Assessment Specification Document Lightweight Authentication System for Micro:Bit IoT Device Module Assessment Table 1 summarizes the module assessment component and their respective ratios. Table 1: Module Assessment Weighting percentage between componentsComp A: 60Comp B: 40Comp A: E-portfolioElement WeightA.1 Individual E-portfolio24% (40% of the component, i.e., 24 out of 60)A.2 Group Work (Demo and E-portfolio)36% (60% of the component)Comp B:Element WeightGroup Presentation40 (100% of the component) Specification As shown in Table 1, this is related to component A.2of the module assessment and contributes to 36% of the module final mark. The aim is to implement and demonstrate a lightweight IoT device authentication system using a pair of Micro:bits. Those devices have been provided for each student by the University. This is a group assessment, in which you are going to work in groups of 3. However, each student will need to provide an individual submission on Blackboard(BB)thatillustratesthewholeworkandtheindividualcontribution.Further details on group arrangements will be discussed during the teaching sessions. Working on this assignment will help you to understand concepts of IoT security, programming for embedded systems and IoT devices using the C programming language. It will also help you develop communication and team working skills, as invaluable transferable skills in your future careers. For this task, you need to implement an authentication system that provides pin protected device access and encrypted data communication between two Micro:bits using either the simplified radio communication (uBit.radio), or the more advanced Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). This includes the following steps: Define 3 ‘commands’ and a pin code for each one that should be shared by the two devices. A ‘command’ here is defined as any action that can be performed using a micro:bit device, or simply launched by it and executed by another device (a computer connected to it). Using the first Micro:bit (sender), the user can select the command using the Micro:bit buttons and your system should be able to encrypt with AES (aes_enc) and transmit the command. The second (receiver) Micro:bit, should be able to receive the encrypted message, decrypt it (aes_dec), and then reveal the specified code and perform the intended “command”. More precisely, you should implement the following simple protocol: Sender Generate a random salt.Generate a data protection key, using the shared pin and salt, dpk=sha256(pin+salt). pin+salt here refer to any combination function of your choice of pin and salt (addition, string pending, etc.).Use AES to encrypted the command cipher=aes_enc(command, dpk).Send the (cipher, salt) to the receiver Micro:bit via radio or BLE. Receiver Receive cipher andsalt.Generate a data protection key, using the shared pin and salt, dpk=sha256(pin+salt).Decrypt the cipher, command=aes_dec(cipher, dpk).Run the command. The commands to be implemented are open to your choice, based on the functionality offered by the Micro:bit. You may use the Micro:bit LED display, or display on a computer screen using the device serial port. However, you are strongly encouraged to design more elaborate commands. It is important that any commands you implement can be demonstrated in the demo. Be creative. NB: A single AES block should be sufficient to fit your commands. In all cases, you are not asked to use any AES inter block dependency mode (AES-ECB is enough). Deliverables The deliverable of this part of the assessment is the group portfolio, which includes. A 5-minute video that illustrates all the functionality of your system. Please use a common cross- platform video format for this (e.g., MP4).All source code files should be provided, clearly organised and commented.A README document that describes your system, the commands, and how to run your solution (maximum 500 words). “My-contribution”document:A document including a very short paragraph (max 200 word), describing your individual contribution. This is the only component of the submission that differs between a group members. Otherwise, all members of a group should submit exactly the same documents for to this part of the assessment. Pleaseusestandardformats(.doc,text,or.pdf). NB: Although this is a group work, please notice you need to submit individually on BB. Please coordinate, be synchronized, and make sure all the group members submit exactly the same documents for this part (except “my-contribution” document) In case of any problem, please let us know. Please also notice it is very important you accurately submit the version of the code that you use in thedemo. Marking criteria Table 2 describes the different marking criteria. By functionality, it is meant to clearly show that the authentication system enables the sender to send the commands and the receiver to recognize and run them, no matter how simple the commands are. Your demo should demonstrate that upon launching the command from the sender, it will be received on the other side and the appropriate command is executed. It is obvious that the command should be encrypted and decrypted using the scheme given above. You may not be able to show all this encryption details in the demo, but your docs, source code, and presentation later on will reflect this. If you decide to go for more elaborated commands, you may associate it with a very simple display (at the receiver) upon the recognition, e.g., displaying the command number. This will allow you to maximize the points related to functionality independently from the progress on the elaborated commands. Table 2: Marking Criteria 0-45-89-1213-18Functionality: out 18 points.Hash code maybe successfully calculated at the sender but the message not encrypted.Both hash function and encryption successful, but not the communication.All done from the sender. Communication implemented but the receiver cannot decrypt the message.All the authentication process completed and the commands are executed.0-34-67-910-12Commands design: out of 12 points.Very elementary commands (e.g., simple display).One of the commands is more advanced.two of the commands are more advanced.All commands are advanced.0-23-45-6Internal Documentation: out of 6points.Little or Inconsistent documents.Internal documentation consistent and properly describing the solution.Outstanding Internal documentation.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS