TFPPASV: A Three-Factor Privacy Preserving Authentication Scheme for VANETs

Table 2

Summary of authentication schemes in VANETs.

Authors	Cryptography technique	Advantage	Disadvantage
Zheng et al. [12]	ECC	Less storage cost, suitable for and in sense of less computing and limited storage	Missing formal security analysis
Qu and Tan [15]	ECC	Provides mutual authentication and key agreement, resists against impersonation attack, stolen smart card, inside attack, and sever spoofing attack, provides user anonymity	Missing communication cost, running time, and overhead cost
Nandy et al. [16]	ECC and symmetric key operation-based authentication	Lightweight and provides vehicle to vehicle secure communication	Faulty design
Vasudev et al. [21]	XOR operation, one-way hash functions	Resists against impersonation attack, stolen smart card, offline password guessing, and man-in-the-middle attacks and provides anonymity	Missing formal security analysis
Mahmood et al. [22]	XOR operations, one-way hash functions	Proved that Vasudev et al.’s scheme [21] is incorrect and proposed new scheme for V2V secure communication. Resists against impersonation attack, stolen smart card, offline password guessing, man-in-the-middle attacks, and DOS attack and provides anonymity and untraceability.	—
Li et al. [24]	XOR operation, hash function, biometric authentication	Improves the functional and security flaws of Jiang et al.’s scheme [23], communication and computation cost is less than that of other schemes	Running time of scheme is missing
Wang et al. [25]	Using multiple hashing functions, biological password-based authentication	Reduces the communication, overhead, and computation cost	Formal security analysis is missing
Paruchuri and Durresi [26]	Smart card-based key generation	Provides anonymous authentication, less space for key storage in smart card	Informal and formal security analysis is missing