Review Reports - A Study of the Data Security Attack and Defense Pattern in a Centralized UAV–Cloud Architecture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topics is very interesting, the authors explain very well the attacks.there’s some of comments must be addressed as the following:
-The abstract needs to rewrite to explain the contributions.

- The paper needs to add some of figures of the flying robot.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The research addressees all main question.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? The paper is a review only, the authors need to explain the main goals of this study.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? Yes, the research made an addition that was not found in previous research.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? The methodology is good and does not need to be added

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed? Yes, the conclusions consistent with arguments and address the main questions.
6. Are the references appropriate? Yes, all references are modern.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. The paper need to add some of figures to explain the flying robot.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to submit our manuscript to Drones. We appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided by the reviewers. In response to the concerns raised, we have made the necessary revisions and improvements to our manuscript.

Please find below a detailed list of the changes made to address each of the reviewer's concerns:

Abstract have been rewrited to provide more explanation about our contribution.
Figure of flying robot has been added

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript and addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers. We appreciate your consideration of our work for publication in Drones and look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,

Gregorius Airlangga

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper described work of solving the problem of effort to adapt and improve security of UAVs, which are controlled from a central location. The study presents 26 attack variations and their countermeasures from a software analyst’s perspective. Also, this paper gives information about analyze of defense strategy using the analysis of time and space complexity. Executed research provides a holistic perspective of security pattern and crucial advice for communities and developers that wish to build UAV-based systems.

Some considerations regarding the content of paper:

- The abbreviation Unmanned Aerial Vehicles is introduced in the text twice - in the introduction and the next chapter.

- The paper does not indicate which software tool was used to obtain diagrams for figures.

- There are no references to figures in the text of the article.

- For Fig. 2 with black hole defense class diagram there is no explanation of the blocks.

- Figures 13, 31, 37, 47, 50, 51 are very small and it difficult to consider them.

- For Table 1 with complexity analysis of security solution there is no information about time of calculations and size of data.

- It will be better to add in Conclusion about future researches.

- Authors should carefully examine and correct syntactic errors. For example, in abstract uav is lowercase, Colission in Fig.3.

- References 4, 18, 38 are not designed according to the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find below a detailed list of the changes made to address each of the reviewer's concerns:

We have corrected the inconsistency in the introduction of the abbreviation "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles." It is now introduced only once in the introduction.
We have added information on the software tool used to obtain the diagrams for the figures in the methodology section of the paper.
References to figures have been added to the text of the article to improve readability and understanding.
A detailed explanation of the blocks in Fig. 2 (Black hole defense class diagram) has been revised in the corresponding section.
Figures 13, 31, 37, 47, 50, and 51 have been resized and optimized for better visibility and readability.
We have updated Table 1 (Complexity analysis of security solution) to include information about the time of calculations and size of data.
The conclusion section has been expanded to include discussions on future research directions.
We have carefully reviewed and corrected all syntactic errors, including the inconsistent use of lowercase 'uav' in the abstract and the misspelling of "Collision" in Fig. 3.
References 4, 18, and 38 have been updated to adhere to the journal's citation requirements.

Sincerely,

Gregorius Airlangga

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments:

It is a good survey paper that includes 26 types of attacks that are possible over UAV networks and architecture.

This paper presents a detailed study of the attacks and their definitions followed by sequence diagrams of each. This kind of presentation is more suitable for book chapters.
I recommend adding technical aspects like comparative study among various attacks by considering data loss, and sensitivity.
Other network attributes may include latency, delay etc.
The complexity analysis has been done by considering specific use cases or algorithms. Please justify the background of complexity analysis.
The difference between these attacks on UAVs and traditional network architecture is required.
Few figures are not readable.
The Limitations of the proposed study need to be discussed before the conclusion.
Check the mathematical notation of the whole paper.
Identified research gaps and contributions of the proposed study should be elaborated.
What assumptions authors made during the simulation phase of this research work?
Provide a critique on this aspect.
Authors are suggested to update the introduction and the related work sections by including more of the recent publications in the work domain.
Authors need to confirm that all acronyms are defined before being used for the first time.
Authors are suggested to proofread the manuscript after addressing all comments to avoid any typos, grammatical, and lingual mistakes and errors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review our paper on the possible attacks over UAV networks and architecture. We appreciate your constructive feedback and recommendations for improving our work. In this letter, I will address each of the points you raised in your review.

Firstly, we are glad that you found our survey paper to be informative and comprehensive. We agree that our presentation of the attacks and their definitions followed by sequence diagrams may be more suitable for book chapters. However, we also believe that this approach allowed us to present a clear and concise overview of the attacks for our readers and especially security developer or researcher in UAV area.

We appreciate your suggestion of adding technical aspects such as comparative studies among various attacks by considering data loss, sensitivity, latency, delay, and other network attributes. We will incorporate these suggestions into our paper to provide a more in-depth analysis of the attacks in the future work. We also agree with your recommendation to provide a background for the complexity analysis we conducted for specific use cases or algorithms. However, in the complexity analysis itself is more focusing on analyzing theoretical evaluation of piece of code, therefore our current evaluation measurement is enough for the context of software system analysis and design. In the future work, we have a plan to make more robust evaluation measurement by considering more comprehensive scenario of attack and defense cyber security event.

To highlight the difference between the attacks on UAVs and traditional network architecture, we will update our paper to provide a clear comparison between the centralized and decentralized architecture. We apologize for the figures that were not readable and will ensure that they are improved and made more legible.

Regarding the limitations of our proposed study, we will discuss them in detail before the conclusion. We will also check the mathematical notation of the whole paper and ensure that it is accurate.

We appreciate your suggestion of elaborating on the identified research gaps and contributions of our proposed study. We will add more detail to these aspects to provide a clear understanding of our research.

Regarding the assumptions we made during the simulation phase of our research work, we will provide a detailed explanation of these in our paper. We welcome your critique on this aspect and will take your feedback into consideration.

We have updated the introduction and related work sections of our paper to include more recent publications in the work domain. We also ensure that all acronyms are defined before being used for the first time.

Lastly, we appreciate your advice on proofreading our manuscript to avoid any typos, grammatical, and lingual mistakes and errors. We will carefully review our paper to ensure that it is error-free.

Once again, thank you for your time and valuable feedback. We look forward to improving our paper with your suggestions and resubmitting it for your review.

Sincerely,

Gregorius Airlangga

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

These two points need to be addressed.

2. I recommend adding technical aspects like comparative study among various attacks by considering data loss, and sensitivity.

3. Other network attributes may include latency, delay etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We add Qualitative Analysis of Security Attack on the section V.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf