Table 1 Comprehensive literature review

[61]

The scheme is vulnerable to reply, masquerade, DoS, impersonation attacks and unable to provide anonymity.

[47]

The protocol cannot provide anonymity and is vulnerable to insider attacks.

[46]

The scheme is vulnerable to offline password guessing, DoS, user impersonation attacks and cannot provide perfect forward secrecy and anonymity.

[62]

The scheme unable to provide anonymity and vulnerable to masquerade, DOS, reply, impersonation attacks.

[31]

The protocol cannot provide user untraceability and suffer from insider attacks.

[24]

The protocol is vulnerable to insider attacks, and smartcard lost attacks.

[22]

The scheme suffers from user impersonation attacks.

[20]

The protocol cannot provide user anonymity and vulnerable to impersonation attacks.

[41]

The scheme is vulnerable to offline password guessing, spoofing, impersonation attacks and unable to provide mutual authentication.

[42]

The scheme is unable to provide mutual authentication, perfect message authentication and vulnerable to offline password guessing, and de-synchronization attacks.

[40]

The scheme is vulnerable to de-synchronization, spoofing attacks, and unable to provide perfect message authentication.

[68]

The protocol is vulnerable to spoofing and de-synchronization attacks.

[69]

The scheme is vulnerable to spoofing attacks and unable to provide perfect message authentication.

[70]

The scheme is unable to provide perfect message authentication and vulnerable to de-synchronization, spoofing and impersonation attacks.

[71]

The protocol is vulnerable to offline password guessing attack, de-synchronization attacks and unable to provide mutual authentication.

[7]

The protocol is vulnerable to offline password guessing, de-synchronization attacks and unable to provide perfect forward secrecy.