An interconnected network of items with distinct addresses is referred to as the IoT.
Several factors put IoT systems at high risk of security. Due to their movement, these
devices are very dynamic and constantly change with clearly defined parameters. In terms
of
platforms, devices, and communication protocols, IoT systems are very heterogeneous. The
IoT is a part of the "Digital Environment (DE)" in which every device is connected to the
necessities it needs to function. Currently, it is integrated with vehicle's power
systems and
smart power system IoT-based sensors. DE refers to many sensors that collect data,
process
it, and then exchange it as needed with different nodes.
DE aims to convert traditional manual control systems to automatic intelligent
systems by connecting M2M, M2H, and H2H [1]. The IoT has gained global recognition and
significance as the core value for low-managed networks because of the proliferation of
devices. The IoT uses remote management to achieve the desired utility for the devices
[2].
Different areas in cloud domains were examined to highlight the significance of security
in
IoT elements [3]. The IoT expands connectivity to items that are not physically in our
physical domain. It has become essential in various IoT-connected social contexts, as in
Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Connectivity of IoT
Thus, even though each environment has different needs like communication, data
monitoring, information gathering, and data processing, the IoT has created connectivity
everywhere. Due to the large number of objects, it has huge amounts of data to handle
these
days, all this data is merged with the general communications that are our mobile-based
communications [4]. Mobile communication is based on many existing technologies to work
efficiently, since the IoT is the block of communication and it is mainly based on
wireless
communication, which is also based on all cellular generations that are 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G,
and
most importantly, 5G, as all discussed in [5]. These technologies are based on the fifth
generation.
The proposed home automation security is based on IoT protection, concerning the
regular layered building [9]. The security risks of an IoT are then examined for
equipment,
and approach to its parts [10]. The author portrays the safe calculations to be
implemented
for the safety of IoT customers. The ways of detecting and correcting primarily mobile
intruders are described as effective answers for safety in the IoT. Various protection
and
security issues, and their realistic countermeasures for cloud-based IoT systems have
been
discussed in [11] which look at important IoT protections, inconveniences, affirmation,
approval and wellness, as well as the need for lightweight cryptographic techniques,
malware,
and programming susceptibilities. The IoT era making an undertaking encoded secure
structure, with consistency requires execution to decode. However, to deal with
unmanageable utilization of data, the
security policies portray the scrambling and
unscrambling data techniques. The security viewpoint focuses on three layers related to
the
administration, correspondence, and application. So, the OWASP depicts the top ten
susceptibilities for the IoT infrastructure. These suspicious and shaky incorporate
interfaces
which are a part of the gadgets of IoT engineering.
Protocols like CoAP, MQTT, WPA, MD5, Hash, etc. have been introduced to make
communication secure and reliable. CoAP is the most widely used protocol in IoT
applications due to advantages such as its developer friendliness and lightweight design
in
terms of energy use and communication mobility, portability, and having a sufficient
number
of techniques to enhance data security and integrity. The security of data processing
protocols, particularly the CoAP protocol, is an essential problem since there are no
reliable
standards for safe systems
Aside from its utilization, the IoT serves human connectivity needs. IoT has become
a part of various applications of daily use including medical procedures in physician’s
facilities, distinguishing climate conditions and biochips which are now serving the
network's
particular needs [6] [7]. The future of IoT is significant because it has made its place
in the
market due to its usage [8]. To address safety issues within the IoT paradigm, much
effort
has been made recently. An element of these methodologies targets security problems at a
particular layer. An ongoing assessment classifies security issues regarding utility,
engineering, correspondence, and records.
Objectives:
This paper consists of security challenges that have
been faced by IoT networks and
security protocols with a new proposed framework. We used the AES algorithm in wireless
sensors for secure communication to examine its reliability and competitiveness.
Security Attacks on IoT Architecture:
IoT-based security
architecture can be categorized into three
types
• Systems
• Applications
• Network devices
All the above-mentioned types deal with the overall security challenges and it
requires security frameworks, application-related security issues, and communication
among
devices respectively. In Figure 2, we have discussed multiple AES attacks that are led
in the
direction of solutions with their possible destructions. An IoT network must have the
following capabilities to provide a secure platform to its users as discussed in [3].
Able to Recover:
IoT devices have lower-cost chipsets and
hardware, resulting in a higher failure risk.
Fault management is difficult, especially if these gadgets are dispersed across a vast
region in
physical and difficult-to-reach locations. This problem can be solved via fault
tolerance,
which attempts to make it able to operate in a way from occurring in the first place, or
through failure recovery approaches, which aim to recover from issues
Access Control:
The system administrator can control the access
of users. Each user should have
their ID and password to access only the relevant portion of the system or database or
the
user can access or manage the same multiple gadgets that are connected to the same IoT
system.
IoT Architecture:
The perception layer, network layer, and
application layer are the three levels that
incorporate the IoT structure. Many applications employ network support technologies as
the processing layer (for example network processing, computing technology, middleware
technology). The basic architecture of IoT consists of 3 layers [4] as under.
• Application Layer
• Network Layer
• Perception Layer
The first layer of architecture is known as the object layer which contains
sensors
and actuators to collect and communicate information with surroundings. This layer
digitizes
the information and passes it to other layers through a secure channel [12]. The second
Network layer is used for establishing connections among devices, servers, and smart
things.
It is also used for the transmission and processing of sensor data to their access
points [8].
The perception layer is closest to the user and is also known as the abstraction layer.
It
transfers the data generated by the object layer through various available technologies
like
RFID, 3G, Wi-Fi Bluetooth, etc. It is also responsible for processing the received data
and
making a decision based on the protocols which are a part of their systems, or their
connectivity with the system and actuators. It is responsible for providing customer
services
according to its system requirements [4].
IoT Convention and Benchmark:
The IoT structure is based on a
layered layout with fundamental
conventions. It
contains the guidelines and conventions for low-rate wireless personal area network
devices
for individuals (LR-WPANs). For LR-WPANs, the IEEE provides many standards that are
a part of 802.15. This standard is mostly used as low-level layers, including the
physical layer
and the MAC layer. The physical layer decides whether to conduct correspondence over
distant channels with unique repeat patterns and realities. The MAC layer warranty is
associated with the frameworks, which are concerned with channels and they can get rid of
jitters that cause the synchronization. Due to packet length, which is the MTU used by
the
IEEE 802.15 for existing communication of MTU with the old versions of IPs is now
converted for security to IPV6. Every instrument in IoT is distinct because it is
associated
with different organized addresses, but they are in the same contact with remote
connections. The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Loss Networks (RPL) is employed
to assist LoWPAN things so they can adequately aid in routing. The RPL calculates the
normal backing errors that are purpose-to-point activity and additionally the
correspondence
between multi-focuses and single points. Due to payload, the appliances structured in IoT
merge User Datagram Protocol (UDP) for fast connections, as it does not rely on
acknowledgment, making it viewed as more powerful and less cumbersome than other
protocols [1]. The LPWAN is an extended form of communication for ''things'' in IoT.
Instead of a traditional WAN, which needs the additional capability to figure out data
with
unknown destinations, the LPWAN utilizes the WAN protocol for communication among
different security protocols and devices, while supporting various data rates for
communication in a network when it reaches its higher connected scales. The weightless
protocol utilizes three distinctive standards for communication in LPWAN, namely
unidirectional, bi-directional, and
low-control modes. To ensure the classification of
information as it passes through many device hops, an appropriate encryption tool is
needed.
The information stored on a device is vulnerable to data breaches by exploiting terminals
present in an IoT due to a diverse mix of administrations, devices, and systems. Attacks
on
IoT devices have the potential to alter data, which might reduce the accuracy of the
information.
Table 1: Encryption techniques used in IoT-based Literature.
The above table elaborates on the encryption techniques that are used in referenced
papers, to enhance the IoT techniques from a security perspective. A lot of work has been
done for encryption techniques that are working on IoT.
Figure 2: AES
attack attributes.
