Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Comments:

Strengths:

Innovation: The paper introduces a novel electronic device identity recognition method adaptable to environmental changes, offering significant innovation in IoT device security.

Practical Relevance: The study addresses real-world challenges in IoT device security recognition across varied environments, enhancing its practical application.

Comprehensive Experimental Design: The detailed experimental setup, methodologies, and analytical results contribute to the research's reliability and persuasiveness.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Enhance Theoretical Depth: Elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings and principles of the applied techniques for deeper understanding.

Expand Literature Review: Incorporate a broader range of relevant studies, focusing on recent research closely related to your methods.

Detailed Dataset Description: Provide more comprehensive information on the datasets used, including their source, characteristics, and scale.

Conclusion: It is recommended that the paper be revised with the above modifications. The research direction and methodology are innovative and promising, with further enhancement needed in theoretical depth and literature review.

Detailed：

Literature Review (Section 1): The section could be expanded to include more recent studies or developments in IoT security. This would provide a broader context and highlight the paper's contribution more effectively. Data Collection Methodology (Section 3.1): More detail is needed on the data collection process, including the types of devices used and the environments they were in. This could help validate the model's applicability to various IoT scenarios. Statistical Analysis and Validation (Section 4.2): The paper would benefit from a more comprehensive statistical analysis of the experimental data. Including additional metrics like precision, recall, and F1-score could provide a deeper understanding of the model's performance. In conclusion, with these revisions, the paper's contribution to IoT device security can be significantly amplified, warranting its acceptance in the field.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

acceptable

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: electronics-2830753

Original Article Title: “Device Identity Recognition Based on Adaptive Environment for Intrinsic Security Fingerprint”

 

 

Dear Editor-in-Chief:

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. We have revised the content of the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions.

We highlighted all the revisions in red color. And the responses are highlighted in blue color.

 

Best regards,

Sincerely yours,

< Zesheng Xi , Gongxuan Zhang , Bo Zhang , Tao Zhang>

 

 

 

Response to reviewers

We gratefully thank the EIC and all reviewers for their time spent making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enabled us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers, was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer #1:

1. Comment: Literature Review (Section 1): The section could be expanded to include more recent studies or developments in IoT security. This would provide a broader context and highlight the paper's contribution more effectively.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. In response to your feedback, I have expanded the literature review section of the paper, specifically focusing on the area of Internet of Things (IoT) security. In this revised section, I have included a comprehensive overview of the latest research and developments in the field of IoT security. This encompasses recent technological advancements, key security challenges, and the latest defense mechanisms being developed to counter these challenges.

 

Author action:

Page 1: In Chapter 0, we have added “The current realm of the IoT confronts primary security challenges that include the protection of data privacy, device authentication, and the defense against network attacks[2]. In recent years, the field of IoT security has witnessed significant advance-ments, encompassing the development of cutting-edge security protocols, encryption technologies, and intrusion detection systems[3][4][5].”

.

 

 

2. Comment: Data Collection Methodology (Section 3.1): More detail is needed on the data collection process, including the types of devices used and the environments they were in. This could help validate the model's applicability to various IoT scenarios.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the data collection methods outlined in Section 3.1 of our manuscript. We understand the importance of providing detailed information about the data collection process to validate the applicability of our model across various IoT scenarios.

In response to your comments, we have made significant revisions to the manuscript:

In Section 3: We have added comprehensive details about our data collection process. This includes the specific methodologies employed for gathering and extracting data.

In Section 4 : We have provided a detailed description of the types of devices used in our experiments and the environments in which they were situated.

We believe these enhancements will address your concerns regarding the data collection details and further strengthen the credibility and applicability of our research findings..

Author action:

Page 7 : we have added comprehensive details about our data collection process “There are numerous methods for extracting Channel State Information (CSI). Af-ter thorough comparison, we have opted to utilize Nexmon as our CSI extraction tool, owing to its more convenient extraction process and superior extraction efficiency.”.

 

 

3. Comment: Statistical Analysis and Validation (Section 4.2): The paper would benefit from a more comprehensive statistical analysis of the experimental data. Including additional metrics like precision, recall, and F1-score could provide a deeper understanding of the model's performance.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion on enhancing the statistical analysis in Section 4.2 of our paper. To address your recommendation, we conducted a comprehensive three-day test using multiple devices across various IoT scenarios, simulating real-world conditions and interactions.

In light of your feedback, we agree that including precision, recall, and F1-score will provide a more detailed understanding of our model's performance. We are updating our analysis to incorporate these metrics, which will offer a clearer evaluation of the model's accuracy and reliability in real-world IoT environments.

Author action:

Page 15: We have conducted a comprehensive three-day test using multiple devices across various IoT scenarios: To comprehensively evaluate the stability and reliability of our method in re-al-world environments, we conducted an extensive three-day continuous test using multiple devices, with device authentication being performed every 30 minutes. These devices were deployed across various IoT application scenarios to maximally simulate real-world environmental changes and interactions. The table below presents the per-formance of each device during the testing period, including metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score. These indicators reflect the consistency and robustness of our method across different devices.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is an interesting paper that proposes a novel method for improving device identity recognition using adaptive intrinsic security fingerprints. The idea of adapting fingerprint models to dynamic outdoor environments is innovative and addresses an important challenge in this field. Here are some suggestions to further improve the paper:

The introduction provides good motivation and background, but could be tightened up and focused more specifically on the gap this method aims to address. Reduce general background details and highlight the key challenges for fingerprint recognition in outdoor settings.

Practical Relevance: The study's applicability to real-world security scenarios is highly valuable.

Adding more theoretical depth by elaborating on the mathematical foundations and motivation behind using Gramian Angular Fields and hypergraph neural networks would provide greater insight into the approach. Expanding the literature review to include more discussion of related work on intrinsic security fingerprints in dynamic environments and alternative techniques would help position this work in the broader research context.

Carefully proofread the paper to fix minor grammar issues, improve flow, and ensure academic writing style.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language quality is not optimal, but the issues are relatively minor. With proofreading and editing, it can meet academic writing standards.

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: electronics-2830753

Original Article Title: “Device Identity Recognition Based on Adaptive Environment for Intrinsic Security Fingerprint”

 

 

Dear Editor-in-Chief:

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. We have revised the content of the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions.

We highlighted all the revisions in red color. And the responses are highlighted in blue color.

 

Best regards,

Sincerely yours,

< Zesheng Xi , Gongxuan Zhang , Bo Zhang , Tao Zhang>

 

 

 

Response to reviewers

We gratefully thank the EIC and all reviewers for their time spent making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enabled us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers, was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer #2:

1. Comment: The introduction provides good motivation and background, but could be tightened up and focused more specifically on the gap this method aims to address. Reduce general background details and highlight the key challenges for fingerprint recognition in outdoor settings.

Response:

In response, we have enriched the manuscript by adding detailed background information on IoT security, particularly emphasizing the key challenges of fingerprint recognition in outdoor environments. This addition not only enhances the context of our study but also highlights the specific issues and complexities involved in implementing fingerprint recognition systems in such settings.

We believe these enhancements will provide readers with a deeper understanding of the unique challenges in IoT security and the relevance of our work in addressing these issues..

 

2. Comment: The introduction provides good motivation and background, but could be tightened up and focused more specifically on the gap this method aims to address. Reduce general background details and highlight the key challenges for fingerprint recognition in outdoor settings.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion.

In line with the practical aspects highlighted in our study, we have added several pertinent references to the manuscript. These additional sources enhance the depth of our research by providing updated and relevant information that aligns with the real-world scenarios discussed in our paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Happy to accept paper with changes to reflect what will happen when testbed will move to practical environment, needs to reflect on effectiveness of model

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: electronics-2830753

Original Article Title: “Device Identity Recognition Based on Adaptive Environment for Intrinsic Security Fingerprint”

 

 

Dear Editor-in-Chief:

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. We have revised the content of the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions.

We highlighted all the revisions in red color. And the responses are highlighted in blue color.

 

Best regards,

Sincerely yours,

< Zesheng Xi , Gongxuan Zhang , Bo Zhang , Tao Zhang>

 

 

 

Response to reviewers

We gratefully thank the EIC and all reviewers for their time spent making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enabled us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers, was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer #3:

1. Comment: Happy to accept paper with changes to reflect what will happen when testbed will move to practical environment, needs to reflect on effectiveness of model.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion on enhancing the statistical analysis in Section 4.2 of our paper. To address your recommendation, we conducted a comprehensive three-day test using multiple devices across various IoT scenarios, simulating real-world conditions and interactions.

In light of your feedback, we agree that including precision, recall, and F1-score will provide a more detailed understanding of our model's performance. We are updating our analysis to incorporate these metrics, which will offer a clearer evaluation of the model's accuracy and reliability in real-world IoT environments.

 

Author action:

Page 15: We have conducted a comprehensive three-day test using multiple devices across various IoT scenarios: To comprehensively evaluate the stability and reliability of our method in re-al-world environments, we conducted an extensive three-day continuous test using multiple devices, with device authentication being performed every 30 minutes. These devices were deployed across various IoT application scenarios to maximally simulate real-world environmental changes and interactions. The table below presents the per-formance of each device during the testing period, including metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score. These indicators reflect the consistency and robustness of our method across different devices.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf