Methods to Encrypt and Authenticate Digital Files in Distributed Networks and Zero-Trust Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the paper is written well. I have the following main issues with the paper.

 

1. The authors need to add the Notation Table.
2. All abbreviations must be defined using the same style. Define the abbreviation one time and use it accordingly in the remaining paper.
3. How PUF is used in the paper.

N/A

Author Response

See file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please refer to the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please proofread the paper, I spotted a few typos.

Author Response

See file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper titled "Methods to encrypt and authenticate digital files in distributed networks and zero-trust environments" proposes the use of Challenge-Response-Pair (CRP) mechanisms to verify the authenticity and protect digital files in storage nodes and terminal devices operating in zero-trust environments. The paper introduces the use of nonces to generate unique message digests, which act as Physical Unclonable Functions (PUF) in challenge-response mechanisms. During enrollment, randomly selected challenges result in unique output data known as responses, enabling the generation and distribution of cryptographic keys. However, the paper has some limitations that need to be addressed.

1. Bad quality of figures and algorithms: The paper presents low-quality figures and algorithms, which makes it challenging for readers to understand the proposed methods clearly.
2. Algorithms deserve to be more explained: Although the paper introduces some novel algorithms, they need to be more explicitly explained to avoid any confusion and make them understandable for readers.
3. Comparison with other works in the literature: The paper lacks a comparison with other related works in the literature, which would provide a context for the readers and highlight the novelty of the proposed methods.

Therefore, the paper needs major revisions before reconsideration. If the authors address the limitations mentioned above, the paper could be a valuable contribution to the field of digital security and privacy.

 

English is acceptable.

Author Response

See file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The proposed solution accommodates the injection of obfuscating noises to mitigate several attack vectors and to disturb opponents trying to perform side-channel analysis of the terminal devices. The methods suggested to distribute error-free cryptographic keys in noisy networks are implemented with light computing elements and do not rely on Error Correcting Codes (ECC), fuzzy extractors, or data helpers. This study is an interesting one. However, I have a few suggestions.

 

1. The Key contribution section is missing at the end of the introduction section. Add a contribution subsection as a second last paragraph in the introduction section.
2. The results section is week. Authors should compare the finding of the present study with the previous studies and justify for more clarity. 
3. Would you explicitly specify the novelty of your work? What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies were made?
4. Conclusions should be amended to incorporate a broader discussion of this specific study's significance and potential application.

 

 

The proposed solution accommodates the injection of obfuscating noises to mitigate several attack vectors and to disturb opponents trying to perform side-channel analysis of the terminal devices. The methods suggested to distribute error-free cryptographic keys in noisy networks are implemented with light computing elements and do not rely on Error Correcting Codes (ECC), fuzzy extractors, or data helpers. This study is an interesting one. However, I have a few suggestions.

 

1. The Key contribution section is missing at the end of the introduction section. Add a contribution subsection as a second last paragraph in the introduction section.
2. The results section is week. Authors should compare the finding of the present study with the previous studies and justify for more clarity. 
3. Would you explicitly specify the novelty of your work? What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies were made?
4. Conclusions should be amended to incorporate a broader discussion of this specific study's significance and potential application.

 

 

Author Response

See file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors significantly improved the paper, and I have no further comments. The article can be accepted in its present form.

The authors significantly improved the paper, and I have no further comments. The article can be accepted in its present form.