Authentication System for IoMT FIGURE 4. Characteristics of 64-bit PUF. (a) Uniqueness. (b) Randomness. (c) Inter-HD of 64-bit PUF. TABLE 2. Computational time at MD, neighbor MD, and CS. Item Phase-1 Phase-2 Phase-3 Phase-4 Total 0.36 0.74 2.86 0.87 4.83 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.60 0.00 0.09 0.69 MD (ms) CS (ms) Neighbor MD (ms) Total (ms) 0.00 0.36 1.34 3.32 0.96 5.98 algorithm is checked by Big O notation, and the complexity of each side is O(1). Security Analysis of NAHAP Mutual authentication processwill be evaluated by Burrows, Abadi, andNeedham(BAN) logic6,18 Notations The basic notations and corresponding descriptions are illustrated to identify the significance of each interference that is postulated in the BAN logic. The following constructs were used. P believes X (P j X) : The formula X is true and P believes X or P would be entitled to believe X. P sees X(P3X): P has received a message containingX, it can readand repeat themessage orX. Ponce sentX(Pj X): The entity Ponce sent a message, which contains the statement X but TABLE 3. Communication overhead. Item Phase-1 Phase-2 Phase-3 Phase-4 Total Communication overhead (bytes) 17 37*3=111 17*3=51 14 193 it is not possible to identify whether the transmission of the message in the current run of the protocol or it was transmitted a long time ago. However, it is known that PbelievesXfor the current execution time. P controls X (P j) X): The entity P has complete jurisdiction over the statement X and this complete control over X provides trustworthiness. Fresh X [#(X)]: The message X is considered to be fresh here and it was not processed before the current run of the protocol. P has complete control over X [P 3 )(X)]: This occurs when P has complete control over the method X and it is applied when the authority will be recommended to apply. Secret key between P and Q (P X resents that the secret key or formula X is only known to Pand Q. Ð Q): This repFIGURE 5. NAHAP message flow. 112 IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine