IoT Devices, User Authentication, and Data Management in a Secure, Validated Manner through the Blockchain System

Table 5

Comparison between existing techniques and the proposed technique.

Existing techniques	Flaws in the existing techniques	Mitigation of flaws in the proposed technique
Mutual authentication	Centralized architecture	De-centralized architecture
	There is a need to be both client and server for authentication of each other. Both are relaid on each other for authentication	There is no need of both client and server for authentication each other
	Less secure because relies on centralized authority	More secure because does not rely on centralized authority
Open authentication	In open authentication, tokens are generated for end-users for authentication	Directly, hash key values are assigned to the end-users
	Tokens are not in an encrypted form, so everyone can access the token and breach security	Hash key values are in an encrypted form, so other entities do not understand the hash key values and cannot breach security
	Totally based on open authentication server	Not based on server
Kerberos authentication	Kerberos authentication uses temporal tickets for authentication purposes in a specific period	The proposed solution provides hash key values permanently to end-users
	Temporal tickets are not in an encrypted form	Hash key values are in an encrypted form
	Dependent on temporal tickets and time, so kerberos authentication follows the centralized architecture	Provides decentralized architecture for authentication
Group authentication	Group authentication authenticates entities with the permission of all other entities in the group. Message passing in a group is not in an encrypted form, so every entity in the group can easily perform some maliciousness	Hash key values are distributed across all entities in the system with the help of distributed ledgers. Hash key values are in an encrypted form, so it is hard to understand for any entity in the system.