# An ECC-Based Anonymous and Fast Handover Authentication Protocol for Internet of Vehicles
## 2 Related Works
### Blockchain-Based Identity Authentication Protocol
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Protocol** & **Advantages** & **Limitations** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [6] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Vulnerable to impersonation attacks. \\ [PERSON] et al. [7] & Guaranteeing forward and backward secrecy. & Vulnerable to desynchronization \\ [PERSON] et al. [8] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Vulnerable to desynchronization \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [9] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Attacks and RSU capture attacks. \\ [PERSON] et al. [10] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Vulnerable to privileged insider attacks \\ [PERSON] et al. [11] & Low computation and communication overheads. & and RSU capture attacks. \\ [PERSON] et al. [10] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Not handover authentication. \\ [PERSON] et al. [11] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Not handover authentication. \\ \[PERSON] et al. [12] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Presence of key escrow problem. \\ [PERSON] et al. [14] & Resist physical capture attacks. & Complexity and high \\  & & deployment overhead. \\ [PERSON] et al. [15] & Not requiring key storage. & Complexity and high \\ [PERSON] et al. [16] & Resist physical capture attacks. & Not handover authentication. \\ [PERSON] et al. [17] & Resist physical emulation attacks and sensor node & Complexity and high \\  & capture attacks. & computation overhead. \\ \[PERSON] et al. [18] & Cross-domain authentication. & Complexity and high \\ [PERSON] et al. [19] & Hide users’ sensitive information on the blockchain. & Complexity and high \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Hide users’ sensitive information on the blockchain. & deployment overhead. \\ [PERSON] et al. [21] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Not handover authentication. \\ [PERSON] et al. [22] & Low computation and communication overheads. & Vulnerable to RSU capture attacks. \\ [PERSON] et al. [23] & Low deployment overheads. & Vulnerable to vehicle capture attacks. \\ [PERSON] & & Complexity and high \\ et al. [24] & Resist SPoF attacks. & deployment overhead. \\ [PERSON] et al. [25] & Resist vehicle impersonation attacks and & Complexity and high \\  & tracking attacks. & deployment overhead. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Advantages and limitations of existing protocols. mutual authentication and untraceability, making it vulnerable to physical vehicle capture attacks. To solve the problem of industrial IoT devices being vulnerable to attacks, [PERSON] et al. [23] proposed an improved protocol based on the string space attack model theory to meet the identity authentication requirements and gave corresponding attack examples. [PERSON] et al. [24] proposed a decentralized distributed identity authentication processing mechanism based on the blockchain verification paradigm. This scheme can resist various potential attacks and has great potential in identity management. [PERSON] et al. [25] proposed a mechanism that combines Schnorr signature-based authentication and dynamic refresh of temporary identities, which can effectively prevent vehicle impersonation attacks, tracking attacks, etc.