Open Issues and Challenges:
When considering the development of
robust defensive measures against
cybersecurity hazards, it is important to acknowledge the unique characteristics and
constraints of the IoT. Disregarding these privacy and security considerations will yield
adverse consequences across several aspects of our lives, including the residential
dwellings
we inhabit, the automobiles we utilize for commuting, and even our well-being
For the association of every individual issue, the grouping of security
vulnerabilities
for IoT is done alongside. Embedded sensors are produced on a variety of heterogeneous
devices that are connected by a network in an IoT implementation. These IoT devices are
individually recognizable and are typically characterized by low power consumption,
little
memory, and constrained computational power. Such gateways are set up to link IoT devices
to the outside world so that IoT users can access data and services remotely. Radio
interference significantly affects performance and might affect transceiver
communication.
The gadgets used by the IoT should use the management key points. If there is any weak
point in the network area or any huge overhead securing sending or receiving, it may
expose
the network layer to a huge number of dangerous things.
IoT resolves the usefulness of scale node authentication. In addition, mobile
intelligent terminals will also play a significant role in the IoT perception layer.
Thus, its
security cannot be disregarded. To ensure the classification of information as it passes
through many device bounces, an appropriate encryption tool is needed. The information
stored on a device is defenseless against data protection by exchanging off terminals
that are
present in an IoT due to a diverse mix of administrations, devices, and systems. The IoT
devices are susceptible to attacks, which might reduce the accuracy of the information by
modifying data.
Low-level security:
The top security layer is connected to issues
in the physical and DTLS layers
connected to the hardware. The IoT has been used in every aspect of the
quickestdeveloping technology trends in recent years.
However, increasing security prevention
creates several potential connectors to refrain from victimization on IoT devices. It is
mentioned for IoT design engineers who want to safely implement these devices.
Challenges:
IoT has been facing many challenges as the size of
the network increases. One of the
biggest concerns in IoT networks is data handling, fault tolerance, energy efficiency,
reliable
communication protocols, and security [2].
Data Security:
Data transmission is only allowed on authentic
devices. Different mechanisms are
available to test the authenticity of devices [3]. Since each smart device is
anticipated to be
fed by several sensors, each of which produces vast amounts of data over time, not only a
huge number of smart objects but a huge amount of data will also be generated by each
device. It is therefore crucial to develop an effective defense that can secure these
data
streams.
Data Privacy:
Data privacy is an important part of any system.
So, any irrelevant person or any
other client cannot access or share the data of any client [3]. IoT privacy protection is
essential since there is a huge amount of information about a person's life by listening
to the
sensed data that their wearable technology and smart home gadgets transmit. It is
necessary
to create new processes that will make it more difficult for future fog devices to
locate smart
items. Furthermore, by collecting and analyzing the wireless signals that are transmitted
between the sensing items, it is now able to detect the presence of humans and track
their
position, their lip movement, and their heartbeats.
Lack of Common Standards:
There are many IoT-providing industries
and each has its standards. There is
a need
to establish some standard protocols. Several IoT common standards were developed to
assist in the analysis of the value and services that we can use for IoT solutions to
connect
various devices to the internet. The IoT is being pushed by several groups, including the
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), the World Wide Web
Consortium, EPC-Global, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
(W3C), as in [13].
IoT Design Challenge:
A conventional IoT setup includes a variety
of devices with embedded sensors that
are connected via a network. IoT devices are extremely well-defined and typically have
low
power, memory, and handling capacity. Doors are delivered to connect IoT devices outside
of the home to manually arrange information and services for IoT consumers. As discussed
in [16], some issues are related to data and privilege protection. Since the security of
IoT is a
very important aspect, Also, some brute force attacks and SQL injection operations can be
performed on IoT systems, e.g., smart lock systems, home automation systems, etc.
Novelty Statement:
To overcome all the above-mentioned issues, a
proposed scheme is presented to
provide a favorable solution. Encryption techniques are used e.g. AES and CoAP to secure
the data before sending it to the cloud and to make smart gadgets compatible, an
architecture is proposed that is connected with semantic web technologies like AES,
allowing communication between the CoAP and AES protocols, which are used for
semantic reasoning, to provide interoperability across communicating messages in the IoT.
Material and Method
CoAP is an HTTP-compatible, compact Internet Application Protocol. The GET,
PUT, POST, and DELETE methods are used to access it in microcontrollers, social
networks, and automation. REST is based on a client-server architecture that is
stateless and
applies to both clients and servers for web services. The proposed scheme gets the data
from
the edge node and implements the AES algorithm on the data, and after that encrypted data
wraps into CoAP and is transferred to the cloud. Now it is not easy for an attacker to
steal
data or perform SQL injection in the system. Since there are 10, 12, and 14 rounds in the
AES algorithm and every step is coherent with the next step, and then it converts data to
CoAP message format, CoAP will hide the encrypted data and create another layer of data
packets. By implementing AES and CoAP, IoT systems will be more secure and efficient, as
shown in Figure 3. There are other methods that we call access control systems [16].
However, it can’t provide sophisticated and better results due to the limited resources
of IoT
devices. To fulfill data confidentiality, the data encryption technique used in this
paper is
AES with CoAP to secure our system.
Figure 3:
Proposed Framework of AES
CoAP is currently one of the most well-liked approaches to IoT communication
since it offers a great degree of adaptability and is widely used. Its adaptability and
interoperability in terms of Internet of Things communication is the primary benefit it
offers. The CoAP protocol achieved the quickest time-to-completion, which we believe is
due to the reliable exponential back-off mechanism. This technique is helpful in settings
when there is a lot of messaging going on. When using the CoAP as an adjunct to the
traditional technique, as shown in Figure 3, and combining all of the phases of the AES,
it
was noticed that the inclusion of CoAP required a greater amount of data bits than the
traditional approach alone did. This was the case even though the inclusion of both
approaches resulted in the same level of security. As a result, the secure CoAP
protocol, in
its specified form, displays a reduction in the amount of power that is consumed in
proportion to the rise in the number of bits, as the graph in Figure 5 illustrates.
Figure 4: Flow
chart of Proposed Model.
Workflow of Model for AES Algorithm:
AES is a block cipher, and
it comes
in three versions: AES128, AES192, and
AES256. Each version, numeric part
represents the key length used in that
specific version. In this paper, we propose
AES128 with a key length of 128 bits and a
128-bit block size, and a total of 10 rounds
are required for the encryption and
decryption processes. AES takes input in a
128-bit block size and encrypts the data as
per the flow of Figure 4. The encrypted
data will be considered a payload for the
CoAP protocol, and then the network layer
of the edge devices will send the encrypted
payload to the server. The server receives
the payload from the CoAP protocol and
decrypts it before submitting it to the
database for permanent storage. As AES
uses a 128-bit key length for encryption, an
interception attack on the network is
countered. The 128-bit key length provides
sufficiently large key space, where Brute
Force attacks seem ineffective and
cryptanalysis is not possible as AES is more
secure against this attack with the
integration of CoAP.
Figure 5: AES and
CoAP power consumption of bits
If C.T. AES lines will change to a higher percentage then the power consumption
will increase of the AES-based devices. The X-axis represents the power consumption of
protocols and The axis represents the bit utilization percentage, 1-126 is the range of
power
consumptions of AES and COAP protocol.
Discussion
IoT devices have
constrained processing capabilities, memory, and storage space, so
they must run on a minimal amount of electricity. Due to the complexity of the encryption
and decryption procedures, security methods need strong encryption methods that are
suited
for devices with limited resources. These approaches are required for data transmission
that
is both speedy and secure. As a result, limited devices, such as actuators and sensors,
require
algorithms that are not resource-intensive but still provide enough security. Hash
functions
and the AES need to be used to protect the communication that takes place between these
devices and guarantee their integrity and confidentiality. The deployment of the CoAP
protocol in IoT networks introduces additional issues, as a result of the high number of
false
warnings that are produced by this protocol.
The provision of real-time authentication presents a problem, as does the extension
of the range of assaults detected, as well as the consideration of the influence of the
performance of IoT devices in terms of overhead, energy consumption, and accuracy. The
new era of Industry 4.0 and industrial IoT calls for the development of an innovative
intrusion detection approach to ensure the safety of all linked systems and services.
More
work needs to be done to build prevention methods for specific attacks that could be
launched against the environment of an IIoT system, such as a smart grid,
transportation, or
smart industrial. Creating a security protocol for the smart grid application that uses
less
computing and is optimized for devices with limited resources.
These devices are vulnerable and are unable to defend themselves against attacks.
For Internet of Things security, product researchers need to rethink how they develop
technologies, secure code, and hardware in areas such as physical security, network
security,
application security, and compliance. In this work, we focus on a significant side of the
Internet of Things that is related to Internet protocols. Even though research on these
protocols has been conducted and published, there is still a need for more in-depth
research
to complete studies and analyses on a variety of topics, most notably security, and
potential
remedies. One of the most important protocols that is considered to be an application
layer
protocol is called CoAP. The comparison was carried out by contrasting the approaches
taken, the goals of the studies, and the findings presented in each paper. Hosts that are
enabled with the CoAP protocol will play a crucial role in the Internet of Things (IoT).
In
addition, installations of CoAP-enabled devices in the real world necessitate the use of
security solutions. We evaluate and investigate the main IoT security vulnerabilities. We
briefly discuss the frameworks recommended in the literature for using IoT with many
security characteristics.
The study also distinguishes between the various subsequent algorithms used in the
field of IoT security and discusses the techniques used to improve IoT security.
Finally, a
framework for securing IoT-based systems, such as smart homes, smart lock systems, etc.,
has been proposed. The capability of CoAP to deal with multicast is communication and one
of its most notable characteristics. This capability enables an Initiator to send
requests to
numerous Responders at the same time. The lack of success of this work lies in the fact
that
we did not take into account the multicast functionality. The proposed model encrypts the
end user data after the encryption techniques of AES, as shown in Figure 4, this
encapsulates
the AES-encrypted data with CoAP.
There have been different implementations of CoAP depending upon the market's
interest in IoT technologies that have significantly expanded as a result. By
integrating AES
with CoAP, the sensitive data transmitted over the CoAP protocol can be securely
encrypted, ensuring confidentiality and data integrity. This integration allows for
secure
communication between devices and servers, protecting the transmitted data from
unauthorized access and enhancing the overall security architecture of CoAP-based
systems. This is because there is a high
probability that CoAP will affect the future of all applications.
IoT Systems for access control methods can also be used for this implementation, and
realworld systems and 3D simulations
will both be used in future work. The research reported in
this article is to secure the IoT and CoAP-based systems using AES.
Data security and data privacy are the most important challenges of the research that
need to be focused and implemented. The proposed model makes end-user data temper-free
and secure by applying the AES algorithm for encryption. Man-in-the-middle (MITM) and
modification attacks are addressed in this solution therefore, sensor data besides
end-user
data can safely be transferred. The AES standard makes it much more difficult to perform
cryptanalysis therefore online modification is also not possible unless the master key
is not
compromised. The generation of the key is also very complex procedure therefore, the
interceptor is not in a position to generate the valid master key. The strong avalanche
effect
of the AES algorithm makes it a prime choice for securing data. This study makes an
impact
on the proposed framework of various Internet of Things (IoT) communication solutions by
first presenting a comparison table that contrasts the properties of various IoT protocol
implementations. The majority of protocols already allow both TCP and UDP traffic, except
UDP.
The support for UDP is particularly relevant in future IoT environments because the
devices that will be there will become more mobile. The CoAP protocol is designed or
simplicity and operates over the UDP in IoT. This is used in Internet data transfer and
is
employed with restricted nodes and restricted networks in the Internet of Things.
Because of
this, communication protocols need to be developed in a way that takes into account the
varied topologies that may be present. Other important facets of the Internet of Things,
such as the discovery of data and devices, are still defined manually. The purpose of the
majority of the many solutions that have been created is to offer support between devices
and the edge in terms of providing end-to-end coverage for secure communication. To
summarize, from a design standpoint, AES and CoAP are the solutions that seem to provide
the most flexible design, integrated by design a set of characteristics that are
significant when
thinking about the possible evolution of IoT environments. Both of these solutions are
integrated by design to provide a set of features that are relevant when thinking about
the
potential evolution of IoT environments. In comparison to the other alternatives, it
offers
superior support in terms of communication within the plant, and as a result, it is the
communication standard that is universally accepted in settings involving industrial
automation.
The new technology of the Internet of Things enables physical network connectivity
and the processing capability of sensors and control systems, making it possible for
these
systems to generate, exchange, and consume data with minimal involvement from humans.
This survey has revealed a variety of security dangers at different layers of the
Internet of
Things (IoT), as well as security concerns and solutions about the overall environment
of the
Internet of Things (IoT). It has addressed the concerns of the security of the
application
layer, as well as the network layer, the middleware layer, and the communication
protocols.
In addition to this, it has presented an in-depth review of existing Internet of Things
solutions that are based on a variety of security techniques, such as cryptography and
IDSs.
The current state of IoT security has been reviewed, along with some of the potential
future research avenues that may be taken to increase IoT security levels. The results
of this
poll are going to be compiled into a plan for improving the safety of industrial uses of
the
Internet of Things. Because of it being that CoAP is a new protocol, it is not yet widely
studied in many different fields. It is currently being used in a variety of
applications, which
has led to an increase in the number of application-specific upgrades being carried out.
A
significant amount of investigation was conducted to improve CoAP in terms of security,
end-to-end authentication, streaming
services, and so on. The proposed framework uses a
single request to retrieve data. This helps in requesting messages by minimizing the
amount
of channel accesses that are required. As a result of this, the throughput performance
can
potentially be improved.
Conclusion
IoT
devices are susceptible and aren't able to protect themselves. We evaluate and
investigate the main IoT security vulnerabilities. We briefly discuss the frameworks
recommended in the literature for using IoT with many security characteristics. The study
also distinguishes between the various subsequent algorithms used in the field of IoT
security and discusses the techniques used to improve IoT security. Finally, a framework
for
securing IoT-based systems, such as smart homes, smart lock systems, etc., has been
proposed. The proposed model encrypts the end user data using the AES technique, as
shown in Figure 4, by encapsulating the encrypted data with CoAP. IoT Systems for access
control can also be used for this implementation, and real-world systems and 3D
simulations
will both use it in the future.
CoAP Constrained Application
Protocol
AES Advanced Encryption
Standard
WAN Wide Area Network
IoT Internet of things
M2M Machine to Machine
M2H Machine to human
H2H Human to human
MQTT Message Queuing
Telemetry Transport
LPWAN low-power wide area
netwo
Acknowledgment:Nil
Author's Contribution:Hira Beenish and Muhammad
Fahad Methodology. Iftikhar
Sami and Hira Beenish
Literature. Muhammad Fahad, Iftikhar
Sami and Hira Beenish
Writing. Muhammad Fahad
and Hira Beenish
Validation and
Investigation.
Conflict of Interest:The authors declare no
conflict of interest in
publishing this manuscript
in IJIST.
Project Details:Nil
Reference
[1] E. Akanksha, “Efficient framework to secure communication in IoT using
novel finite field encryption,” Adv.
Intell. Syst. Comput., vol. 860, pp. 1–11, 2019, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00184-1_1/COVER.
[2] K. Zhao and L. Ge, “A survey on the IoT security,” Proc. - 9th Int.
Conf. Comput. Intell. Secure. CIS 2013,
pp. 663–667, 2013, doi: 10.1109/CIS.2013.145.
[3] M. Dabbagh and A. Rayes, “IoT Security and Privacy,” Internet Things
from Hype to Real. Road to Digit.
Second Ed., pp. 211–238, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99516-8_8/COVER.
[4] M. Abdur, S. Habib, M. Ali, and S. Ullah, “Security Issues in the IoT
(IoT): A Comprehensive Study,” Int.
J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., vol. 8, no. 6, 2017, doi:10.14569/IJACSA.2017.080650.
[5] H. Beenish and M. Fahad, “5G a review on existing technologies,” 2019
2nd Int. Conf. Comput. Math. Eng.
Technol. iCoMET 2019, Mar. 2019, doi 10.1109/ICOMET.2019.8673407.
[6] P. Sethi and S. R. Sarangi, “IoT: Architectures, Protocols, and
Applications,” J.Electr. Comput. Eng., vol.
2017, 2017, doi: 10.1155/2017/9324035.
[7] S. Sicari, A. Rizzardi, and A. Coen-Porisini, “Security&privacy issues
and challenges in NoSQL databases,”
Comput. Networks, vol. 206, p. 108828, Apr. 2022, doi:10.1016/J.COMNET.2022.108828.
[8] S. Deshmukh and S. S. Sonavane, “Security protocols for IoT: A
survey,” 2017 Int. Conf. Nextgen Electron.
Technol. Silicon to Software, ICNETS2 2017, pp. 71–74, Oct. 2017, doi:
10.1109/ICNETS2.2017.8067900.
[9] S. Pirbhulal et al., “A Novel Secure IoT-Based Smart Home Automation
System Using a Wireless Sensor
Network,” Sensors 2017, Vol. 17, Page 69, vol. 17, no. 1, p.69, Dec. 2016, doi:
10.3390/S17010069.
[10] S. GÖRMÜŞ, H. AYDIN, and G. ULUTAŞ, “Security for the IoT: a survey
of existing mechanisms, protocols and
open research issues,” J. Fac. Eng. Archit. GAZI Univ., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1247–1272,
Dec. 2018,
doi:10.17341/GAZIMMFD.416406.
[11] K. Chen et al., “Internet-of-Things Security and Vulnerabilities:
Taxonomy, Challenges, and Practice,” J.
Hardw. Syst. Secur. 2018 22, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 97–110, May 2018, doi:
10.1007/S41635-017-0029-7.
[12] G. Mustafa, R. Ashraf, M. A. Mirza, A. Jamil, and Muhammad, “A review
of data security and cryptographic
techniques in IoT based devices,” ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser., Jun. 2018, doi:
10.1145/3231053.3231100.
[13] M. Elhoseny, K. Shankar, S. K. Lakshmanaprabu, A. Maseleno, and N.
Arunkumar, “Hybrid optimization with
cryptography encryption for medical image security in IoT,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol.
32, no. 15, pp. 10979–10993, Aug.
2020, doi: 10.1007/S00521-018-3801-X/METRICS.
[14] S. Sasirekha, S. Swamynathan, and S. Suganya, “An ECC-based algorithm
to handle secure communication
between heterogeneous IoT devices,” Lect. Notes Electr. Eng., vol. 443, pp. 351–362,
2018, doi:
10.1007/978-981-10-4765-7_37/COVER.
[15] J. J. Barriga A and S. G. Yoo, “Security over smart home automation
systems: A survey,” Smart Innov. Syst.
Technol., vol. 94, pp. 87–96, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-78605-6_7/COVER.
[16] C. Stergiou, K. E. Psannis, B. G. Kim, and B. Gupta, “Secure
integration of IoT and Cloud Computing,”
Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 78, pp. 964–975, Jan. 2018, doi:
10.1016/J.FUTURE.2016.11.031.
[17] D. Halabi, S. Hamdan, and S. Almajali, “Enhance the security in smart
home applications based on IOT-CoAP
protocol,” 6th Int. Conf. Digit. Information, Networking, Wirel. Commun. DINWC 2018, pp.
81–85, May 2018, doi:
10.1109/DINWC.2018.8357000.
[18] D. e. S. Agha, F. H. Khan, R. Shams, H. H. Rizvi, and F. Qazi, “A
Secure Crypto Base Authentication and
Communication Suite in Wireless Body Area Network (WBAN) for IoT Applications,” Wirel.
Pers. Commun., vol. 103, no. 4, pp.
2877– 2890, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1007/S11277-018-5968-Y/METRICS.
[19] B. Yilmaz and S. Özdemir, “Performance comparison of cryptographic
algorithms in IoT,” 26th IEEE Signal
Process. Commun. Appl. Conf. SIU 2018, pp. 1–4, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1109/SIU.2018.8404524.
[20] I. Sultan, B. J. Mir, and M. Tariq Banday, “Analysis and optimization
of advanced encryption standard for
the IoT,” 2020 7th Int. Conf. Signal Process. Integr. Networks, SPIN 2020, pp. 571–575,
Feb. 2020, doi:
10.1109/SPIN48934.2020.9071380.
