Comparative Analysis of Digital Signature and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithms for the Validation of QR Code Vulnerabilities

2021

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1109/sds54264.2021.9732150
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Quick response (QR) codes are currently used ubiq-uitously. Their interaction protocol design is initially unsecured. It forces users to scan QR codes, which makes it harder to differentiate a genuine code from a malicious one. Intruders can change the original QR code and make it fake, which can lead to phishing websites that collect sensitive data. The interaction model can be improved and made more secure by adding some modifications to the backend side of the application. This paper addresses the vulnerabilities of QR codes and recommends improvements in security design. Furthermore, two state-of-the-art algorithms, Digital Signature (DS) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature (ECDS), are analytically compared to determine their strengths in QR code security.