Analysis of QKD multifactor authentication in online banking systems

Open access


In the present scenario internet usage and the online banking sectors are experiencing spectacular growth. The Internet is the fastest growing banking channel today, both in the fields of corporate and retail banking. Banks prefer their customers to use the online banking facility as it reduces their cost, primarily through labour costs. The online banking system addresses several emerging trends: customers’ demand for anytime, anywhere service, product time-to-market imperatives and increasingly complex back-office integration challenges. Online fraud has become major source of revenue for criminals all over the globe. The challenges that oppose online banking are the concerns of security and privacy of information. This has made detecting and preventing these activities a top priority for every major bank. The use of single-factor authentication, such as a user name and the password, has been inadequate for guarding against account fraud and identity theft, in sensitive online banking systems. In this paper we are going to analyze the QKD multifactor authentication in online banking systems

[1] A. Sharma and S.K. Lenka, “Authentication in online banking systems through quantum cryptography”, Int. J. Engineering and Technology 5, 2696-2700 (2013).

[2] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, “Authentication in an internet banking environment.” FFIEC 11, guidance.pdf (2008).

[3] PCI Data Security Standard, (2010).

[4] NIST Special Publication 800-63, (2011).

[5] A. Sharma and S.K. Lenka “Authentication in online banking systems: quantum cryptography perspective”, Int. J. Engineering and Technology 5, 561-564 (2014).

[6] D. Pointcheval and S. Zimmer, “Multi-factor authenticated key exchange”, in ACNS of LNCS 5037, 277-295 (2008).

[7] D. Stebila, P. Udupi, and S. Chang, “Multi-factor passwordauthenticated key exchange”, Eighth Australasian Information Security Conf. AISC 105, 56-66 (2010).

[8] C.H. Bennett, G. Bessette, G. Brassard, and L. Salvail, “Experimental quantum cryptography, advantages in cryptology”, Eurocrypt 90 Proc. 1, 351-366 (1990).

[9] C.H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: public key distribu-tion and coin tossing”, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing 1, 175-179 (1984).

[10] A. Sharma, Vibha Ojha, R.C. Belwal, and V. Goar “Quantum cryptography - the concept and challenges”, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Computer and Automation Engineering (ICCAE 2010) 1, 710-714 (2010).

[11] A. Sharma and V. Ojha, and V. Goar, “Security aspect of quantum key distribution”, Int. J. Computer Applications 2, 58-62 (2010).

[12] F. Nancy, “The final countdown - as the ffiec online banking authentication deadline looms, banks work through the confusion to select their solutions”, Bank Systems & Technology 43, 11 (2006).

[13] B.-Britz, “FFIEC rules making a difference - javelin study finds more banks using multifactor authentication”, Bank Systems & Technology 44, 17 (2007).

[14] C. Steve, “Read this before you take Multi-factor Plunge”, American Bankers Association, ABA Banking J. 98, 54-55 (2006).

[15] G.S. Osho, “How technology is breaking traditional barriers in the banking industry: evidence from financial management perspective”, Eur. J. Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 1, 15-21 (2008).

[16] Y.G Lee., “The influence of security and risk perception on the reuse of internet banking”, J. MIS Research 17, 77-93 (2007).

[17] A.M. Aladwani, “Online banking: a field study of drivers, development challenges, and expectations”, Int. J. Information Management 21, 213-225 (2001).

[18] J. Cleens, V. Dem, and J. Vandewalle, “On the security of today’s online electronic banking systems”, J. Computers & Security 21 (3), 257-269 (2002).

Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences

The Journal of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.156
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.238

CiteScore 2016: 1.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.457
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.239


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 150 150 11
PDF Downloads 64 64 6