Security and Communication Networks

Research Article

Privacy-Preserving Two-Factor Key Agreement Protocol Based on Chebyshev Polynomials

Table 8

Computation overhead comparison.


	C₁	C₂	C₃	C₄

Fan et al. [22]	4T_h + 1T_sq ≈ 0.0175 ms	3T_h + 1T_s + 1T_crt ≈ 0.0238 ms	#	#
Juang et al. [23]	3T_h + 3T_s ≈ 0.021 ms	4T_h + 6T_s + 1T_m ≈ 0.186 ms	14T_h + 5T_s ≈ 0.1015 ms	52T_h + 5T_s ≈ 0.2345 ms
Sun et al. [24]	4T_h + 2T_m ≈ 0.232 ms	4T_h + 1T_s + 1T_m ≈ 0.1335 ms	2T_h ≈ 0.007 ms	0
Li et al. [25]	8T_h + 4T_s ≈ 0.0385 ms	10T_h + 10T_s + 1T_m ≈ 0.249 ms	21T_h + 6T_s ≈ 0.1365 ms	70T_h + 9T_s ≈ 0.3395 ms
Maitra [27]	8T_h + 6t_e + 1t_m ≈ 157.069 ms	8T_h + 4t_e + 1t_m + 1t_inv ≈ 150.029 ms	6T_h ≈ 0.042 ms	0
Chaudhry et al. [28]	1T_p + 6T_h + 3T_m + 2T_a + 2T_e + 2t_m + 1t_inv ≈ 183.7542 ms	3T_p + 5T_h + 4T_m + 3T_a + 2T_e + 1t_m ≈ 462.9762 ms	#	#
Guo et al. [19]	2T_h + 2T_s + 3T_c ≈ 0.3925 ms	2T_h + 2T_s + 3T_c ≈ 0.3925 ms	2T_h + 1T_s + 2T_c ≈ 0.2542 ms	3T_s + 1T_c ≈ 0.153 ms
Lin [20]	3T_h + 2T_s + 2T_c ≈ 0.2745 ms	2T_h + 3T_s + 3T_c ≈ 0.403 ms	2T_h + 1T_s + 1T_c ≈ 0.1327 ms	3T_s + 1T_c ≈ 0.153 ms
Lee [21]	3T_h + 1T_s + 3T_c ≈ 0.3945 ms	2T_h + 2T_s + 3T_c ≈ 0.3925 ms	4T_h + 1T_s + 2T_c ≈ 0.2675 ms	2T_h + 3T_s + 1T_c ≈ 0.16 ms
Irshad et al. [29]	7T_h + 4T_c ≈ 0.5105 ms	4T_h + 3T_c ≈ 0.3785 ms	6T_h ≈ 0.042 ms	0
Irshad et al. [30]	11T_h + 3T_c ≈ 0.4030 ms	7T_h + 2T_c ≈ 0.2675 ms	8T_h ≈ 0.056 ms	0
Our protocols	9T_h + 1T_sq + 1T_c ≈ 0.1565 ms	7T_h + 1T_crt + 1T_s + 1T_c ≈ 0.1593 ms	2T_h ≈ 0.014 ms	0

C₁ denotes the computational cost of a user in the authenticated key exchange phase. C₂ refers to the computational cost of the server in the authenticated key exchange phase. C₃/C₄ represents the computational cost of the user/server during the password change phase. N/A represents no requirement of computation. # denotes that the scheme does not provide the functionality of password updating.