”

The problem statement need be clarified

Equation numbers are missing, and type errors are presents

Conclusion need to be extended, and futures works are missing

Finally, on paper highlight yellow was used to indicate the mistake.

Author Response

Cover Letter

REVIEWER 2

>I suggest improving the title “ One-Time Key-Encapsulation Mechanisms: Definitions, Constructions

>and Cybersecurity Applications”

I have chosen what I think to be a more accurate title: “Encapsulating Secrets using Lockable obfuscation and a RMERS-based public key encryption”

>The problem statement need be clarified

Fixed. The abstract has been rewritten. It states in clear terms that we use lockable obfuscation to decrypt a ciphertext, check for equality and then reveal “s”. It also clearly states that we propose an obfuscator using a new public key encryption scheme that is based on the hardness of the ratio Mersenne assumption, which has low depth circuits and a more efficient obfusator.

>Equation numbers are missing, and type errors are presents

Fixed. I have added equations numbers for all important equations.

- Conclusion need to be extended, and futures works are missing

Fixed. I have extended the conclusion and added a subsection on future works.

- Finally, on paper highlight yellow was used to indicate the mistake.

A version where the mistakes/changes have been corrected/made is provided. They are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- Looks like a report paper
- Must improve the research paper writing style 
- Poor Contribution in the field of One-Time Key-Encapsulation Mechanisms
- Background Study should be well established and up to date, try to add as much recent research paper as you can and make a comparison with your proposed work. 
- Abstract and conclusion must be concise and improved
- Methodology with architectural view (Diagram/Flow) MUST/SHOULD be included  

Author Response

Cover Lette

REVIEWER 3

>Looks like a report paper

Indeed, the current work is built upon existing tools, such as the Mersenne assumption and the lockable obfuscation. However, we think that comparing PKE schemes based on the circuit complexity of their decryption procedure and identifying one that fits our constrains is an independent and notable contribution.

>Must improve the research paper writing style

We have largely rewritten Section 5. We have improved the definitions within Sections 3 and the overview of PKE schemes in Section 4.

>Poor Contribution in the field of One-Time Key-Encapsulation Mechanisms

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time when this term (one time key encapsulation) has been introduced.

>Background Study should be well established and up to date, try to add as much recent research paper

>as you can and make a comparison with your proposed work.

Agree. But to the best of my knowledge, the literature largely ignored this problem, which I thought at from a more practical perspective. Than, given the use case scenarios, I have found the lockable obfuscators techniques.

>Abstract and conclusion must be concise and improved

I have improved the abstract.

>Methodology with architectural view (Diagram/Flow) MUST/SHOULD be included

Ok. I can do this, but I should have details on what this diagram should contain.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted

Author Response

Changes were accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

- Previous advice provided is not incorporated as said

- Methodology with architectural view (Diagram/Flow) MUST/SHOULD be included  

- Still have some grammatical errors

- Use this related paper as reference

1. Shetu, S. F., Saifuzzaman, M., Moon, N. N., & Nur, F. N. (2019). A Survey of Botnet in Cyber Security. 2019 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Communication and Computational Techniques (ICCT). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/icct46177.2019.8969048.

Author Response

>Methodology with architectural view (Diagram/Flow) MUST/SHOULD be included

It is still unclear what it should contain

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf