Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42817459›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Authentication Mechanisms in the Internet of Things: A Comparative Analysis Across RFID, Smart Grids, Vehicular Networks, and Smart Homes.

Supraja Ayyamgari, Bala Yashwanth Reddy Thumma, Nivedan Suresh, Charan Thumma, Abhignan Srivatsava Sribhashyam, Bhargavi Konda, Mounica Yenugula, Vinay Kumar Kasula

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Supraja AyyamgariDepartment of Information Technology, University of the Cumberlands, Williamsburg, KY 40769, USA.
Bala Yashwanth Reddy ThummaIndependent Researcher, Ashburn, VA 20148, USA.
Nivedan SureshIndependent Researcher, Austin, TX 78759, USA.
Charan ThummaIndependent Researcher, Herndon, VA 20171, USA.
Abhignan Srivatsava SribhashyamIndependent Researcher, Lakeville, MN 55044, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-1197-2982
Bhargavi KondaDepartment of Information Technology, University of the Cumberlands, Williamsburg, KY 40769, USA.
Mounica YenugulaDepartment of Information Technology, University of the Cumberlands, Williamsburg, KY 40769, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-3259-4563
Vinay Kumar KasulaDepartment of Information Technology, University of the Cumberlands, Williamsburg, KY 40769, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-1131-3059

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) is envisioned to link billions of diverse devices together. To safeguard privacy of user data, ensure authenticity of the data communicated between these devices, and guarantee their availability, robust authentication is needed. On the other hand, authentication techniques face several security challenges because IoT devices are resource-constrained (memory, battery, processor, etc.). To elaborate on this, we perform an extensive survey of authentication mechanisms in IoT, addressing the resource-constrained nature of devices, heterogeneity of networks, and prospective security challenges. We focus on five major classes of authentication protocols-namely, password-based, MAC-based, public identity-based, token-based, and biometrics-based protocols-and compare them based on communication and computation overhead, energy efficiency, scalability, and security. We also highlight the applicability of authentication mechanisms to four popular IoT platforms: RFID systems, smart grids, the Internet of Vehicles (IoV), and smart homes. Finally, we survey trending solutions such as implicit authentication using biometrics, blockchain-based identity management, and trusted computing. Beyond the qualitative comparison, this updated survey presents a formal, PRISMA-style review process including inclusion and exclusion criteria; a quantitative/information theoretic comparison of authentication classes (using Shannon entropy and confusion- matrix-derived metrics, the false acceptance rate, false rejection rate, equal error rate, and receiver operating characteristic reasoning); and discussion of higher-layer auth architectures including federated identity management, single sign-on (SSO), and OAuth/OpenID Connect that enable device-level protocols. Existing systematic reviews and auth schemes published since 2023 are also included to supplement previously compared device-centric works. Our analysis shows that token-based authentication currently offers the most balanced trade-off among security, scalability, and energy overhead for general-purpose IoT deployments, while biometric and implicit biometric schemes provide the strongest resistance to impersonation at higher computational cost and public-identity (asymmetric) schemes scale well but remain impractical for the most resource-constrained endpoints. In summary and to guide future work directly, the survey also outlines four promising directions towards which the community should further research: (i) hybrid schemes based on lightweight cryptography and behavioral or physiological biometrics; (ii) lightweight post-quantum authentication schemes, resistant to quantum computer attacks and deployable on constrained devices; (iii) continuous authentication and anomaly detection based on machine learning techniques; and (iv) federated and decentralized (blockchain-enabled) identity management solutions towards the minimization of single points of failure among heterogeneous IoT areas.

Indexed as

authentication protocolscyber threatsentropyfederated identityIoT authenticationlightweight cryptographyOAuthpost-quantum authenticationresource limitationsRFID systemsscalabilitysecurity riskssmart gridssmart homesvehicular networks

Identifiers

PMID42817459
PMCPMC13611003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.