Challenge–Response Pair Mechanisms and Multi-Factor Authentication Schemes to Protect Private Keys

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-written and organized. However, I have the following minor comments:

-In the abstract, please provide the results of your work and significance. 

-In Figure 5 and Figure 6 and the rest of the figures: please provide the meaning of the abbreviations. Also, briefly describe what is going on in the cycle. This will enable readers to quickly grasp or understand your figure without referring back to the main text. 

-Please provide a table or a brief discussion of how the results compare with the current state of the art.

-What are the limitations of this work?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English Language is OK, though there are several grammatical mistakes, which could be improved during revision. 

Author Response

Please see enclosed file.

Thank you,

Bertrand

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

I was asked to review the paper titled ``Challenge-Response-Pair mechanisms and multi-factor authentication schemes to protect private keys". In this paper, the authors proposed secure ways to recover the private keys when the tokens are lost as well as a novel key pair generation protocol in which the private keys are kept secret by the user. However, I do not think this paper can be published unless the following comments can be replyed. 

1. In the abstract, the authors should point out their work directly.

2. In the introduction, the correlation between the contribution of this paper and the previous article should be pointed out.

3.The experimental part should be separated from the theoretical part.

4.Some annotations should be added to the figure, such as figure 10.

5.The improvement over previous work should be added in the conclusions.

Author Response

Please see enclosed file.

Thank you,

Bertrand

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present manuscript entitled "Challenge-Response-Pair mechanisms and multi-factor  authentication schemes to protect private keys" with the manuscript Id: applsci-3461662, the authors described a novel challenge-response-pair mechanism with N authentication factors such as tokens, biometry, and blockchain-based virtual tokens. They claimed that their suggested architecture is efficient to recover the private keys when the tokens are lost. They made a rich experiment based on the standardized Learning With Errors (LWE) post quantum cryptographic CRYSTALS Dilithium protocol to confirm their results. The protocol suggested in this paper will be benefit for stronger liveness tests, and method to prevent an AI generated video to be successfully displayed in from of the camera of terminal devices.

 

In my opinion, the paper is consistent and well-organized with desired results, then I strongly recommend it for publication.

Author Response

Please see enclosed file.

Thank you,

Bertrand

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Consider expanding the introduction to present more specific case studies of breaches within crypto wallet systems to illustrate the urgency and relevance of your research.
• Enhance the methodology by providing concrete steps for implementing your proposed challenge-response mechanism and documenting any preliminary testing results.
• The results section should incorporate visual data to facilitate understanding; graphical representation of error rates or comparative analyses could greatly aid the reader.
• Simplifying technical jargon where possible will broaden your paper's accessibility to a wider audience.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are instances of complex phrasing that may obscure the intended meaning. Simplifying language and improving sentence structure in certain sections would enhance readability. Additionally, minor grammatical errors should be addressed for a more polished final version.

Author Response

Please see enclosed document.

Thank you,

Bertrand

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the paper according to my requirements. I recommend this paper to be published in Applied Sciences.