arXiv subjects

Salem AlJanah

Publications and source records attributed to Salem AlJanah.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

A Security Risk Assessment Framework for AI-Powered Development Tools

AI-powered development tools are now widely used to generate code and assist developers with routine programming tasks. Although existing work has identified vulnerabilities in AI-generated code, security-oriented work is often focused on vulnerability detection rather than risk assessment. To address this gap, this paper presents a Security Risk Assessment Framework (SRF) to evaluate the security risks of AI-generated code. SRF combines threat modeling, security analysis, and a quantitative risk evaluation approach based on vulnerability criticality. The framework is applied to a set of security-relevant programming tasks, where code generated by multiple AI-powered development tools is analyzed using Bandit and Semgrep. The results show that AI-generated code can introduce security vulnerabilities across all evaluated tools. They also show that risk levels vary by task type, as input processing and file handling tasks showed higher risk, while simpler tasks remained low-risk. Differences between tools exist but are smaller than differences across task categories. Overall, SRF enables reproducible evaluation of AI-generated code and provides a practical framework for assessing its security implications.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

A Multi-Factor Homomorphic Encryption based Method for Authenticated Access to IoT Devices

Authentication is the first defence mechanism in many electronic systems, including Internet of Things (IoT) applications, as it is essential for other security services such as intrusion detection. As existing authentication solutions proposed for IoT environments do not provide multi-level authentication assurance, particularly for device-to-device authentication scenarios, we recently proposed the M2I (Multi-Factor Multi-Level and Interaction based Authentication) framework to facilitate multi-factor authentication of devices in device-to-device and device-to-multiDevice interactions. In this paper, we extend the framework to address group authentication. Two Many-to-One (M2O) protocols are proposed, the Hybrid Group Authentication and Key Acquisition (HGAKA) protocol and the Hybrid Group Access (HGA) protocol. The protocols use a combination of symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic primitives to facilitate multifactor group authentication. The informal analysis and formal security verification show that the protocols satisfy the desirable security requirements and are secure against authentication attacks.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2022

A Multi-factor Multi-level and Interaction based (M2I) Authentication Framework for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications

Existing authentication solutions proposed for Internet of Things (IoT) provide a single Level of Assurance (LoA) regardless of the sensitivity levels of the resources or interactions between IoT devices being protected. For effective (with adequate level of protection) and efficient (with as low overhead costs as possible) protections, it may be desirable to tailor the protection level in response to the sensitivity level of the resources, as a stronger protection level typically imposes a higher level of overheads costs. In this paper, we investigate how to facilitate multi-LoA authentication for IoT by proposing a multi-factor multi-level and interaction based (M2I) authentication framework. The framework implements LoA linked and interaction based authentication. Two interaction modes are investigated, P2P (Peer-to-Peer) and O2M (One-to-Many) via the design of two corresponding protocols. Evaluation results show that adopting the O2M interaction mode in authentication can cut communication cost significantly; compared with that of the Kerberos protocol, the O2M protocol reduces the communication cost by 42% ~ 45%. The protocols also introduce less computational cost. The P2P and O2M protocol, respectively, reduce the computational cost by 70% ~ 72% and 81% ~ 82% in comparison with that of Kerberos. Evaluation results also show that the two factor authentication option costs twice as much as that of the one-factor option.

cs.CR↗