An Empirical Study of VPN Options for Resource-Constrained IoT Devices

This study compares different VPN technologies for resource-constrained IoT devices, focusing on setup complexity, security, and performance metrics.

An Empirical Study of VPN Options for Resource-Constrained IoT Devices
BSC301: Applied Research Skills In ICT
ICT Project Plan
Semester 1, 2019
Group: David_1
Supervisor:
Dr David Murray
Group members:
Michael Schwenger 33087838
Daniel Alberts 32969931
Enrique Getino Reboso 33163823
Khalid Bin Walid Baeisa 32490882
Patrick Nkhata 33254798
Robert Edmonds 33110938
Abstract: In this study, we will be comparing the different VPN technologies for resource-
constrained IoT devices. We will be looking at: OpenVPN, ZeroTier, Tinc and Wireguard to
compare the subjective setup complexity and security, as well as the objective CPU, Memory
and packet overheads of each option.
1

Table of Contents
Summary of Project 3
Problem Statement 3
Literature Review 3
Research Aims and Research Questions 4
Research Design 5
Overview 5
Hardware Requirements 5
Software Requirements 5
Special Resources Required 5
Data Collection 6
Project Scope Management 7
Project Time Management 10
Discussion of the Work Breakdown Structure 12
Project Communications Management 13
Communications plan 13
Project information storage 17
Project Risk Management 18
Project Human Resources Management 19
Project roles and responsibilities 19
Procedures to resolve conflicts within the team 19
Conclusion 19
Appendices 20
Glossary 20
References 20
Team Contract 21
Team Roles 22
ICT301 Group Declaration Sheet 23
2

Summary of Project
The objective of this project is to state if the new VPN protocols are suitable to be used on
resource-constraint hardware from IoT devices. It will be compared against other VPN
products and it will be measured through metrics like response time and throughput. The
VPN servers will be hosted in the cloud, Microsoft Azure, while we locally run the clients
using Murdoch University’s resources.
Problem Statement
The number of IoT devices and security requirements, when it comes to network connections
is increasing. A large number of end users are willingly using VPN connections on a daily
basis, not only for business but also for private use. The need for securing these connections
grows side to side with the concern for privacy. These IoT devices need to enhance their
security in order to make them more attractive to the end user.
The actual VPN services have powerful tools and protocols to protect the security of the
connections. But on the other hand, the software to provide these levels of security are
resource intensive and require hardware that many of the IoT devices cannot provide, at this
moment, in order to run a VPN service smoothly.
Literature Review
IoT devices are more present than ever. All these devices are designed to be connected not
only to our home or office network but also, to public hotspots. The mobility that some of
them provide makes them really handy when it comes to access internet from anywhere in the
world, but, what about the security and the privacy of those connections?
It has been stated that these technologies are vulnerable to replay, man-in-the-middle and
denial-of-service attacks. To prevent man-in-the-middle attacks all communication between
the client and gateway should be over an encrypted VPN/IPsec tunnel. This solution is only
suitable for those IoT devices that have the necessary computational and storage capabilities
to gather the required data and run the necessary software, including VPN. Additionally
highly sensitive data should be encrypted within the tunnel, though this can take a
computational and speed hit on both the gateway and client device. Also, control system
gateways with sufficient compute power can also be used with modern IoT client devices to
help manage the security challenges of the remote access control (Michael W. Condry,
Catherine Blackadar Nelson, 2016).
Resource constraint in IOT devices are an important drawbacks for securing these network.
Hence, the challenge is to device such a solution that does not require huge computing
resources and computing power, but still delivers an efficient solution for device security.
Nowadays, the amount of IoT devices capable of running VPN software without having their
performance affected is still low. It is in this situation where lighter VPN protocols like
Wireguard can make a huge difference. WireGuard weights in at around 4,000 lines of code.
3

Compared to the 600,000 lines of code of OpenVPN + OpenSSL or the 400,000 lines of code
for XFRM+StrongSwan for an IPSEC VPN (Jim Salter, 2018).
So far, this new protocol (Wireguard) has been released for Linux, Android and iOS based
devices, although the developers warn anyone willing to install it, that this protocol is still
under development. Versions for Windows clients have not been released yet.
This is a significant challenge for making these services available for everyone as windows is
still the dominant and most preferred OS that is considered by most of the enterprises
(Schurgot, Shinberg and Greenwald 2015). However, in terms of flexibility and security,
developers and security experts often prefer Linux. Hence, the authors also suggest
considering Linux for better software options and customization, which is required when
designing security solutions for IOT devices, where resource constraint is an important issue.
Other protocols like IPsec or SSL also use to have some disadvantages. For IPsec, it was
noted that existing implementations were hardly compatible with each other and often
required some manual configuration. It was also stated that most IPsec solutions for setting up a
VPN required third-party hardware and/or software and on top of that, in order to access an IPsec
VPN, a given endpoint must had an IPsec client application installed (Chang et al. 2015).
In regards to SSL, almost every device in the world was equipped with the necessary software to
connect to a SSL VPN. This protocol would allow more precise access control (Shif et al. 2018).
In fact, operation at the transport layer would allow VPN tunnels to be allocated to specific
applications rather to an specific machine (or often to an entire LAN). This way, users on SSL
VPN connections can only access the applications that they are configured to access rather than
an entire network.
In an IoT environment, devices are often targeted due to the ease of exploiting these devices.
Hence, securing devices in an IoT environment is an important criterion. IoT devices often do not
integrate standard security protocols, which makes these vulnerable. Distributed denial of
services or DDoS is an important security threat for IoT network. As IoT devices do not have
standard protection of antivirus software due to the limitation in device architecture (Bonetto et
al. 2012). Hence, protection at the network level is required and this is where VPN has an
important role in securing IoT devices as it provides encryption of data that is communicated over
a network through these devices. As data is encrypted, it enhances the security of the system at
this makes it difficult for others to access this data without proper authorization.
When data is sent from particular IoT devices, it does not instantly send to the destination
devices. During this season, it is possible to interpret this data if it is not secured with proper
security measures. One recommended process that is suggested by this article is to ensure data
encryption throughout this entire season of data transfer. When an IoT device is connected with a
VPN network, each traffic that comes in and goes out of this device is secured and encrypted.
Hence, according to the authors, even if someone makes a try to interpret traffic of network, it is
not virtually possible for them.
Although IoT devices are secured when the network is connected with a VPN, it requires
effective configuration. Without the proper configuration of the IoT network with VPN, it is not
possible to ensure proper security that it offers. Hence, proper configuration according to the
authors is an important requirement when considering VPN for securing IoT devices with this
technology (Kuusijärvi et al. 2016). The authors have suggested a desktop client for managing
this configuration. The reason as suggested in the article is that it is easy to use and effective as
well.
For connecting the IoT network with VPN, the authors have suggested for VPN router. I fact the
authors have not recommended desktop client for this purpose as according to the authors desktop
clients have own set limitation and it often oversimplifies the configuration that affects the
4

security of VPN. One of the main benefits of connecting the IoT network through the VPN router
is that only configuration of the router with VPN is required. Every devices that are connected to
the network through this router is secured and protection of VPN id ensured for each device.
Hence this effective and cost-effective solution.
Although VPN router provides a way and cost-effective solution for IoT device configuration
with the network, the security of the devices is still dependent on the VPN service provider. Now
the organisation might find it difficult to select the appropriate vendor for VPN service, but the
organisation should always choose a VPN service provider based on their popularity in the
market and expertise in this field.
Some VPN service provider tracks the IP address of their client, which includes destination IP
address too. This means that such vendors have complete knowledge of client activity and this
information might be shared to third parties without the permission of the client. This will
definitely affect the security of the IoT devices. Hence, the authors suggest checking if VPN
providers have a strict measure regarding no-logs policy (Xu et al. 2014). If the vendor does not
ensure this, who is providing VPN services, it is better to avoid that vendor. Otherwise, there will
be an issue in securing these devices because when service provider compromise in security it is
extremely difficult to ensure security for these devices.
As IoT devices are still not standardized, security for these devices lacks proper infrastructure,
which makes the security of these devices a complex process to manage properly. As IoT devices
are being implemented into the various application from smart cart to smart city, challenges of
security are even significant and innovation is the only way to develop a robust and secured
infrastructure to deploy IoT devices properly for implementing various smart applications that
increased productivity and efficiency various activities in which these applications are considered
(Kharchenko et al. 2016). VPN might be considered as an effective solution as of now, but as
sophisticated procedures are being applied for cybercrime, it is also required to increase the
security of VPN devices.
There are various advantages of VPN. It helps to restrict illegal access to the network, which is
the first process to hack a network and illegally access network data (Jha and Sunil 2014).
Another advantage of VPN is that it is cost effective which is a major requirement, especially
when considering security applications in an organizational context.However, while selecting a
VPN for IoT security, it is important to analyze various drawbacks that are associated with this
technology. Although encryption of VPN provides security to IoT devices, it slows the rate of
data transfer over the network, which is a significant drawback of this technology. When there is
high traffic on the network, service is affected and the reliability of the system becomes an issue.
However, SSL technology only works for Web-based applications so they do not always provide
native access to all network resources (Ricardo Bonetto, Nicola Bui, Vishwas Lakkundi, Alexis
Olivereau, Alexandru Serbanati, Michele Rossi, 2012).These two protocols are widely used
nowadays on VPN services, but the amount of configuration and resources that both of them
require, may make them not suitable for resource-constrained devices.
In conclusion, IoT devices are being integrated into our lives as technology progresses. The
need for data protection on these devices is becoming a larger concern as the devices are
handling increasing amounts of sensitive data which could conflict with user privacy (Ali
and Ali 2018). Because of the low computational and storage power that these devices have,
WireGuard could be considered as the best available option for the near future. The protocol
follows the philosophy ‘the simpler, the better: simple public keys, simple network interface,
simple configuration, etc’. The contrast between WireGuard, OpenVPN/IPsec and Tinc is
really noticeable when it comes to high-resource hardware tests. Further testing needs to be
done to conclude how they might perform under low-resource hardware devices. However
the literature available about VPN services used in IoT devices is somewhat limited due to
the fact that the technology evolves quicker than the publishing of papers.
5

6

Research Aims and Research Questions
We are trying to find out whether WireGuard can be the next standard protocol for VPN
connections as it is a lighter protocol than the actual standard ones so it would not require as
much resources as the ones which are now being used.
- Is Wireguard actually able to reduce the resource consumption on devices it has been
implemented on in VPN connections?
- Is there a considerable difference in the performance of these protocols when
hardware isn’t a factor?
- What metrics are relevant to testing ones performance?
- How heavily does hardware throttling affect a VPNs performance?
- Are there any VPN solutions that are viable solutions to be placed on IoT devices?
Research Design
Overview
The research will be carried out using Microsoft Azure to facilitate the hosting of all the VPN
products’ servers. This provides a consistent, cloud based, target that won't be subject to
NAT, bandwidth shaping and other networking features that can skew the results of our tests.
But will also be far enough away, to provide usable results. The clients that we will use are
the Murdoch university lab computers as they have overly strong hardware and networking
facilities for the tests that we will be performing. The overperforming hardware allows for
any bottlenecks in the protocols to not be misconstrued as hardware limitations.
Hardware Requirements
The main physical requirement, to perform reasonable testing, is the geographic separation of
the clients and servers. This provides us with testing results that are not so small, that
comparisons will not be able to be made. The computers that will be used to run both servers
and clients, need to be over specd to not allow any bottlenecks that could hinder the results.
This allows us to test the protocols as fairly as possible as some VPN product requirements
are higher than others. After testing the protocols we will then test how well they perform in a
low resource device. This will be done at first with the use of throttling certain hardware
(CPU, RAM, etc) to simulate low resource IoT devices. After we have tested the protocols
and have true test data, we will then throttle the hardware to simulate low resource IoT
devices. This allows us to test how well different VPN products are able to deal with low
resources, as well as testing to see if those VPNs can even run on the hardware.
Another physical requirement for the stretch goal of testing these vpn technologies on
raspberry pies. This would allow for testing to be performed on the most similar hardware to
IoT devices. But this is a stretch goal and the likelihood of implementing this testing needs to
be evaluated at a later date.
7

Software Requirements
The primary software requirements to this project is the use of these VPN products.We will
be mainly testing Wireguard, OpenVPN and Tinc, with regards to time constraints. As most
of these products are free or have free versions available to the public, getting this software is
no challenge.
Due to wireguard being only supported on linux, we shall be testing all of these products on a
linux distribution. As most group members will be installing these servers to get familiar with
the products. No specific distribution has been chosen, as the differences in the distributions
can be another performance metric as well as create a check as to if the distribution is
throttling the protocol.
Special Resources Required
Microsoft Azure will be required to perform these tests, as it provides us with the ability to
host our servers in the cloud. This allows us to have response times that are more realistic and
not so small that you cannot give a comparison. As Microsoft Azure is proprietary, we will
have to pay for this service. But because we are registered students at Murdoch University,
we will have $30 of credit per person. The pricing of VMs on Azure range from $0.011/hour
to $0.173, which makes the $30 credit last about a month. Which provides plenty of testing
time.
The last special resource, which is for the stretch goal, is the use of a raspberry pie. This
allows us to test the protocols on specific hardware that is the closest to IoT devices. They
will be resourced through Dr David Murray (Supervisor) but this is however a stretch goal
and will be determined with time and how well the testing on Azure goes.
Data Collection
The methods of data collection as well as the data that we will collecting will likely change.
This is due to how difficult it is to provide a one-to-one comparison of these VPN products.
As some use different protocols, more or less extra features and even the code/runtime being
able to be optimized in a short period of time. Due to all of these variables the methods and
tools, that will be utilized to collect data, will be subject to change.
The nature of the data collected will be performance metrics of the servers and clients as the
connections are made and data is transferred. The two initial baseline metrics will be the
initial connection response time as well as throughput that each protocol can provide. These
tests will be performed with hardware that has an abundance of resources available to them.
After this we will look at hardware utilization, CPU cycles and other metrics.Finally, with
each VPNs’ baseline performance maped, we will then test how low resource hardware
affects each protocols performance. Some of the questions we hope to answer are. Is there a
considerable difference in the performance of these protocols when hardware isn’t a factor?
What metrics are relevant to testing ones performance? How heavily does hardware throttling
affect a VPNs performance? Are there any VPN solutions that are viable solutions to be
placed on IoT devices?
8

Project Scope Management
Project Title: An empirical study of VPN options for resource-constrained IoT devices
Date: 18/03/2019 Prepared by: Michael Schwenger
Project Justification:
The intention of this project is to discover if the VPN protocol “Wireguard” is better than
other contemporary options in regards to security, set up, and resource management. The
research will be considered without bias for any given protocol and will be collated
accordingly.
Deliverables - Characteristics and Requirements
1. Data on the characteristics and comparisons between VPNs
2. Data and conjecture on various VPNs, their uses and their effectiveness in various
settings.
3. Data on resource usage, response time and throughput for each individual VPN
Project Boundary:
- Proprietary and unpopular VPNs will not be studied
- Codebase size and algorithms
- Costs for hardware and software setups
9

Constraints and Assumptions:
- We are constrained by hardware and software limits on student budgets
- We can not use VPNs that cost money or are outside of our capabilities to
effectively use and test
10

Project Time Management
Gantt Chart of David_1 Project
The project starts on March 22nd, Approved on February 25th by our supervisor David Murray. Activities of the project will be achieved during
regularly group meeting on every Tuesday and Friday. All tasks will be completed on May the 17th. The project will be handed in before the
submission date
11

Network Diagram of David_1 Project
12

Discussion of the Work Breakdown Structure
The Design and Planning Phase
Planning and designing phase is the teams priority in WBS , the team will work together to
produce a well breakdown structure to guide them on how the project will run. A well
organised research design will be approved by the team members to deliver the best results
for the project. Report and reviewal of the project will be done once every team member is
satisfied with the outcome of the research.
Implementation Phase
This stage the team will have to initiate a series of test specified in the time frame. The work
will include installing VPN software packages, verifying functionality and configuration of
the system in order to research the best suitable software and hardware specifications that are
required. After all the necessarily installation are performed, testing will begin.
Recording phase
The phase with lesser period of time given in the WBS, the reason being is that the team
members will only need to record and collate all results by protocol. Then results will be
verified and if any further testing is required the team members will have to collaborate to
find the best solution possible.
Project Closure
The project closure in our time frame will involve handling over deliverables, documentation,
analysing and contrasting results with pre-test predictions and making sure all findings are
documented in the final report.
13

Project Communications Management
In order to find the answers of our research questions we will communicate and take
interview of or collect data from the following stakeholders:
- Software developers and designers: they are the ones involved in the development and
implementation of the software.
- Network professionals: they will be the ones who will have to make sure that the VPN
services are secure enough.
- Private users: having IoT devices at home dealing with sensitive data which if leaks,
conflicts with one’s privacy.
- Project coordinator: interested in the success of the research as well as the data it produces.
- Team members: directly affects the unit grade and the learning of the insights of a research
project.
Communications plan
We will use a number of tools to maintain communication and dissemination of information
among the group members. Currently we are using the following tools for example:
-Facebook Messenger
-Google Drive documents and folders
-Periodic meetings with the project supervisor on Tuesdays 10:30 am
We also use university email services for having especially formal communication. All the
correspondence through these digital medium is stored for future reference. However, as most
of the meeting contacts are done online, it would be really difficult to measure and account
the amount of minutes spent on meetings as we are constantly communicating about different
matters of the project. These are the minutes of the meetings with the project supervisor, Dr
David Murray.
14

Meeting Number: Meeting 1
Date of Meeting: 5/3/2019 Time:
Minutes:
10:30 am - 11 am
30 mins
Meeting
Facilitator:
Dr David Murray Location: David’s Office 245.01.
Topics covered in Meeting:
-Discussing project details and scope
-The use of Microsoft Azure to host servers
-The difficulties that will arise with the implementation of the project
-Homework: Look into each VPN products and getting familiar with them, with an
emphasis on WireGuard because it is the newest VPN protocol. But also fits well into the
IoT device environment
Minutes of meetings taken by:
Name: Daniel Alberts
Signature: DBA
Date: 5/3/2019
15

Meeting Number: Meeting 2
Date of Meeting: 12/3/2019 Time:
Minutes:
10:30 am – 11:15 am
45 mins
Meeting
Facilitator:
Dr David Murray Location: David’s Office 245.01.
Topics covered in Meeting:
-Feedback from homework: Needed more emphasis on other VPN products (Tinc,
ZeroTier). Use a better vocabular, i.e. instead of ping use latency.
-General discussion of where the project is heading
-Brief discussion on the issues that will arise through testing and how testing the different
VPN products will be challenging.
Minutes of meetings taken by:
Name: Daniel Alberts
Signature: DBA
Date: 12/3/2019
16

Meeting Number: Meeting 3
Date of Meeting: 19/3/2019 Time:
Minutes:
10:30 am – 10:45 am
15 mins
Meeting
Facilitator:
Dr David Murray Location: David’s Office 245.01.
Topics covered in Meeting:
-Discussion on how the Project Plan assignment was going
-Make sure the VPNs are installed and ready for testing by next meeting
Minutes of meetings taken by:
Name: Daniel Alberts
Signature: DBA
Date: 19/3/2019
17

Project information storage
Documentation will be stored in Google Drive so all the members of the project can
access to it anytime anywhere. We maintain version tracking through the naming of
the files. Version number and as well the person who makes the last changes will be
reflected in the file name as suffixes. We are also taking external backups of the
documents and other resources in external drives.
18

Project Risk Management
Risk Likelihood Impact Strategy
Hardware failure Unlikely to
likely
loss of work
(High)
Multiple backups
Financial
resources
running low/out
Unlikely to
likely
Loss of work,
reduction in
quality of work
(Medium)
Focus on cheap
affordable solutions
Technological
changes
Likely Loss of work
(Medium)
Include extra
information as fast
as possible
Team
membership
changes
Unlikely Loss of work
(Low to
medium)
Re-organise
workload amongst
remaining group or
consult supervisors.
Performance
testing errors
Unlikely Loss of
work/Incorrect
data (Medium)
Re-do work or find a
work around for the
issue
19

Project Human Resources Management
Project roles and responsibilities
- All the members of the project have the same role: wildcard. All of the
members can fit in any role as no one has any real specification.
- Due to our extensive communication, it is easy for members to take on roles as
needed.
Procedures to resolve conflicts within the team
- If the conflict can not be solved via talks between group members the
supervisor will then be contacted to resolve the issue.
- If the issue can not be resolved it will be taken to the course coordinator for
resolution.
Conclusion
This research document is designed to apply structure to David 1’s group study into
the application of VPNs on IoT devices. Contained within are the procedures,
research questions and timetable we will be following in the completion of this task.
A literature review into the nature of IoT devices and VPNs has been included to
provide context for the current landscape of VPN technologies. Further testing and
implementation of different VPN protocols will be done in the next stages of the
research as time permits.
20

Appendices
Glossary
- IoT: Short for Internet of Things, small devices, usually with low resources, that
connect to the internet.
- VPN: Short for Virtual Private Network, and is a logical tunnel between two devices,
with the data being encrypted.
- Throughput: The amount of data that the device is capable of sending out.
- Storage: The amount of data a device can store, either temporarily or permanently.
- Latency: Total amount of time it takes to respond to a request for service.
- RAM: is an acronym for random access memory, a type of computer memory that
can be accessed randomly; that is, any byte of memory can be accessed without
touching the preceding bytes.
- NAT: translates the IP addresses of computers in a local network to a single IP
address. This address is often used by the router that connects the computers to the
Internet.
- IPsec: is a set of protocols that provides security for Internet Protocol. It can use
cryptography to provide security. IPsec can be used for the setting up of virtual
private networks (VPNs) in a secure manner. Also known as IP Security.
- SSL: (Secure Sockets Layer) is the standard security technology for establishing an
encrypted link between a web server and a browser.
- VM: An emulation of a computer system and computer hardware within a computer
system.
References
Michael W. Condry, Catherine Blackadar Nelson, “Using Smart Edge IoT Devices for Safer,
Rapid Response With Industry IoT Control Operations” IEEE Xplore, March 2016. [Online].
Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7423655
Jim Salter, “WireGuard VPN review: A new type of VPN offers serious advantages”, August
2019. [Online]. Available: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/wireguard-vpn-review-
fast-connections-amaze-but-windows-support-needs-to-happen/
Ricardo Bonetto, Nicola Bui, Vishwas Lakkundi, Alexis Olivereau, Alexandru Serbanati,
Michele Rossi, “Secure Communication for Smart IoT Objects: Protocol Stacks, Use Cases
and Practical Examples”. June 2012 [Online]. Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6263790
21

Schurgot, Mary R., David A. Shinberg, and Lloyd G. Greenwald. "Experiments with security
and privacy in IoT networks." In 2015 IEEE 16th International Symposium on A World of
Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), pp. 1-6. IEEE, 2015.
Bonetto, Riccardo, Nicola Bui, Vishwas Lakkundi, Alexis Olivereau, Alexandru Serbanati,
and Michele Rossi. "Secure communication for smart IoT objects: Protocol stacks, use cases
and practical examples." In 2012 IEEE international symposium on a world of wireless,
mobile and multimedia networks (WoWMoM), pp. 1-7. IEEE, 2012.
Kuusijärvi, J., Savola, R., Savolainen, P. and Evesti, A., 2016, December. Mitigating IoT
security threats with a trusted Network element. In 2016 11th International Conference for
Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST) (pp. 260-265). IEEE.
Xu, Teng, James B. Wendt, and Miodrag Potkonjak. "Security of IoT systems: Design
challenges and opportunities." In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM International
Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 417-423. IEEE Press, 2014.
Kharchenko, Vyacheslav, Maryna Kolisnyk, Iryna Piskachova, and Nikolaos Bardis.
"Reliability and security issues for IoT-based smart business center: architecture and Markov
model." In 2016 Third International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sciences
and in Industry (MCSI), pp. 313-318. IEEE, 2016.
Jha, Ajit, and M. C. Sunil. "Security considerations for Internet of Things." L&T Technology
Services (2014).
Ali, Bako, and Ali Awad. "Cyber and physical security vulnerability assessment for IoT-
based smart homes." Sensors 18, no. 3 (2018): 817.
Chang, Chih-Yung, Chin-Hwa Kuo, Jian-Cheng Chen, and Tzu-Chia Wang. "Design and
implementation of an IoT access point for smart home." Applied Sciences 5, no. 4 (2015):
1882-1903.
Shif, Linda, Fei Wang, and Chung-Homg Lung. "Improvement of security and scalability for
IoT network using SD-VPN." In NOMS 2018-2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and
Management Symposium, pp. 1-5. IEEE, 2018.
22

Team Contract
Team Name: David_1 Date: 15/03/2019
GOALS: What are our team goals for this project?
What do we want to accomplish? What skills do we want to develop or refine?
-To test VPN products against each other, with an emphasis on their performance.
-We want to develop a better understanding of the current VPN landscape
-To finish it to a standard that satisfies us
EXPECTATIONS: What do we expect of one another regarding attendance at
meetings, participation, frequency of communication, the quality of work, etc.?
We expect the best from every group member
POLICIES & PROCEDURES: What rules can we agree on to help us meet our
goals and expectations?
Everyone must do their part, asking for help when it can not be completed.
CONSEQUENCES: How will we address non-performance regarding these goals,
expectations, policies and procedures?
Expulsion if the infringement is severe enough otherwise a request to dock individuals
marks in degree to the infringement
We share these goals and expectations, and agree to these policies, procedures, and
consequences.
Michael Schwenger
Daniel Alberts
Enrique Getino Reboso
Khalid Bin Walid Baeisa
Patrick Nkhata
Robert Edmond
23

Team Roles
Student Name Educational
Background and
Academic Major
General
Knowledge
of Course
Content
Specialized
Knowledge
Skills Major
Achievements
Hobbies
Enrique
Getino Reboso
Tourism Degree
in Spain
Internetworking &
Network Security
Previous
experience
on VPN
from
ICT369
Systems
Administrator
Tech Support
SLA
P&L
Presenting,
writing,
Wildcard
Being almost
40 and no
mortgages, no
kids, no loans,
no baggage.
Motorbike
riding,
reading,
gaming,
fishing…
Michael Karl
Schwenger
Internetworking &
Network Security
Little to no
knowledge
of subject
material
Cisco IOS
Network
security
Can fulfill any
of the above
roles as
needed by
group
Surviving to 20
years of age ;)
Reading
and gaming
Daniel Alberts
Internetworking &
Network Security
Have
previous
experience/k
nowledge
implementin
g and
working
with them.
But
superficial
compared to
a report on
them.
Cisco IOS
Network
Security
Devil’s
advocate,
Prioritiser,
Recorder
Will be an
undergrad
degree
Running,
Reading,
Gaming
Robert
Edmonds
Business Law
Degree; Studying
Internetworking &
Network Security
+ Cyber Forensics
(Double Major)
Anecdotal
exposure via
public
forums and
news reports
on sites like
Techcrunch
Cisco IOS
Network
Security
Troubleshootin
g and Support
Touchtyping,
writing
Surviving to 30
years of age.
Gaming,
exercise,
Formula 1
Khalid Bin
Walid Baeisa
Internetworking &
Network Security
have a bit of
knowledge
on math
Cisco IOS
Network
Security
writing &
documentation
being 7 years
away from my
family
swimming,
playing
soccer &
reading
stories
Patrick Nkhata
Internetworking &
Network Security
Previous
experience
on CCNA
from my
associate
degree at
TAFE
Cisco IOS
Network
Security
Presenting,
reading and
writing
Great to be
enrolled in this
course
( Murdoch)
Watching
soccer,
Reading,
24

ICT301 Group Declaration Sheet
Assignment/Project Name: An Empirical Study of VPN Options for Resource-constrained
IoT Devices
Group Name: David_1
Member’s
Names
Brief Description of Tasks Member’s
contribution
to the total
work (%)
Date signed Signature
Enrique Getino
Reboso
Literature review + helping others
with their assigned areas and general
document design
16% 25/03/2019 EGR
Daniel Alberts Research design + helping others
with their assigned areas and general
document design
16% 25/03/2019 DA
Michael
Schwenger
Scope management, Risk
management, conclusion + helping
others with their assigned areas and
general document design
16% 25/03/2019 MS
Robert
Edmonds
Scope management + helping others
with their assigned areas and general
document design
16% 25/03/2019 RE
Khalid Bin
Walid Baeisa
Project communications
management + helping others with
their assigned areas and general
document design
16% 25/03/2019 KBWB
Patrick Nkhata Project time management + helping
others with their assigned areas and
general document design
16% 25/03/2019 PN
Total
percentage
(should total to
100% if all
work is
100%
25