Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Decentralized Mechanism to Decouple Vendor-Specific Access Management from IoT Devices Using Blockchain Technology, Smart Contract, and Wallets

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2023 Workshops (ICCSA 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14104))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper provides a mechanism for distributed access management and authorization transfer for communicating between devices belonging to different wallets and the same wallet. This paper also discusses segregating the IoT network into different groups or levels for fine-grain control. This approach allows Access control and intersystem network communication between authenticated devices and authenticated devices residing in the same system, using the devices layer, smart contract, and wallets. The Device layer is used to transmit data from one device to another, regardless of the wallet they belong to. The smart contract acts as the distributed command and control for access management. The wallet stands as the owner of the IoT in the system. The wallets are generally owned by individuals or end consumers of the IoT product. The approach can be split into three phases: initialization, device authentication, and device-to-device communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

\({A}_{PK}\) :

Public key of device A

\({A}_{IK}\) :

Private key of device A

\({W}_{PK}\) :

Public key of the wallet that owns the IoT device

\({W}_{IK}\) :

Private key of the wallet that owns the IoT device

\(S{C}_{AD}\) :

Address of the smart contract deployed by IoT device owner

\({RG}_{C}\) :

Registration certificate

\(IZ_{C}\) :

Initialization certificate

\(Auth_{C}\) :

Authentication Certificate

\(Mac_{A}\) :

Mac address of IoT devices A

\(Mac_{B}\) :

Mac address of IoT devices B

\(IP_{A}\) :

IP address of IoT devices A

\(IP_{B}\) :

IP address of IoT devices B

\(PL_{A}\) :

Privilege-level of IoT devices A

\(AuthPacket_{A}\) :

Auth Packet of device A

\(AuthPacket_{B}\) :

Auth Packet of device B

\(AT_{C}\) :

Access transfer certificate

\(AG_{C}\) :

Access transfer certificate

\(PLT\) :

level of privilege the transferred user has on the IoT device

\(Wt\) :

The Wallet that is being granted access to the IoT devices.

\(WtSC\) :

The smart contract address owned by Wt.

\(Wt_{PK}\) :

Public key of the Wallet the access is being granted

\(Wt_{IK}\) :

Private key of the Wallet the access is being granted

\(Wt Address\) :

the address of the wallet that receives the NFT

\({\varvec{NFT}}\) :

Non-Fungible Token Standard

\(NFT \; ID\) :

NFT token ID

References

  1. Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized Bus. Rev. 21260 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Novo, O.: Blockchain meets IoT: an architecture for scalable access management in IoT. IEEE Internet Things J. 5(2), 1184–1195 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2812239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Szabo, N.: Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. FM 2(9) (1997). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548

  4. “EIP-721: Non-Fungible Token Standard”. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-721. Accessed 14 Apr 2022

  5. Wang, Q., Li, R., Wang, Q., Chen, S.: Non-Fungible Token (NFT): Overview, Evaluation, Opportunities and Challenges. arXiv (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2105.07447

  6. Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols (extended abstract). In: Preneel, B. (ed.) Secure Information Networks. ITIFIP, vol. 23, pp. 258–272. Springer, Boston (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35568-9_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Wood, G.: Ethereum: a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Pap. 151(2014), 1–32 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. He, K., Chen, J., Du, R., Wu, Q., Xue, G., Zhang, X.: DeyPoS: deduplicatable dynamic proof of storage for multi-user environments. IEEE Trans. Comput. 65(12), 3631–3645 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2016.2560812

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bentov, I., Lee, C., Mizrahi, A., Rosenfeld, M.: Proof of activity. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 42(3), 34–37 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2695533.2695545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Azbeg, K., Ouchetto, O., Jai Andaloussi, S., Fetjah, L.: An overview of blockchain consensus algorithms: comparison, challenges and future directions. In: Saeed, F., Al-Hadhrami, T., Mohammed, F., Mohammed, E. (eds.) Advances on Smart and Soft Computing. AISC, vol. 1188, pp. 357–369. Springer, Singapore (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6048-4_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Shahaab, A., Lidgey, B., Hewage, C., Khan, I.: Applicability and appropriateness of distributed ledgers consensus protocols in public and private sectors: a systematic review. IEEE Access 7, 43622–43636 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2904181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bashar, G., Hill, G., Singha, S., Marella, P., Dagher, G.G., Xiao, J.: Contextualizing consensus protocols in blockchain: a short survey. In: 2019 First IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA), pp. 190–195 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS-ISA48467.2019.00031

  13. Li, X., Jiang, P., Chen, T., Luo, X., Wen, Q.: A survey on the security of blockchain systems. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.08.020

  14. Wu, F., Li, X., Xu, L., Kumari, S., Karuppiah, M., Shen, J.: A lightweight and privacy-preserving mutual authentication scheme for wearable devices assisted by cloud server. Comput. Electr. Eng. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.04.012

  15. Zhang, J., Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Zhang, Q.: Proximity based IoT device authentication. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, IEEE INFOCOM 2017, pp. 1–9 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2017.8057145

  16. Aman, M.N., Chua, K.C., Sikdar, B.: Mutual authentication in IoT systems using physical unclonable functions. IEEE Internet Things J. 4(5), 1327–1340 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2703088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gope, P., Sikdar, B.: Lightweight and privacy-preserving two-factor authentication scheme for IoT devices. IEEE Internet Things J. 6(1), 580–589 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2846299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Esfahani, A., et al.: A lightweight authentication mechanism for M2M communications in industrial IoT environment. IEEE Internet Things J. 6(1), 288–296 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2737630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roychoudhury, P., Roychoudhury, B., Saikia, D.K.: Provably secure group authentication and key agreement for machine type communication using Chebyshev’s polynomial. Comput. Commun. 127, 146–157 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2018.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hammi, M.T., Hammi, B., Bellot, P., Serhrouchni, A.: Bubbles of trust: a decentralized blockchain-based authentication system for IoT. Comput. Secur. 78, 126–142 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cyber Security, CSE, Jain (Deemed-to-be) University, Bangalore, India

    Jacobs Jacob Chakola

  2. CSE, Jain (Deemed-to-be) University, Bangalore, India

    Garima Sinha & Deepak K. Sinha

Authors
  1. Jacobs Jacob Chakola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Garima Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deepak K. Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacobs Jacob Chakola .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Osvaldo Gervasi

  2. University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

    Beniamino Murgante

  3. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Ana Maria A. C. Rocha

  4. University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Chiara Garau

  5. University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

    Francesco Scorza

  6. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    Yeliz Karaca

  7. Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Carmelo M. Torre

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Chakola, J.J., Sinha, G., Sinha, D.K. (2023). A Decentralized Mechanism to Decouple Vendor-Specific Access Management from IoT Devices Using Blockchain Technology, Smart Contract, and Wallets. In: Gervasi, O., et al. Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2023 Workshops. ICCSA 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14104. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37105-9_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37105-9_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-37104-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-37105-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation