Simulation of Authentication in Information-Processing Electronic Devices Based on Poisson Pulse Sequence Generators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting project on the authentication of devices using PPSG. Author should validate the reference templates of the individual devices for comparative analysis and then cross-reference templates for comparison if possible.

 

3.

Author Response

Dear Editors of "Electronics",

Section "Computer Science & Engineering"

Special Issue "Cybersecurity and Data Science"

 

Dear Reviewer,

Taking into account the remarks of respected Reviewers to the manuscript ID: electronics-1761974 “SIMULATION OF AUTHENTICATION IN INFORMATION PROCESSING ELECTRONIC DEVICES BASED ON POISSON PULSE SEQUENCES GENERATORS” authors: Volodymyr Maksymovych, Elena Nyemkova, Connie Justice, Mariia Shabatura, Oleh Harasymchuk, Yuriy Lakh, Morika Rusynko, we have made the following changes to our manuscript:

 

Reviewer's comments	Authors' comments
1: It is an interesting project on the authentication of devices using PPSG. Author should validate the reference templates of the individual devices for comparative analysis and then cross-reference templates for comparison if possible.	The necessary calculations were carried out and included in part 4.2. Results of simulation experiment. (Comment EN11 Insert 01)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This article deals with the modeling and simulation of authenticators for information processing electronic devices. The proposed methodology revolves around the creation of a bit template simulator based on a Poisson pulse sequence generator (PPSG). The presented methodology also considers the optimization of stimulation parameters. The article is easy to understand and has some satisfactory technical work. However, the following recommendations/suggestions are provided for further improvement:

1.      Abstract should include the motivation behind the proposed methodology by highlighting the research gap.  

2.      Abstract should provide a brief description of the validation mechanism and accuracy of achieved results

3.      Introduction should provide the validation (experimental setup, benchmark, case studies etc) details

4.      Introduction should summarize the achieved results (quantitative as well as qualitative) along with the significance of the achieved results.

5.      A related work section is needed to overview state-of-the-art practices. How the proposed methodology is different from conventional/existing  practices  (the novelty of the work)

6.      Materials and Methods section requires some illustrative diagrams that can represent the behavior of various modules in the proposed modeling and simulation framework,.

7.      The achieved results must be compared with available practices in terms of some well-defined performance parameters

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Taking into account the remarks of respected Reviewers to the manuscript ID: electronics-1761974 “SIMULATION OF AUTHENTICATION IN INFORMATION PROCESSING ELECTRONIC DEVICES BASED ON POISSON PULSE SEQUENCES GENERATORS” authors: Volodymyr Maksymovych, Elena Nyemkova, Connie Justice, Mariia Shabatura, Oleh Harasymchuk, Yuriy Lakh, Morika Rusynko, we have made the following changes to our manuscript:

 

Reviewer's comments	Authors' comments
1: Abstract should include the motivation behind the proposed methodology by highlighting the research gap.	Such motivation explanation has been already added at the very beginning of abstract. (Comment EN1 Insert 02)
2: Abstract should provide a brief description of the validation mechanism and accuracy of achieved results.	Such a brief description has been included in the abstract concerning validation mechanism and results accuracy. (Comment EN2 Insert 03)
3: Introduction should provide the validation (experimental setup, benchmark, case studies etc) details.	Validation details were added to the Introduction. (Comment EN3 Insert 04)
4: Introduction should summarize the achieved results (quantitative as well as qualitative) along with the significance of the achieved results.	Summarizing of the achieved results was including into the Introduction. (Comment EN4 Insert 05)
5: A related work section is needed to overview state-of-the-art practices. How the proposed methodology is different from conventional/existing practices (the novelty of the work).	Information concerning the novelty of the work was added at the end of Introduction. (Comment EN5 Insert 06)
6: Materials and Methods section requires some illustrative diagrams that can represent the behavior of various modules in the proposed modeling and simulation framework.	Concerning illustrative diagrams, such material was added after the Table 4th: (Comment EN13 Insert 07)
7: The achieved results must be compared with available practices in terms of some well-defined performance parameters.	Efficiency parameters part was also added. (Comment EN15 Insert 8)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with an exciting topic. The article has been read carefully, and some minor issues have been highlighted in order to be considered by the author(s).

#1 What is the motivation of this paper?

#2 What is the contribution and novelty of this paper?

#3 What is the advantage of this survey paper?

#4 Which evaluation metrics did you used for comparison?

#5 If possible, it would be good if security domains for the deep neural network would be reflected in the related work such as Acoustic-decoy: Detection of adversarial examples through audio modification on speech recognition system, Selective audio adversarial example in evasion attack on speech recognition system, POSTER: Detecting audio adversarial example through audio modification.

#6 In the whole figure, descriptions of the abbreviated letters as captions are required.

Author Response

Dear Editors of "Electronics",

Section "Computer Science & Engineering"

Special Issue "Cybersecurity and Data Science"

 

Dear Reviewer,

Taking into account the remarks of respected Reviewers to the manuscript ID: electronics-1761974 “SIMULATION OF AUTHENTICATION IN INFORMATION PROCESSING ELECTRONIC DEVICES BASED ON POISSON PULSE SEQUENCES GENERATORS” authors: Volodymyr Maksymovych, Elena Nyemkova, Connie Justice, Mariia Shabatura, Oleh Harasymchuk, Yuriy Lakh, Morika Rusynko, we have made the following changes to our manuscript:

 

Reviewer's comments	Authors' comments
1: What is the motivation of this paper?	Such motivation explanation has been already added at the very beginning of abstract. (Comment EN1 Insert 02)
2: What is the contribution and novelty of this paper?	Information concerning the novelty of the work was added at the beginning of the last paragraph of Introduction. (Comment EN5 Insert 06)
3: What is the advantage of this survey paper?	Information concerning the advantages was added at the end of the last paragraph of Introduction. (Comment EN5 Insert 06)
4:  Which evaluation metrics did you used for comparison?	Evaluation details were added to the Introduction. (Comment EN3 Insert 04)
5: If possible, it would be good if security domains for the deep neural network would be reflected in the related work such as Acoustic-decoy: Detection of adversarial examples through audio modification on speech recognition system, Selective audio adversarial example in evasion attack on speech recognition system, POSTER: Detecting audio adversarial example through audio modification.	Information was added at the end of Conclusions in Comment EN16 Insert 10 and also in Reference [36, 37] (Comment EN17 Insert 11).
6: In the whole figure, descriptions of the abbreviated letters as captions are required.	Descriptions were added in Comments EN6-EN10 Insert 09

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has addressed all the raised concerns. 

I recommend it for publication. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend the acceptance.