## 4 Analysis and Discussion
### Analysis of PUF-Based Authentication and Its Applications

Table 6: Summary of the differences of PUF-based authentication protocols. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Protocol** & **PUF** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Authentication** \\ **Schema** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Secure Storage** \\ **of Keys** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Storage of** \\ **Methods** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Encryption** \\ **Methods** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Platform Used** \\ **Major Issues** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Major** \\ **Advantages** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[8] & Unspecified & T2T & No & Yes & Hash & - & \ \begin{tabular}{c} High storage \\ cost \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Secure communication \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[10] & \begin{tabular}{c} SARAM- \\ PUF \\ \end{tabular}  & T2T & No & Yes & Hash & \begin{tabular}{c} Arduino Mega \\ Raspberry \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Ineffective \\ spoofing attack \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Low cost \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[11] & APUF & T2T & Yes & Yes & AES, hash & Simulation & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ machine \\ learning attack \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Low \\ computational \\ complexity \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[74] & XOR-PUF & T2T & No & Yes & - & Simulation & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ resources \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Tempo- \\ blocking free \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[75] & Unspecified & T2T & No & Yes & PKI & Artix-7 FPGA & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ resources \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Verifier \\ database \\ without CRPs \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[76] & APUF & T2T & No & Yes & ECC & \begin{tabular}{c} Xilinx \\ zynq7000 \\ z706 \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ database \\ security \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Strong logic \\ control \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[77] & XOR-PUF & T2M & No & No & Hash & Simulation & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Infective \\ spoofing attack \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Verifying \\ without CRPs \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[78] & Unspecified & T2T & No & Yes & Hash & \begin{tabular}{c} Arduino Mega \\ 2560/due \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} High cost of \\ storing eCRPs \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Automated \\ authenticate \\ authenticate \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[79] & SRAM-PUF & T2T & No & Yes & Hash & \begin{tabular}{c} Arduino Mega \\ 2560/due \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Unstable cell in \\ SRAM \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Effects of \\ memory \\ storage \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[80] & Unspecified & T2T & No & No & Hash - & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ encryption \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Low-cost \\ devices using \\ PUFs \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[81] & Unspecified & T2M & No & Yes & Hash \begin{tabular}{c} Zolertia Zou \\ Remote \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ encryption \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Less \\ constrained \\ resources \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[82] & Unspecified & T2T & No & Yes & - & - & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ encryption \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Prevents \\ machine \\ learning attack \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[83] & RO-PUF & T2T & No & Yes & Hash & FPGA platform & \ \begin{tabular}{c} Limited \\ evaluation and \\ attack \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Improved CRO \\ PUF circuits \\ with latch \\ structure. \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
[84] & UnTable 6 also shows the differences between researchers working on PUF-based authentication protocols. This extensive and detailed table delineates various aspects, including authentication schema, secure storage of keys, storage of CRPs, encryption methods, platform used, issues, and the advantages of each protocol. We can observe that Things to Things (T2T) is the most popular authentication scheme used in PUFs.