Key Agreement and Authentication Protocols in the Internet of Things: A Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reviews d the latest communication protocols designed to secure authentication processes and agree on session keys in IoT environments. 

1 In Section 3, the authors list the relative references about security protocols for Internet of Things. However, this is not a good method for a review. Hence, I suggest that the authors can summarize the characteristics and features about the protocols. The references can be used as examples to support the characteristics.

2 In Conclusion, the authors should point out the future direction about the security protocols for Internet of Things based on the summary of this paper. The authors should not list themself directions.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

This paper reviews d the latest communication protocols designed to secure authentication

processes and agree on session keys in IoT environments.

Authors’ response: We wish to thank the reviewer for her/his careful review and her/his

comments and suggested improvements to the paper.

1. In Section 3, the authors list the relative references about security protocols for Internet

of Things. However, this is not a good method for a review. Hence, I suggest that the authors

can summarize the characteristics and features about the protocols. The references can be used

as examples to support the characteristics.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this remark. We extended Section 3 with ap-

propriate information about the characteristics and features of overviewed protocols.

2. In Conclusion, the authors should point out the future direction about the security pro-

tocols for Internet of Things based on the summary of this paper. The authors should not list

themself directions.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this remark. We deleted the paragraph about

our future directions and added four paragraphs describing future directions about the security

protocols for the Internet of Things.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The key contribution claimed by the authors are:

"In this article, we have reviewed the latest communication protocols designed to secure authentication processes and agree on session keys in IoT environments. We analyzed the proposed protocols’ security level, vulnerability, and computational and communication costs. We showed our observations describing the requirements that a secure protocol should meet."

The writing, presentation and organization quality of this study is good. Provided reference literature is fine and sufficient discussion is provided in relevant sections. I have some minor suggestions.

i. Is it possible to incorporate any figure to make this review more interesting?

ii. Abstract is fine. Readers can easily understand your key contributions.

iii. Introduction section is well organized.

iv. Section 2 is well discussed and Table 1 is nicely presented.

v. Please add a short summary to introduce Section 3. Provided discussion is sufficient. 

vi. Section 4 is well incorporated with Tables. Readers can easily understand contributions from it.

vii. Abbreviation table must be revised as some abbreviations provided in this study are missing. 

viii. I suggest conclusion should be more precise. So, authors are suggested to revise it.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The key contribution claimed by the authors are:

"In this article, we have reviewed the latest communication protocols designed to secure au-

thentication processes and agree on session keys in IoT environments. We analyzed the proposed

protocols’ security level, vulnerability, and computational and communication costs. We showed

our observations describing the requirements that a secure protocol should meet."

The writing, presentation and organization quality of this study is good. Provided reference

literature is fine and sufficient discussion is provided in relevant sections. I have some minor

suggestions.

Authors’ response: We wish to thank the reviewer for her/his careful review and her/his

comments and suggested improvements to the paper.

1. Is it possible to incorporate any figure to make this review more interesting?

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this question. We analysed the whole manuscript

in case of the possibility of adding figures. We decided to add one figure in Section 2. We put

together IoT solutions and typical cyberattacks on IoT systems in this figure. We hope this

figure will make our review more interesting and capture potential readers’ imagination about

threats occurring in IoT systems.

2. Abstract is fine. Readers can easily understand your key contributions.

3. Introduction section is well organized.

4. Section 2 is well discussed and Table 1 is nicely presented.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for these remarks.

5. Please add a short summary to introduce Section 3. Provided discussion is sufficient.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this remark. We added an appropriate summary

between Sections 2 and 3. Also, according to other Reviewers’ remarks, we extended information

about the characteristics and features of the protocols.

6. Section 4 is well incorporated with Tables. Readers can easily understand contributions

from it.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this remark.

7. Abbreviation table must be revised as some abbreviations provided in this study are

missing.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this remark. We added missing abbreviations.

8. I suggest conclusion should be more precise. So, authors are suggested to revise it.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this remark. We revised the Conclusions. We

deleted the paragraph about our future directions and added four paragraphs describing future

directions about the security protocols for the Internet of Things.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well organized and presented, and I recommend for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

The manuscript is well organized and presented, and I recommend for publication.

Authors’ response: We wish to thank the reviewer for her/his careful review and her/his

comments and suggested improvements to the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf