Challenges of the Internet of Things (IoT) in Term of Security

This project discusses the challenges faced by the Internet of Things (IoT) in terms of security. It categorizes the security issues into different layers and proposes solutions. The project analyzes four applications of IoT to evaluate the issues and present them with proper mitigation strategies. The research project uses secondary data analysis technique to show the security challenges of IoT in different fields of application. The issues have been elaborated in the results and discussion to focus on the current and future challenges of IoT.

Running head: COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Challenges of the Internet of Things (IoT) in Term of Security
MSc Computer Network Security
Supervisor:
Dr. Dhiya Al-jumeily
Done by:
SALEH A. ALFAHAD
(777730)
[e-mail]

1COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank our supervisor Dr. Dhiya Al-jumeily who gave me this golden opportunity
of doing this wonderful project. I would also like to express my special thanks to him to for his
provision and guidance during the entire project. I would also like to extend my thanks to my
classmates who have helped me to the conduct this research project successfully.

2COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Abstract
This focus of this project is on demonstrating the challenges being faced in Internet of Things
(IoT) in terms of security. The discussions as well as analysis are executed out in this project to
illustrate on the security issues within IoT and some solutions have also been proposed. The
security issues have been clearly stated categorizing them into different layers.
Further, analysis has been done on four applications of IoT to evaluate the issues and present
them so that those can be solved with proper mitigation strategies. In this research project,
secondary data analysis technique has been used which shows the security challenges of IoT in
four different fields of application. The issues have been elaborated in the results and discussion
to focus on the current and future challenges of IoT.
Finally, in the last chapter, a conclusion has been drawn to the study to present the outcomes that
are achieved from the project. Moreover, some recommendations have been provided so that
proper mechanisms can be implemented to prevent the challenges of IoT in terms of security.

3COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................6
1.1 Aims and Objectives of the project.......................................................................................7
1. Main Objective....................................................................................................................7
2. Specific Objectives..............................................................................................................7
1.2 Project Plan............................................................................................................................7
2. Literature Review......................................................................................................................10
2.1 Internet of Things Architecture...........................................................................................10
2.2 Internet of Things Layers.....................................................................................................11
1. Perception layer.................................................................................................................12
2. Network layer....................................................................................................................12
3. Application layer...............................................................................................................13
2.3 IoT Applications..................................................................................................................13
2.4 Security Challenges in IoT Layers......................................................................................15
1. Perception Layer................................................................................................................15
2. Network Layer...................................................................................................................16
3. Application Layer..............................................................................................................17
2.5 Threats Facing IoT...............................................................................................................17
2.6 The fundamental differences between Internet of things and traditional Internet...............18
2.7 Security Directions for IoT layers.......................................................................................20

4COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
3. Methodology..............................................................................................................................23
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................23
3.2 Research Philosophy............................................................................................................23
3.3 Research Approach..............................................................................................................25
3.4 Research Design..................................................................................................................26
3.5 Data Collection Method.......................................................................................................27
1. Data sources.......................................................................................................................27
2. Data techniques..................................................................................................................28
3. Data Analysis Method.......................................................................................................29
3.6 Ethical Consideration...........................................................................................................29
3.7 Research Limitation.............................................................................................................30
3.8 Summary..............................................................................................................................31
4. Findings and Analysis................................................................................................................32
4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................32
4.2 Analysis...............................................................................................................................32
1. Analyzing the Fitbit Health Tracker..................................................................................33
2. Analyzing the BMW Connected Drive System for Automobiles.....................................36
3. Analysis of the HomeEasy Protocol for Home Automation.............................................37
4. Analyzing the Eye-Fi Internet-Connected SD-Card for Digital Cameras.........................41
4.3 Summary..............................................................................................................................43

5COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
5. Results and Discussion..............................................................................................................45
5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................45
5.2 Discussion............................................................................................................................45
1. Constraints.........................................................................................................................47
2. Current challenges.............................................................................................................49
3. Future challenges...............................................................................................................53
5.3 Summary..............................................................................................................................54
6. Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................56
6.1 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................56
6.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................58
References......................................................................................................................................61
Appendix – Practical Work...........................................................................................................77
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Interact the IoT with different things...............................................................................7
Figure 2: Generic service-oriented architecture for IoT................................................................11
Figure 3: Types of Research Philosophy.......................................................................................24
Figure 4: Fitbit activity tracker......................................................................................................34
Figure 5: BMW Connected Drive Application..............................................................................36
Figure 6: HomeEasy protocol packet format and security exploit state diagram..........................39
Figure 7: Microcontroller used for HomeEasy protocol packet transmission...............................40
Figure 8: The EyeFi Mobi SD card...............................................................................................41
Figure 9: Key setup procedure for EyeFi......................................................................................42

6COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
1. Introduction
The term “Internet of Things” was first used in 1999 by Kevin Ashton- former MIT’s
Auto-ID centre director in his Procter and Gamble presentation (Mario, 2016). Since then, the
term is so popular, an event that made the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to use
the Internet of things in 2006 Internet Report (Mario, 2016). Internet of things (IoT), is a
convenient way of linking devices with each other. It connects numerous objects within a single
source of the network that assists in the completion of tasks requiring such connectivity. The
connection can be made remotely across the present network infrastructure, enabling the
integration of the physical world into computerized systems. In effect, it results in enhanced
efficiency, accuracy as well as minimized human intervention. The application of IoT is broad,
as such the devices connected to this system can be in cities, houses, and factories and even in
schools (Floarea et al., 2017). According to Zhang et al. (2011), Internet of things is an
interconnected network infrastructure of self-configured and intelligent nodes (things), which
interact with each other unconditionally. Studies on this matter estimate that the IoT will consist
of between 50 to 100 billion objects, shortly following the current trend, where, in 2017, 31%
increment of these devices was recorded (Sedrati and Mezrioui, 2017). None could predict these
figures 20 years back, therefore, if this is something to go with, the future of the Internet is
almost impossible to predict.

7COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Figure 1: Interact the IoT with different things
(Source: Iotamy.com., 2018)
1.1 Aims and Objectives of the project
1. Main Objective
The main aim of this project is to assess the existing IoT security goals and challenges to
establish more advanced ways of protecting the system against any threat.
2. Specific Objectives
i. To identify the ways through which the Internet of things protects the collected data.
ii. To identify the differences between Internet of things and the traditional Internet.
iii. To identify the security challenges in the Internet of things.
1.2 Project Plan
Planning is an essential part of any successful study. It enables the researcher to
accomplish various tasks within the stipulated period. Besides, it allows for evaluation and
improvement in areas of less strength to achieve the set objectives. Research is an expensive

8COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
exercise, and therefore, the need for budgeting is necessary, and this is achievable through
planning. For this particular research, the tasks are divided into six parts. The first part of this
project is to develop the project proposal will be submitted to the supervisor for assessment.
After approval and relevant comments put into consideration, the second step will be to
commence the project by developing a comprehensive background of the study and the research
questions. The third step is to write a literature review part, and this involves rewriting the
existing literature on the topic. In this section, the study will focus on creating understanding
about IoT, its risks as well as its applications. The fourth part will be data collection, and this
entails gathering relevant data as per the objectives. Following this step is data analysis, and this
involves analyzing the collected data by the use of tools like SSP or Microsoft Excel. The last
part is the completion of the project through producing the final version of the dissertation as
shown in table one. In this part, all the sections of the study including the discussion and the
recommendation are included in the paper and a comprehensive review done before the
presentation. The period for every event of the project is in table one, and for the project to be
complete, it will take a maximum of seven months.
Project Step Start
Date
End Date # of
Days
Prepare project proposal 1/2/2018 10/2/2018 10 days
Commence the project introduction/Background and
Research Questions
11/2/2018 13/3/2018 31 days
Writing Literature review 14/3/2018 13/4/2018 31 days
Collection of data
14/4/2018 24/5/2018 40 days
Analysis of the data 25/5/2018 05/7/2018 40 days

9COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Complete final version of dissertation 06/7/2018 25/8/2018 49 days
Table 1: Project Time Plan

10COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
2. Literature Review
2.1 Internet of Things Architecture
Hardware and software are the most basic Internet of things components. The hardware
component consists of Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID), Near Field Communication
(NFC) and Sensor Networks. RFID works by the use of radio- frequency electromagnetic fields
which allows the communication between the RFID tag and RFID reader. One form of the tag's
data is the Electronic Product Code (EPC) which IoT utilizes to identify an object. NFC, on the
other hand, is a new technology, and it uses a short-range communication standard. Through its
Unique Identification (UID) capability, NFC allows devices to communicate with each other in
touch or to fall close to one another. Conversely, Sensor Networks are used to observe particular
occurrences in the environment or weather. For instance, sensors can monitor temperature or
humidity.
Internet of things largely depend on the current hardware infrastructure, therefore, the
need to develop software that allows compatibility among various devices is vital. The
component that lies between the Internet of things hardware component and its applications is
middleware. In this case, middleware will include various devices that generate incredible
information. Consequently middleware component enables the developer to provide new
services without necessarily creating a distinctive code for every device. Internet of things
network currently used to display and index information on the web content is inconsistent, and
this calls for the need of Browsing. Browsing or searching enables the search for specific
information, and this solves the problems resulting from the extensive information produced by

11COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
IoT. Therefore, Browsing software is a requirement in the entire Internet of things so that its
users can benefit from the resulting functions.
2.2 Internet of Things Layers
Concerning the number of IoT layers, different opinions come forth. However, various
studies focus on three major layers which include: the application, network, and perception
layers. These layers differ regarding their roles and the devices operating in them (Fielding and
Taylor, 2002).
Figure 2: Generic service-oriented architecture for IoT
(Source: Lee and Lee, 2015, pp. 435)
Each layer in IoT (Internet of Things) is defined according to their functions as well as
services being used by that layer. The opinions in context to the number of layers existing in IoT

12COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
are different however, as per Sadeghi, Wachsmann and Waidner (2015), along with other
researchers, there are mainly three layers that is Perception, Network and Application. Inherent
security issues are existing within each layer of IoT and basic architectural framework of IoT has
been presented which shows the devices and technologies being used in each layer.
1. Perception layer
The perception layer is an IoT layer that collects, and figure out the information in IoT
enabled devices. It uses devices like sensor nodes, smartcards, and RFID tags to collect
information of relevance to the user. The layer is further divided into two significant component
namely the perception node and perception network (Qi et al., 2014). The perception node is
utilized in data control and utilization through the use of controllers or sensors. Perception
network, on the other hand, sends control signals or collected data to the controller and the
gateway to be conveyed in the Network Layer respectively. This layer of IoT is also considered
as the sensor layer in IoT as the main function of this layer is data acquisition from the
environment which is carried out by using sensors and actuators. The focus of this layer is on
detecting, collecting and processing information for transmitting it to the next layer that is
network layer (Jing et al., 2014). The collaboration of IoT node in networks whether short or
long range is performed in this layer.
2. Network layer
The network layer is for connectivity purpose. Therefore, it manages wireless and wired
connections through the use of sensors and computers as a means of transferring the collected
data. As a means of maintaining the reliability of data collection, it also supports the connection-
oriented services. The transmissions, switching, and gateway occurs in this layer. These
functions are facilitated by various technologies like Wi-Fi, 3G, and Bluetooth (Tasneem et al.,

13COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
2015) (Chen et al., 2014). This layer in IoT has the functionality of routing data and transmitting
those to various other IoT hubs as well as devices through the Internet. In this layer, the
technologies such as cloud computing and Internet gateways along with devices for switching or
routing uses latest technological innovations that supports wireless transmissions (Conti et al.,
2018). The network gateways act as a facilitator between the different nodes of IoT so that
aggregation, filtration and transmission can be easily carried out through different sensors.
3. Application layer
The layer connects the applications and users as it is located in between them. It allows
these two components to communicate. Aside from supporting various business services it has
the capability of recognizing the resource allocation and computation of data. Moreover, through
its filtering feature it can recognize spam data, malicious data as well as valid (Cai et al., 2014).
Besides, it makes resolutions of the received information, decides on it as per the command to
enable intelligent processing between devices. It is the layer in IoT which ensures authenticity,
integrity as well as data confidentiality so that information is secured while transmission occurs
within the IoT nodes. The purpose of this layer is to ensure that a smart environment is
successfully created and achieved (Lee and Lee, 2015). This is the layer which is considered as
the end product which is being achieved with the help of IoT.
2.3 IoT Applications
According to Atzori et al. (2010); Miorandi et al. (2012) the Internet of things application
is split into four domain areas, and these include: smart infrastructure, healthcare, supply
logistics and social applications. In smart infrastructure, IoT is utilized to collect and display
crucial information like power consumption which later assists in energy conservation (Liu et al.,
2011). Next, IoT is used in human healthcare. It converts essential human functions to the

14COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
machine, and this creates efficiency in the healthcare sector. An example of such is taking the
patient’s medical readings and presenting them to the relevant medical physician (Dohr et al.,
2010). In supply chains/logistics, IoT improves the performance since it aids in displaying
updated information, minimizing counterfeiting as well as enhancing product traceability. The
possibility of this function is due to RFID and sensors which are widely used in chains and
logistics support. Regarding the social application, IoT devices interact with social media
applications like Facebook and Twitter to accomplish the intended user requirement.
Smart home is the highest ranked application of IoT as per measured in different channels
as the term “Smart Home” is being currently searched by more than 60000 people all over the
world. There are overall 256 companies as well as startups included in the IoT analytics
company database. This IoT application is being widely focused by more companies rather than
any other IoT application. Some of the major IoT applications that are being widely used in
different industries are presented as below:
Airline Industry: In this industry, an application for equipment tracking is being used so
that the engineers can get a live preview of the locations of equipment required for maintenance.
This IoT application is not only increasing the efficiency of engineers but also helping to reduce
costs as well as efforts required for process improvements (Hossain, Fotouhi and Hasan, 2015).
This application of IoT in the Airline Industry is also increasing the customer experience with
the help of more reliable and on-time flights.
Pharmaceutical Industry: In this industry, an application is used for temperature
monitoring of medication to check whether it has exceeded than the acceptable range and it
ensures that medical supplies meet the required quality during delivery. There are various IoT

15COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
based smart applications that are used for monitoring the temperature conditions that so that they
could be used for proper handling of temperature.
Manufacturing Industry: For the manufacturing industry, a smart application has been
designed which leverages IoT sensors along with predictive analysis for performing predictive
maintenance (Alur et al., 2016). The IoT applications are being used in the industry so that
lighting can be optimized along with reducing the consumption of power. The use of IoT
application in the manufacturing industry has helped to transform the business processes in an
efficient manner.
Media and Entertainment Industry: Sensors are being used in entertainment design and
production firm so that foot traffic can be monitored during events (Sicari et al., 2015). The IoT
application also provides visualization of the volunteer traffics in real time so that the sponsors
are able to understand the best places for advertising and marketing.
2.4 Security Challenges in IoT Layers
Internet of things layers are susceptible to both passive or active security attacks and
threats. When the IoT network data is attacked without the services being interrupted, we say the
passive attack has occurred. However, when these services are failing, then the active attack is
said to have taken place, in effect it causes a drawback in the performance of the network.
However, all the layers are prone to a common threat that denies authorized users from accessing
essential services (Ajay et al., 2011). The coined name for this attack is Denial of Service attacks
(DoS).

16COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
1. Perception Layer
Three fundamental security issues face the Internet of things perception layer. The first
concern is the location of IoT nodes operation which is an outdoor environment. Such an
environment makes it vulnerable to physical attack in the sense that the attacker can tamper with
the hardware components. Next, the dynamic network is heterogonous, and this enables the
mobility of IoT appliances. However, due to various limitations like the computation capability,
power consumption, and storage capacity, devices connected to IoT becomes more prone to
different types of attacks and threats. The last concern is due to the fact that the transmission of
information in IoT uses wireless technologies. As such, the strength of the wireless signals may
be affected by existing waves. Therefore, the confidentiality of this layer is exploited by various
kinds of attacks (Choi et al., 2012).
In this layer, attack may happen using the Replay attack which is an exploit that is used to
break confidentiality and that can be done through spoofing along with alteration or replicating
the information of device being connected in IoT. Another assault that may happen in this layer
is timing assault in which the assailant can access the encryption key with examination of time
that is required for playing out the encryption procedure (Mahmoud et al., 2015). The most
common of all approaches of exploitation that can occur in this layer is DoS that is possible by
consumption of energy required by IoT nodes and restricting them from sleep mode which is
used by the nodes for saving energy.
2. Network Layer
The network layer is predisposed to DOS attack due to various factors, and these include
power constraint, sensor node’s computation, and the transmission medium’s broadcast nature.
Apart from the threats from DoS, network layer can be attacked by passive monitoring,

17COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
eavesdropping attacks as well as traffic analysis, and this may compromise its privacy and
confidentiality. Data exchange and remote access mechanisms despite being the core functions
of the network layer is another reason for the attack.
The communication procedure being followed in IoT is different than the internet as it
not restricted only within machine to human. IoT has brought a revolution in the technology
world that is communication between machines but there lies a security issue which is
compatibility (Farooq et al., 2015). The major difficulty is being faced while using existing
network protocols due to heterogeneous nature of the components within the network for
producing efficient mechanisms for protection. The attackers can utilize this as an advantage as
everything is connected in IoT and the information of users can be accessed by the attackers for
misuse or conducting criminal activities (Mahmoud et al., 2015). The protection of network is an
essential requirement for IoT but is equally important to protect objects of the network.
3. Application Layer
The Internet of things lacks global policies and standards that guide the development of
devices and their interaction. Therefore, the application layer faces various security issues (Ajay
et al., 2011). The interaction between different applications is made more difficult due to diverse
authentication mechanisms in their functionality. However, this is as well as privacy measure
that safeguards the users’ data. Again the connected devices allow the sharing of volumes of
data, and this results in the massive overhead on the applications which improves service
availability due to data analysis.
Another security issues that is faced in context to this layer is related to the users like
how the interaction will take place between users and IoT applications, who will be using those
applications along with it what data will be revealed through those applications and who will

18COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
have the responsibility of managing those applications (Mishra et al., 2016). The users must have
knowledge as well as adapt the use of certain tools so that they have control over the data and
they may restrict the disclosure of information.
2.5 Threats Facing IoT
Different threats face internet of things. There are various attacks in which these threats
are rooted, and these include sinkhole attacks, selective forwarding attacks, wormhole attacks,
clone attacks as well as overload denial-of-service attacks (Eastman and Kumar, 2017).
1- Sinkhole Attacks occur if malicious nodes become attractive to the surrounding nodes
so that instead of forwarding the packets through the legitimate node, they go through the
malicious node.
2- Selective Forwarding Attacks takes place where the malicious node intends to remain
the only viable node by forwarding the necessary packets, for example sending control packets
only, while dropping packets like data packets as the attacker desires.
Wormhole Attacks occur when two nodes are joined as a consequence of an attacker
through an abnormally of an attacker causes two nodes to become joined by a strange attractive
link that otherwise would not exist. Subsequently, the attacker takes charge of the routing flow
given that this link will be considered as the pathway to other parts of the network by the
neighboring nodes.
4- Clone Attacks occur when nodes are incapable of discerning the difference due to
copying a node’s relevant attributes to another node. Depending on the position of the clone in
the network, packets will be directed to the clone as if it is a legitimate node.

19COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
5- Overload Denial-of-Service Attacks takes place when a malicious node directs several
packets towards the sink node in the effort of overloading the queue in the sink node and results
to the dropping of packets by dint of total resource exhaustion (Chelladhurai et al., 2016). Such
an attack has a higher chance of occurring in the Internet of things since an attacker is capable of
taking advantage of resource asymmetry.
2.6 The fundamental differences between Internet of things and traditional Internet
Internet of things is considered as the next generation of the internet as it allows the
connectivity of all sorts of objects. As opposed to the Internet, IoT enables all devices to access
networks. The possibility of this to happen is due to the presence of sensor which communicates
and support the three pillars-being identifiable, communicate and interact (Sedrati and Mezrioui,
2017). The differences between the two will base on the following technologies:
1- Sensors:
Sensors enable the connectivity of things. The traditional internet devices such as
smartphones and PC have a sophisticated electronic system contrary to IoT things whose primary
role is never technological.
2- Autonomous “Things”:
In IoT, things are more independent in the sense that they do not require human
intervention as is the case of the classical internet devices.
3- The difference in nodes:
IoT has different nodes like (RFID) and WSN whose resource is limited, whereas internet
has servers with abundant resources (Jing et al., 2014).

20COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
The connections in traditional internet are being done with the help of physical links
between different webpages whereas in IoT, for situation detection there is a requirement to
initiate combination of data (Ansari et al., 2015). This is appeared in the joining of data as setting
based event plans in which a part of the data chooses the particular situation and the other
chooses the case itself. There is furthermore a refinement in the motivator to the client. In the
regular Internet, the regard stays in taking note of a request that is acted by the customer, all
around while chasing down information or starting organizations. In the IoT, the regard is lucky
action or notice in light of perceived conditions (Yaqoob et al., 2017). This passes on us to
differentiating the best in class in the two domains. The customary Internet is a create
advancement; it has models in various domains and web records that one can talk with using
trademark languages. The net result is that the usage of the traditional Internet ought to be
conceivable by everybody without the need of any specific capacities.
In any case, in the IoT space, the situation is exceptionally remarkable. The regulation
effort is simply in its first stages, along these lines, the data compromise is done uncommonly
selected and requires skilled programming engineers in order to realize an application. In the IoT
region, the condition is undeniably unpleasant (Sood, Yu and Xiang, 2016). The lingos that exist
are significantly more low-level in regard to SQL and require a tolerable appreciation of the
particular semantics of the tongue. Appropriately, personalization of the application advances
toward ending up, a significant part of the time, in every way that is considered not to be
possible.
2.7 Security Directions for IoT layers
Based on the challenges facing the Internet of things layers, this section will provide
directions for IoT security. Typically, an IoT system comprises of three distinct layers facing

21COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
different security threats, which this section will address through the use of a multi-layered
security approach (Andrea, et al., 2015). The approach is structured in a way that it gives optimal
layered protection in an IoT system as indicated in table two.
IoT Physical Layer Security IoT Network Layer
Security
IoT Application Layer
Security
a Secure Booting Data privacy Data security
b Device authentication Routing security Access Control Lists (ACLs)
c Data integrity Data integrity Firewalls
d Data Confidentiality Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, and
Anti-adware
e Anonymity
Table 2: IoT System Structured Approach
Security measures are required for all the three layers of IoT to ensure data
confidentiality and reducing the risks of information misuse or theft by attackers.
Countermeasures have to be properly implemented for data gathering in physical layer, for
routing and switching or transmission in the network layer and maintenance of confidentiality
along with integration and authentication in the application layer (Yu et al., 2015). Some of the
security measures that will help to address the existing issues within IoT are presented as below:
Authentication measure: A mutual authentication scheme was presented in the year 2011
for the connection of IoT between platforms and terminal nodes. The schema being presented
was based on hashing and feature extraction (Li, Tryfonas and Li, 2016). In the schema, there

22COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
was combination of feature extraction with hash function so that collision attacks can be
prevented and this solution was eventually proved to be an effective authentication measure to be
used in IoT.
Establishment of trust: The physical movement of devices in IoT is possible from one
owner to another hence there is a requirement that trust is being established between the owners
so that smooth transition can occur in terms of access control as well as permissions (Chasaki
and Mansour, 2015). A work shows shared trust for between system securities in IoT by
influencing a thing to level access-control structure. It develops trust from the creation to action
and transmission time of IoT.
Awareness of security: It is one of the important measure that requires involvement of
users to ensure success along with growth of IoT framework. The users have to be aware of the
operations, communication or interaction procedure that have to be followed while accessing the
devices in IoT (Elkhodr, Shahrestani and Cheung, 2016). The awareness of security measures
that have to be adapted by the users should be clear so that they are not exploited by the
attackers.

23COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
In this section, the methodology is defined along with various suitable approaches for
conducting the research so that the required results can be achieved by the researcher. The
process by which determination of the challenges associated with IoT (Internet of Things) are
carried out is presented in this section. The philosophy behind the research is also illustrated
upon to demonstrate the suitability of such philosophy along with how it will help to conduct the
research successfully. The approach that has been followed for conducting this research is also
discussed in details to determine the appropriate one so that desired results can be gained by the
researcher. The method that is followed by the researcher to collect data about the security issues
related to IoT is also discussed along with the procedure for analyzing the collected data. The
validity of data have to be checked thoroughly and verified while conducting analysis with the
help of secondary data analysis technique.
3.2 Research Philosophy
Basically, there are three types of philosophies being followed to conduct researches that
are positivism, realism and interpretivism. The philosophy plays an important role in research
methodology and it explains the appropriate processes that have to be undertaken for conducting
a research successfully to meet the research goal. For any kind of internet based services the
security is referred to as a very thing that has the ability the safeguard the IOT processes. IOT
technology plays active role for developing smart city, smart home, smart ware etc. In all of
these cases it is very much crucial to design a secured system. Due to lack of security mechanism
the IOT based system may face serious challenges. With the help of proper research philosophy

24COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
the security challenges can be easily identified and accordingly mitigated also. Overall it has
been found that the research philosophy can determine the accurate manner of obtaining details
of the research topic (Mackey and Gass, 2015). In addition to this the research philosophy also
helps to explain the process of assumptions that has been undertaken by the researcher.
Professional thinking process is referred to as a very important thing for successful processing of
the research topic thus it is necessary for the researcher to adopt the most suitable research
philosophy. After detail analysis on the key challenges of IOT application, the most suitable
research philosophy among interpretivism, positivism and realism has to be selected by the
researcher.
Figure 3: Types of Research Philosophy
(Source: Lewis, 2015)

25COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Positivism research philosophy is mostly helpful for the logical application additionally it
also helps to identify the hidden facts associated to key security challenges of IOT application.
Through a scientific manner all the hidden facts can be revealed with the helpful proper
application of the most suitable research philosophy (Taylor, Bogdan and DeVault, 2015). All
the metaphysics will be rejected for enabling knowledge collection and details observation on
key security challenges of IOT system and its application. In order to support complex structures
most of the times positivism philosophy is being used. Apart from this, realism research
philosophy is a mixture of positivism and interpretivism which is a combination of human belief
that helps in studying interaction of the human belief also realities.
Among positivism, realism and interpretivism research philosophies for identifying the
key security challenges of IOT mechanism the most suitable research philosophy that the
researcher requires to adopt is positivism. With the help of positivism research philosophy a
better analysis on the hidden facts will become easier.
3.3 Research Approach
Two different types of research approaches such as deductive and inductive are there. It
is expected that with the adoption of proper research approach the researcher will be able to
analyze in-depth information. The initial step of the inductive research approach is referred to as
observation which helps to obtain related data that helps to build the direction the entire research
accordingly (Lewis, 2015). Thus, new theoretical framework cab also be designed, with the help
of inductive research approach. The researcher mainly selects the inductive research approach
when enough data regarding the research topic are not available to the researcher. For this
specific research approach the researcher is needed to choose the inductive approach above the
deductive one. On the other hand, the deductive research approach is used for obtaining the

26COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
process that demonstrates the details practical specifications of the research topic “Security
challenges of the IOT system”. Deductive approach aims to build the theory with more
specifications than the inductive research approach (Flick, 2015). Thus, it can be said that based
on the research details the researcher is needed to select the most suitable approach. Thus, based
on the research topic the researcher is required to choose the most suitable approach.
Between deductive and inductive research approaches the researcher is required to
choose the deductive approach. It will help the readers to understand the topic details much
precisely with a clear manner. As the inductive approach fails to implement the new concept
thus the researcher has nominated the deductive approach to follow.
3.4 Research Design
Explanatory, exploratory and descriptive are the research designs and among three of
these designs the researcher is required to choose the most suitable one. The outline or
framework of this research topic will become clearer if proper design is selected (Silverman,
2016). The pattern of data analysis and information collection will become much practical with
the selection of appropriate design. Mainly for the academic research purpose one among three
of these designs can be selected by the researchers. In order to acknowledge different kinds of
thoughts and ideas the exploratory design is helpful. On the other hand, the occurrences of total
events and their corresponding effects can also be highlighted and pointed with accurate design.
Due to the mere explanation the penetration details and the cause and effect relationship will
become limited (Brinkmann, 2014). On the other hand the descriptive design gives proper
description of the research topic.
For this specific research topic the researcher has selected the descriptive design and the
exploratory design is avoided because it supports the longitudinal study. The descriptive design

27COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
is capable of defining the involved process associated to the application. The explanatory design
is avoided because it supports the longitudinal studies. However, it is not possible for defining
the security challenges with the IOT system. The descriptive design was capable to define the
process details those are involves to the key challenges of the IOT security system
(Panneerselvam, 2014). With the help of the descriptive design approach the security challenges
will be scrutinized successfully.
3.5 Data Collection Method
Data are collection of all useful information those are required to be utilized accurately so
that the security challenges associated to the IOT application can be prominently identified. In
order to detail research or study of the research topic proper data resources are needed to be
identified by the researcher and also accordingly proper data are required to be gathered from the
sources (Choy, 2014). For deriving proper technical results, it is the role of the researcher to
choose the most suitable data collection process.
1. Data sources
Two different sorts of data sources such as primary and secondary are available for the
researcher and between them the most suitable data source is needed to be selected by the
researcher to gather useful data. Those data are to be converted into useful information for its
successful application (Dang and Pheng, 2015). In order to gain details of the research topic, it is
necessary for the researcher to adopt either the primary or secondary data sources. In order to
collect raw data those are directly catered according to the requirement of the research topic, the
primary sources are helpful though the first hand data collection requires proper reliability and
validity clarifications.

28COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
On the other hand, for the secondary data collection approaches are used in those cases
where the research topic needs more elaboration. For a better study on security challenges of IOT
application the researcher is needed to go through secondary data sources (Silverman, 2016).
With the secondary data sources deeper analysis will become possible for the researchers.
In case of the primary data collection an interaction session has to be conducted. The
interaction session may include the companies who are utilizing the concept of IOT for
improving their technical applications. Then again, the writing wellsprings of the exploration
subject can be considered as the yield of data got from the optional sources. The instruments of
the optional sources incorporate both the disconnected and also online sources, for example,
articles, web journals, sites diaries and so forth. (Lewis, 2015). For this particular research theme
the essential sources are stayed away from and the auxiliary information gathering techniques
will be received by the analyst for effectively directing the examination work.
2. Data techniques
Two different data techniques such as qualitative and quantitative are there those are
widely used by the researchers for the successful identification of the security challenges of IOT
mechanism. In order to record, narrative form of records the qualitative data techniques are very
helpful as it can add on better and detail descriptions to the research topic. With the practical
field more theoretical concept can be added with the help of the qualitative data (Flick, 2015).
The researcher will be able to get better and descriptive ideas regarding the topic with the
qualitative data techniques.
On the other hand the quantitative data applies different statistical data those are helpful
for recording the data of larger size of samples. For this specific research topic, the qualitative

29COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
data technique is required to be considered by the researcher to gain valid and reliable
information accordingly.
3. Data Analysis Method
Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) is referred to as a range of process rather procedure that
have been gathered into some kind of explanation, understanding and interpretation of different
situation. After reviewing the literature such as journals, articles, blogs etc, the necessary data
can be accordingly gathered (Brinkmann, 2014). Basically, this is an interpretative philosophy,
which is required to be followed by the researchers to successfully identify the challenges of the
IOT mechanism. The QDA process involves two different things in terms of theme identification
and writing something in approximately all forms of QDA. The qualitative data analysis
technique is more concern about the quality of the study. The qualitative data analysis will be
conducted using both the online and offline sources will be properly utilized by the researchers.
Proper theoretical framework can be amended to the practical field application with the accurate
analytical results that are generated from the qualitative data analysis.
3.6 Ethical Consideration
During the research on the topic “security challenges of IOT mechanism”, certain ethical
approaches are required to be considered by the researcher. In order to conduct an error free
research work the researchers are needed to keep in mind about certain ethical aspects. If all the
ethical perspectives are properly maintained by the researchers then it will be said that the
research has met the ultimate goal and objectives (Dang and Pheng, 2015). In order to identify
the security challenges of IOT mechanism those are to be considered by the researchers include
the below:

30COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Proper data application: The information obtained through the research work should be
utilized by the researchers in right field. In order to understand the present trends of security
challenges that the users of IOT technology users may face are identified through proper
application of the gathered information (Flick, 2015). However, in order to keep the findings
bounded within the academic purposes only it is necessary for the researchers to avoid its
usability in the commercial application field.
Validation of data: The collected data have to be validated by checking authenticity of
the sources. The online or offline sources from which data is collected must have proper
validation to ensure that desired outcomes or accurate results are achieved from the research
(Dang and Pheng, 2015). The validity of the sources is an essential factor while conducting
analysis through secondary data analysis technique.
Verification of data: The researcher must be aware of the sources from which data is
being collected as the sources may not be valid or contain proper information. Hence, the
collected data have to be verified by checking them with other sources (Dumay and Cai, 2015).
The information gathered from the sources can be compared with peer reviewed journals to
ensure that collected data is valid and the source is reliable for this research.
It is expected that all the above mentioned ethical perspectives are to be followed
professionally by the researchers to conduct the research work successfully with all measurable
constants.
3.7 Research Limitation
Certain avoidable and non-avoidable restrictions are enlisted by the researchers to obtain
proper result regarding the research topic “Security challenges of IOT system”. The area of

31COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
restricted abilities and scopes are defined while conducting the research topic. For this specific
research topic the limitations those are identified include the followings:
Reliability: The sources from which data is extracted for the research must be
authenticated and the sources should have valid information such that the collected data is
reliable for the research. Though the users of the IOT mechanism can be biased enough towards
the application of the IOT mechanism for technology based improvements which may negatively
impact the result of the research topic (Taylor, Bogdan and DeVault, 2015). Thus, it can be said
that, wide range of reliability issues are associated to this research topic.
Time constraints: The researcher has faced issues like time limitation due to the cross
sectional nature of the study. The research work cannot be successfully conducted within that
much short time phase (Choy, 2014). The research work lags few limitations regarding the
research topic. The details quality analysis of the research topic could have been improved if
SPSS software and some statistical tools are properly utilized by the researchers.
3.8 Summary
This chapter analyzed different selection based research tools that can collectively help
the researchers for a better research analysis on the security challenges of IOT application. This
specific chapter of the research will help the researcher to choose the most suitable research
methodology that will help to conduct an error free research work. In order to frame the best
possible research methodology it is necessary for the researchers to apply the most suitable
research methodology to lead the research topic toward success. In order to analyze the security
level challenges associated to IOT system it is necessary for the researcher to identify and utilize
the most suitable research tools. For this specific research topic the positivism research
philosophy is chosen. Besides deductive research approach descriptive research design is

32COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
adopted by the researcher for identifying the challenges of the IOT application. As much quickly
and prominently the challenges will be identified, it will become easier to the researchers to
identify the respective challenge mitigation methods as well. The ethical consideration and
research limitations are also elaborated in this section.
4. Findings and Analysis
4.1 Introduction
For reviewing the present plans executed in the IoT publicize, an examination of
structures beginning at now open will be performed in this section. The examinations will
comparatively fill in as examples of security blueprints, and how to enhance security in this field.
The examinations will be based around various utilize cases and specific degrees of progress
influencing a buyer's standard regular nearness (Lin et al., 2017). In this segment some
reasonable up will be finished in regards to how the outcomes were grabbed, and instantly decide
the impacts of the issues. One of the inspirations driving the recommendation was a report
introduced by Hewlett Packard on the condition of security related to Internet of Things where it
was understood that 80 % of the endeavored gadgets had lacking insistence and furthermore
underwriting, 80 % demonstrated confirmation concerns, and 70 % utilized decoded
correspondence channels (Ziegeldorf, Morchon and Wehrle, 2014). Looking examination and
media reports rapidly backs up these cases with cases, for example, the European standard for
sharp cross areas utilizing home-amassed and unpredictable cryptography and BMW utilizing no
kind of cryptography in any of their autos, impacting a large number of people far and wide.
With the amount of related devices having recently accomplished a couple of billions and
continuing to rise, IoT security will impact a growing number of people in the coming years.

33COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
4.2 Analysis
Familiarizing out of date advancement with the Internet of Things is generally not a
shrewd idea. Separating another thing using old, unobtrusive development that has become
different updates to encounter with the fresher advances, for instance, Internet organize,
exhibited a glaring nonappearance of security. By tuning in the structure's correspondence, it was
conceivable to take control of the entire framework by grabbing a solitary pile of any sort (Islam
et al., 2015). A gadget is not more remain than its weakest point, and acquainting Internet
correspondence with out of date customs and propelling them as the inescapable
predetermination of IoT does simply harm the fate of security in IoT. All through the hypothesis,
three specific impediments are used to detach devices in IoT from standard work region figuring,
and builds up the system for the displayed challenges, specifically the power need, transmission
limit essential and getting ready essential (Granjal, Monteiro and Silva, 2015). These essentials
will dependably be open in IoT, so how one works around them, and to what degree the gadget is
obliged by the contrasting destinations, will depict how a gadget and its security structures are
organized and executed.
1. Analyzing the Fitbit Health Tracker
Fitbit is an American affiliation passing on a degree of human action screens with a
practically identical name that was first discharged in 2007, and has since extended to various
structures which before long join flourishing watching, heart-rate checking, and telephone
cautions. This exploratory area will base on the Fitbit One, discharged in September 2012, which
combines estimations, for example, step tally, floor check, dynamic minutes, empty voyaged and
calories copied, and rest quality, among others (Andrea, Chrysostomou and Hadjichristofi,
2015). The gadget can be synchronized with the Fitbit web advantage for essential utmost and

34COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
examination of information. Synchronization is driven utilizing Bluetooth 4.0 either through a
flawless moved PDA, or an included USB dongle. The two frameworks for synchronization have
some essential complexities. While a cellphone will synchronize the Fitbit of the endorsed client,
the dongle will synchronize all Fitbits inside range, and does not require any sort of affirmation.
Synchronization through the dongle will be the basic purpose of joining of this area, as it is the
all the all the all the more enchanting of the two.
Figure 4: Fitbit activity tracker
(Source: Yuehong et al., 2016, pp. 10)
Security: All Fitbits cooperate with the dongle will utilize Bluetooth 4.0 for
correspondence between the gadget and the machine. The host machine will then read the
information from the Bluetooth dongle, and after that transmit this information to the Fitbit web
advantage utilizing TLS with the target that the information cannot be analyzed in development
(Perera, Liu and Jayawardena, 2015). While utilizing the Fitbit cell phone application, we can set
up an association with a Fitbit gadget that is associated with our record. Right when the
telephone and gadget has a working Bluetooth alliance, we can see steady move check from the
gadget. When looking information offered between the telephone and the gadget, current impel

35COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
check information can be seen without more encryption than that given by the Bluetooth
affiliation. Regardless, this is in like manner the primary data that is transmitted "decoded", and
exactly when there is a working relationship with the device.
Key exchange: The AES encryption inside the Fitbit will require an encryption key that
is known both by the Fitbit and the server, with the target that the information can be decoded
and found in the web application (Perera, Liu and Jayawardena, 2015). This key can be added to
the gadget in two unmistakable courses, either amidst creation by referencing the course to the
gadget id, or it can be hovered to the gadget after it has passed on to the purchaser. The setup
procedure of another Fitbit gadget begins with establishment of the Fitbit synchronization
programming and development of the keep running with USB dongle on a respectable PC. The
thing will then request that the client position the gadget as near the dongle as could sensibly be
ordinary, and not to have some extraordinary gadgets in close area. In the event that the dongle
sees particular gadgets near to (utilizing the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) respect),
the client will be requested to move these gadgets from the dongle (Kumar, Vealey and
Srivastava, 2016). As the Bluetooth connection is a conceivable explanation behind assault, the
alliance methodology of the gadgets are darkened from the coursed standard. While this makes it
harder to utilize uninhibitedly discharged contraptions to break the Bluetooth association,
security by unverifiable quality is not viewed as an awesome prosperity effort. The dongle chats
with the host PC utilizing serial charges, and propelling itself as a Human Interface Device
(HID), this data is undeniably critical, and could uncover the key amidst setup if the key is
coursed along these lines. Regardless, ambushing the USB serial correspondence is not seen as
the reason for scarcest restriction in the correspondence channel between the Fitbit servers along
with devices.

36COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Security Implications: The Fitbit level of trackers are anchored with exceptional on-chip
encryption between the contraption and the servers, and besides using strong encryption in the
midst of transmission of the mixed data between the PC and server. The security of a customer
wearing the Fitbit for the traverse of the day is poor (Bello and Zeadally, 2016). By using a
blueprint of horrifying beneficiaries, the circumstance of a customer can be conveyed after and
pinpointed down to a little zone. While the security recommendation are not as real as spilling
GPS data, the insurance concerns can be as enormous when in closeness to the customer.
Recognizing randomized Bluetooth-zones will fathom the security issues in this particular case.
2. Analyzing the BMW Connected Drive System for Automobiles
Related vehicles are twisting up dynamically average, and they are joining a frequently
extending number of highlights over the structure. A German motoring organization together
called Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC) found an absence of assurance affecting
2.2 million autos worldwide from BMW, Mini and Rolls Royce utilizing the BMW Connected
Drive framework (Chen, 2017). The door locks, headlights and horn could be controlled
remotely, the present condition of the auto sensors, for example, GPS zone, current speed and
entrance jar state could be seen remotely, the crisis numbers could be changed remotely, and all
private system correspondence could be listened stealthily remotely. The on-board PC watched
that the information source was one of the BMW servers, yet as IP-satirizing is nicely clear, this
is not viewed as satisfactory security.

37COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Figure 5: BMW Connected Drive Application
(Source: Alioto, 2017)
Security: The security for this circumstance has been in every practical sense non-
existent, and has been subject to no one tuning in the versatile framework. Approval of
transmitted data have similarly been in every way that really matters non-existent with simply
direct IP beginning stage check for affirmation (Singh and Singh, 2015). The auto's sensor
information could be investigated and information could be made to the auto over the versatile
structure in clear substance. A replay-strike engaged the entries of the auto to be opened and
headlights squinted despite various things. The framework moreover thought about adjustment of
crisis numbers that would in this manner be called after a misfortune. The standard basic for this
alteration ask for was that it started from the IP of a BMW server. Utilizing IP criticizing, a
corrupted number could be introduced into the vehicles.
Protection: As the auto's present GPS area was transmitted decoded over the structure,
the security proposition could be epic (Singh and Singh, 2015). Despite the manner in which that

38COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
the autos position is not without a doubt client particular, it will all around give a relative locale,
for example, the client's near and dear or work zone.
Security Implications: The GPS zone of the broad number of vehicles could be inspected,
having epic results on the affirmation of the client. The entries could be opened remotely, so
things set away in the auto could be recovered without sounding the alert of the auto (Singh,
Tripathi and Jara, 2014). The crisis numbers could be adjusted so they had could feel that the
crisis associations had been accomplished, when in confirmation they were irrefutably not. This
issue was settled by BMW by including SSL/TLS through a remote structure restore.
3. Analysis of the HomeEasy Protocol for Home Automation
The HomeEasy robotization custom is utilized by different gadget producers, for
example, Nexa, Byron, Proove and Anslut. The framework depends upon 433.92MHz radios to
transmit data between them. The structure is utilized for controlling force plug trades, dimmers,
entryway ringers, windows blinds and improvement sensors (Skarmeta, Hernandez-Ramos and
Moreno, 2014). The framework use On-Off Keying, an Amplitude Shift Keying technique, to
transmit codes to the recipients. The gadgets are connected with the Internet through a focal
concentration that upon ask for controls the 433MHz gadgets, or without Internet through
neighborhood 433MHz transmitters (light switches) obviously.
Security: The HomeEasy custom works by assigning recipients to transmitters. This is
finished by organizing every individual recipient to the transmitter by squeezing keys of the two
gadgets, and trading the ID from the transmitter to the specialist remotely. This ID is a 24 bit
number, particular to every transmitter (Mukherjee, 2015). Precisely when a beneficiary gets a
charge from one of the set away IDs, and its own particular unit code, it will get up to speed with
the demand. If not, the demand will be disposed of. The tradition furthermore mulls over one

39COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
social occasion request to be transmitted by each transmitter. Every gatherer that is consolidated
into the social affair request will catch up on the get-together summon request from the set away
transmitter ID. The bundle configuration contains 32 bits by and large (for all intents and
purposes 64 as all bits are sent unnecessarily).
Figure 6: HomeEasy protocol packet format and security exploit state
diagram
(Source: Andrea, chrysostomou and Hadjichristofi, 2015)
The fundamental 26 bits are the transmitter ID. This is the ID of the transmitter that
should be remarkable for each transmitter for various clients not to encroach with each other.
The going with piece is the social event standard, displaying whether this is a party summon or
not (Mukherjee, 2015). By then there is the state, indicating whether the gadget ought to be
turned on or off. The going with two bits is the gadget code, showing the beneficiary, with the
target that individual beneficiaries can be controlled. The last two bits show the estimation of the
activity. This can be a darkening worth or the statures of window blinds.

40COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Protection: The security proposal in this framework is close non-existent. The transmitter
will pass on an astoundingly identifiable ID when they are utilized, yet transmission occurs
tolerably only sometimes stood out from various remote traditions, and since these devices are
for the most part used at home, the possible assurance issues are even to a lesser degree a stress
(Botta et al., 2016). One could imagine making a point by point guide of a customer's typical
illustrations, yet there are other, more open methods for doing such implementations.
Figure 7: Microcontroller used for HomeEasy protocol packet
transmission
(Source: Mukherjee, 2015)
Security Implications: The security of these gadgets have updated since they were first
acquainted with the market, utilizing a physically addressable, short ID that could definitely be

41COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
savage obliged as just 256 combinations were accessible, and was a practically identical structure
wide for sender and recipient (Botta et al., 2016). The security set up today is up till now not
extraordinary, as the ID is the major requirement for an activity to be perceived by the recipient.
Home computerization gadgets in context of the Bluetooth or ZigBee convention will for the
most part just be uncovered upon key trade, and gives an altogether improved security strategy
than what is acknowledged in the HomeEasy custom.
4. Analyzing the Eye-Fi Internet-Connected SD-Card for Digital Cameras
EyeFi is a Secure Digital (SD) card that is particularly connected with towards
photography. The SD card contains a remote way and web-server in spite of the normal glimmer
gathering. These SD cards come in two unprecedented modifications, one focused towards
masters where the card interfaces with a remote structure, and the other focused towards standard
buyers that goes about as a base-station for telephones and workstations to associate with (Dorri,
Kanhere and Jurdak, 2016). All through this examination, the SD card focused towards standard
buyers, called EyeFi Mobi, will be the objective of examination.
Figure 8: The EyeFi Mobi SD card
(Source: Ansari et al., 2015, pp. 132)
Security: The fundamental note one can make is that these cards have utilized WPA
encryption for a long time which is viewed as a weaker kind of remote encryption emerged from

42COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
WPA2. A vocabulary ambush can without a lot of a stretch be used against this kind of
framework, with the accomplishment depending upon the multifaceted idea of the key (Dorri,
Kanhere and Jurdak, 2016). An ordinary compose scratch for the Mobi SD card is in the going
with structure: A52QMKSHVZ.
Figure 9: Key setup procedure for EyeFi
(Source: Dorri, Kanhere and Jurdak, 2016)
Privacy: Wi-Fi hosts will have a dubious issue from Bluetooth does, where the gadget is
granting a remarkable MAC address that will be settled and traceable. While the transmission
control is likely keeping pace with the Bluetooth module, these cards may pass on its system
when they pick up control, i.e. precisely when the camera is controlled (Dorri, Kanhere and

43COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Jurdak, 2016). Right when the camera is fueled off and anchored in a pocket or rucksack, no
traceable data can be gotten, and thus the protection proposition with these gadgets are basically
nothing.
Security Implications: As the security of these cards are dependent on a mono-
alphabetic substitution-figure scratch age estimation, utilizing the MAC address as scratching
material, what began as a respectably secure structure is before long uncertain (Billure, Tayur
and Mahesh, 2015). A foe could get enlistment to every single one of the photographs set away
on a camera remotely, possibly from a far parcel utilizing a high-get radio wire.
4.3 Summary
With the examinations coordinated in this hypothesis, it is exhibited that the explanations
behind not tying down devices enough a huge piece of the time is oversight on the makers side
more than deliberately dismissing security. Different makers influencing gadgets for the home
market to will recognize that their gadgets might be utilized as a bit of a private setting, depend
upon the client's system security, and that anybody related with a similar structure ought to have
an obscure rights to the gadget from the proprietor (Mavromoustakis, Mastorakis and Batalla,
2016). This is particularly the case with moving media frameworks, which much of the time join
no security on affiliations, firmware updates or affirmation. This case was appeared in a veritable
inclusion with a famous setting, where the sound arrangement of a hitting creator was connected
with people overall Wi-Fi, making it conceivable to control the sound in the scene, and in
addition controlling the related record for the spilling music advantage.
Phenomenal security instruments can be uncovered through deficient executions. An
examination is made of an indisputable WiFi related point of confinement gadget that utilization
off the rack security instruments that are a touch of the 802.11 particular. While the creators of

44COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
this gadget utilized unobtrusively secure sections in their thing for endorsement, underwriting
and encryption, their key deduction work displayed some glaring issues after it was found that
the keying material was the MAC address of the remote system interface, and the farthest point
itself was a fundamental monoalphabetic substitution figure (Bertino and Islam, 2017). This was
done to make the set-up procedure less troublesome for the buyer, and wound up uncovering
their delicate key inferring work through the related Android application.

45COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
5. Results and Discussion
5.1 Introduction
The Internet of Things is going up against security challenges that fluctuate perpetually
from standard work region preparing, on account of the unique necessities. In this part we
demonstrate the fundamental destinations, what challenges they cause, and inconveniences that
will surface later on. The inconveniences that are shown merges a portion of the standard
difficulties inside IT security, for example, affirmation, underwriting, transparency and portrayal,
what's more difficulties, for example, confirmation, comfort, DoS and physical security which
are not as distinguishable inconveniences in the more settled PC structures (Stojkoska and
Trivodaliev, 2017). While unmistakable factors, for example, mental, cash related, normal and
political will impact the predetermination of IoT, and conceivably show different difficulties, this
is accepted to be past the level of the speculation.
5.2 Discussion
The present Internet of Things is viewed as outstandingly principal showed up
contrastingly in connection to what is hypothetically conceivable. Different gadgets will
associate with a telephone going about as a center to a focal server, interface with a stationary
home concentration, or interface direct to a focal server. Two or three gadgets will utilize a work
engineer related with a middle to talk with a centralized server. Each layer in IoT (Internet of
Things) is defined according to their functions as well as services being used by that layer. The
opinions in context to the number of layers existing in IoT are different however, as per
Abomhara and Koien (2014) along with other researchers, there are mainly three layers that is
Perception, Network and Application. Inherent security issues are existing within each layer of

46COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
IoT and basic architectural framework of IoT has been presented which shows the devices and
technologies being used in each layer. In the perception layer of IoT, attack may happen using
the Replay attack which is an exploit that is used to break confidentiality and that can be done
through spoofing along with alteration or replicating the information of device being connected
in IoT. Another attack that may occur in this layer is timing attack in which the attacker can gain
access to the encryption key with analysis of time that is required for performing the encryption
process (Diaz, Martín and Rubio, 2016). The most common of all approaches of exploitation that
can occur in this layer is DoS that is possible by consumption of energy required by IoT nodes
and restricting them from sleep mode which is used by the nodes for saving energy. While in
network layer, the communication procedure being followed in IoT varies than the internet as it
not limited only within machine to human. IoT has brought a revolution in the technology world
that is communication between machines but there lies a security issue which is compatibility.
The major difficulty is being faced while using existing network protocols due to
heterogeneous nature of the components within the network for producing efficient mechanisms
for protection. The attackers can utilize this as an advantage as everything is connected in IoT
and the information of users can be accessed by the attackers for misuse or conducting criminal
activities (Sfar et al., 2018). The protection of network is an essential requirement for IoT but is
equally important to protect objects of the network. Another security issue being faced in the
application layer is related to the users like how the interaction will take place between users and
IoT applications, who will be using those applications along with it what data will be revealed
through those applications and who will have the responsibility of managing those applications.
The users must have knowledge as well as adapt the use of certain tools so that they have control
over the data and they may restrict the disclosure of information.

47COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
1. Constraints
There are many restricting sections related with security in the Internet of things, the
three most perceptible being preparing limit, control basics and data trade constrain necessities,
When looked with these requirements, one will rapidly understand that we cannot just utilize a
practically identical security joins as are utilized as a bit of work stations without considering
how it will impact our gadgets.
The capacity of preparing is ending up less of an issue over the long haul, as constantly
speedier chips are conveyed each year (Mineraud et al., 2016). The measure of an effect dealing
with execution has on a gadget will be at risk to the kind of gadget. In the event that it is not
critical that the gadget is set up to get information or follow up on occasions continually, dealing
with rate will not be an issue in such way. Such gadgets will routinely be temperature sensors
that transmit on set between times. On the off chance that the chip comprehends that it should
transmit sensor respects each X minutes, it will be able to scramble the payload in the midst of
every estimation. In any case, it the gadget needs to make up for lost time with specific
occasions, for example, improvement and need to report this information reliably, it cannot be
submerged with encryption over quite a while. Power necessities are a vital issue with the
present Internet of Things (Ho et al., 2016). The gadget's capacity utilize will impact managing
pace, data transmission, and temperature or battery life. A comparable number of the gadgets are
working with a battery as the guideline vitality source, it is enchanting to have the longest
working time conceivable, and in like way low power use. Regardless, the manner by which we
take a gander at it, secures information will require expanded power use showed up distinctively
in connection to no security, as some kind of calculation is required, and all figuring will gobble

48COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
up control. Regardless, notwithstanding the way that we consolidate security instruments in the
devices, there are various differentiations between what courses of action are realized.
There are clear differentiations amidst different encryption computations, key age
figuring’s, propelled check estimations and hashing counts concerning control viability.
Moreover, one of a kind chips will in like manner influence how these counts perform. Data
transmission is every now and again a remarkable asset in the Internet of things. To coordinate
vitality and keep warm waste low, one needs to control the radio for as short measure of time as
would be prudent. This surmises one should need to use as high rehash as could be ordinary
thinking about the current circumstance, and have as pitiful payload as conceivable to transmit
information rapidly (Matharu, Upadhyay and Chaudhary, 2014). Regardless, with higher rehash,
the degree of the remote radio declines, and we have to create transmission capacity to transmit
information over longer parcels. Then we would lean toward not to squander control by having
the flag achieve more far away than should not to strange. One along these lines needs to locate
the best convergence point between the pined for speed and range for the particular application
relying on payload and accessible power. Encoded data will reliably point a few information
exchange limit overhead, yet the impact on the certified package appraise has not been
prohibitive starting at as of late, as bundle sizes have been for the most part immense in
traditional framework structures.
With customs particularly altered for the Internet of Things, then again, the rate
increment in bundle survey is persuading the chance to be restrictive as the package measure is
squeezed to indeed the base. Adjusting these three sections is fundamental for any gadget in the
Internet of Things (Bi, Da Xu and Wang, 2014). Right now, while spreading out new gadgets,
one needs to make tradeoffs, and pick which to make for every particular case: To anchor

49COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
computational power one can offload managing to focal servers, in any case this will require
transmitting more information or more as frequently as would be prudent, accomplishing
centrality use by the remote radio instead of the processor. In the event that we rather process the
information locally before transmission, we diminish vitality cost in the radio, yet increment
preparing and restrict cost in the gadget. To lessen control cost in the radio, one can utilize
versatile impact control for the radio, yet this will necessitate possibly also getting ready, and can
extend retransmissions due to extended package disaster if the partition or deterrent is
outstandingly factor.
Another plan frequently used as a piece of IoT is the possibility of a central focus,
dealing with correspondence between two unmistakable frameworks, with diverse objectives.
This thought is realized in frameworks with remote sensor as well as home robotization
structures among others (Niu et al., 2016). The inside point is routinely not obliged by control,
yet rather is not put where there is a prerequisite for the organization, and along these lines
constrained by the earth. These middle focuses are for the most part an association between plan
association with long range requiring a huge amount of power, similar to cell-structures,
parabola-affiliations or Wi-Fi-affiliations, and system association with shorter range, at any rate
low power necessities, for example, ZigBee, Z-Wave or Bluetooth Low Energy. In remote sensor
systems, gadgets will report their information to within especially, routinely utilizing a sort of
work dealing with, and the center will by then forward either orchestrated or ordinary
information as far as possible.
2. Current challenges
The present Internet of Things is seen as amazingly fundamental showed up diversely in
connection to what is hypothetically conceivable. Different gadgets will interface with a

50COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
telephone going about as a center point to a focal server, associate with a stationary home
concentration, or interface direct to a focal server. A few gadgets will utilize a work deal with
related with an inside point to chat with a focal server (Chen et al., 2015). Amidst this segment,
the contrasting present and future inconveniences in IoT are introduced. These are appeared with
talks together with the possible result of the test, what their particular destinations are, and the
related courses of action that exists.
Approval: Authorization is the show of surrendering access to various parts of the
framework just to gadgets that should approach. Supporting a gadget inside IoT have a few
difficulties that does not exist in work an area enrolling, where the likelihood of a client with
various client names and passwords will be gone into the association a client wishes to utilize. In
IoT, the client is not right currently utilizing the gadget through a moved UI (Misra, Maheswaran
and Hashmi, 2017). As gadgets are physical, they can be lost or sold to different clients, and in
like way the manager of "a solitary gadget approaches a particular client" will not be suitable.
The idea inside IoT can all the more plausible be explained as a client utilizing both an
association and a gadget, with these three contemplations being particular things, as opposed to a
gadget and client being the same from the perspective of the association. Along these lines, the
two clients and gadgets need to enroll as clear parts. For this to be conceivable in IoT, one needs
to utilize underwriting to particularly depict rights for both the gadget and client.
Verification: The IoT show is developing, and assessing sensibly a more unmistakable
measure of both our own specific and open life and the earth around us. The expanded hoarding
of information is overhauling our capacity to settle on choices from hard information, where
there before was none. In any case, the outcomes of polluted or lost information can be
remarkable, and can instigate choices that outcomes in a more shocking result than if there were

51COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
no information to construct the choice in light (Yan, Zhang and Vasilakos, 2014). Information
got from an embraced gadget probably will not be the information that the transmitting gadget
sent. If a foe going up against the presence of an affirmed device were to keep an eye on the
correspondence channel and modify data in the midst of movement, we would not have the
ability to distinguish the change, and along these lines recognize the data as right. This could in a
couple of conditions hugely influence the system, dependent upon the sort of information that is
conveyed.
Availability: To guarantee criticalness, IoT gadgets do not customarily hold an
unfaltering association with a system, and will reliably enter a "resting" state for longer time
ranges, subordinate upon their use case. To the degree security, this can be an issue with respect
to restoring security parameters (e.g. cryptographic keys), and remote viewing. Right when a
possibly revolt focus point enters a confided in mastermind, either all inside focuses or a focal
comfort should be startled of the break (Da Xu, He and Li, 2014). With rest cycles as long as
days, it will set aside a long opportunity to alert trade focus focuses. Subordinate upon the break,
the foe can shield the alarm from instigating to trade focus focuses when they are woken up
through system or physical triggers, when they wake up free from some other individual, or
shield the caution from achieving the focal help.
Absence of Multi-layer security: tying down a device on various layers of the Open
Systems Interconnection (OSI) stack will demonstrate included security layers in the event that
one of substitute layers ought to be broken. In the event that a gadget is physically dashed behind
an entry, an idea of security is presented in the physical layer. This physical layer security will
broaden the square for a foe to increment physical force of the gadget, a critical piece of the
chance to such an extent, to the point that physical break is farfetched (Jararweh et al., 2015). In

52COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
the interim, physical control of a gadget can be viewed in general break, as all set away
information and keys are accessible either in encoded or decoded diagram. Unmistakable
techniques for anchoring the physical layer, for example, epoxying the chips and including a
change sensor are finished in gadgets, in any case with moving level of accomplishment in
giving obstruction against an enemy. Security on the application level will catch the gadget on an
essentially more raised whole. Mooring the application layer is keeping pace with the lower
layers of the stack both to the degree potential information accident and validity of break.
Encoding set away and transmitted information locally on the gadget or mooring the web
interface of the gadget from Cross Site Scripting (XSS) are examples of central application layer
security executed in gadgets. Scrambling information on the application level before transmitting
over a secured affiliation will guarantee that the information is kept private, paying little notice
to whether an adversary is to break the structure layer security. This is what was found while
isolating the Fitbit tracker in the examination (Rose, Eldridge and Chapin, 2015). As it was
certainly not hard to inspect the information between the two system transmissions (Bluetooth
and Ethernet), every single one of the information would have been uncovered, had it not been
for how the information was encoded on the application level. While the likelihood of the gadget
being physically broken is higher inside IoT than in other planned PC frameworks, it is
correspondingly less possible to hook these at a physical level. Sensoring focus focuses are as
frequently as conceivable put straightforwardly spaces and inside sight, for instance in structures
or carried on a man, which makes them a verifiable objective. Joining improvement markers for
exasperating is reliably too much expensive, or inconceivable because of natural limitations.
Unintended utilizations: While standard work stations have been utilized as a bit of a to
some degree controlled, standard path, gadgets inside the Internet of Things can be utilized as a

53COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
bit of ways that was not at first proposed by the creator. To make things as clear as could
sensibly be ordinary, makers frequently just breaker security suited for their particular utilize
case, as setting up solid encryption routinely adds to the startup-cost for the client (Al-Fuqaha et
al., 2015). Sound and video frameworks routinely bars an extensive variety of security in their
things, and depend upon a current moored orchestrate. A case that one routinely finds is bars and
other open scenes that utilization contrasting media frameworks at first proposed for private
utilize. It is beginning to wind up standard for bars and cafes to give a remote structure to clients,
as an additional association. Precisely when clients out of the blue approach the setting's
structure, the security that all the contrasting media frameworks depend upon is all of a sudden
gone. Dealt with speakers, for example, the Sonos framework [Son] just requires the client to
have an application introduced on their cell phone for them to gain power of the settings music,
and furthermore the aggregate of their related records, for example, Spotify, Google Music,
Tidal, Deezer, etc. (Moosavi et al., 2016). This issue might be more average than one may might
speculate, as this has been the circumstance a couple of spots, where we were immediately
arranged to control the music at standard scenes in the wake of finding that the sound structure
was made by Sonos. The nonappearance of security in for all intents and purposes all Bluetooth-
empowered sound frameworks legitimizes saying here, at any rate after a short time it radiates an
impression of being a significant number individuals grasp that the whole nonattendance of
security makes an obvious issue, as these structures are now and again experienced in pubic
settings.
3. Future challenges
One ought to be ready when endeavoring to imagine the unavoidable fate of IoT, as the
future can take diverse heading. We can securely expect that managing cutoff will be broadened

54COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
veered from cost or size of gadgets as this is an illustration that has been progressing for a long
time, and does not appear to change whenever within the near future (Lake et al., 2014). There
are different conceivable uses for this computational expansion that will impact the inescapable
predetermination of IoT. Diminished size can drive IoT forward in the medicinal business,
reduced cost can amass the measure of gadgets in the Internet of Things, the broadened
methodology most distant point can be utilized for security instruments, or neighborhood pre-
preparing before achieving the focal server. One of the conceivable dreams is to diminish the
vitality of a focal server, dependent upon all the specific gadgets taking obviously and doing
neighborhood dealing with on information.
Another is to affect the focal server stunningly to a more unmistakable degree a
concentration to inspiration driving the Internet of Things, by utilizing every single open datum
to make guesses for the client. Different minor departure from these two predeterminations are
likely more sensible. From a business viewpoint, one is periodically animated by acquiring
information from its client, so a focal database will at show be a piece unbounded of IoT
(Mumtaz et al., 2017). Whatever the future brings, we can securely expect that the measure of
gadgets will increment, and thusly obstruction and structure crash will be an expanding issue.
5.3 Summary
With the unavoidable predetermination of IoT comes more sensors, and more gathered
information. Portraying what information ought to be spoken to back finished the system will be
essential in a security setting. Besides that, for instance, a gadget depends upon voice summons,
most fashioners would consider focal preparing of voice sound the best game-plan, as this
dealing with frequently requires a great deal of points of interest. On the off chance that this
correspondence is not started by a particular charge or catch, most would see this as a massive

55COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
security issue, and no uncertainty be annihilating for the thing. Adequately portraying what
information ought to be traded, and amazing instruments to start transmission, will be widely
more fundamental as individuals wind up being more mindful of security. With broadening
number of gadgets in a structure, and the proposed conceivable predetermination of stretched out
gadget to-gadget correspondence, the need for on-gadget treatment of information will be
foremost, and therefore, more information should be anchored locally.

56COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusion
The structure of IoT is defenseless against strikes that may occur in the different layers;
from this time forward there are various security troubles and necessities that ought to be tended
to. Energy state of research in IoT is in a general sense based on approval and access control
traditions, yet with the snappy progress of advancement it is fundamental to combine new
frameworks association customs like IPv6 along with 5G for accomplishing dynamic blend of
the topology of IoT. The authentic degrees of progress saw in IoT are on a very basic level on
little scale i.e. inside affiliations, a few undertakings and so on. The IoT can change the manner
by which we live today. By and by, the focal worry in certification of completely competent
systems is security. In the event that security concerns like confirmation, insurance,
endorsement, get the chance of control, security on an end-to-end basis, association for trust,
generally speaking techniques and norms are tended to totally, it can be witnessed that the
distinction in all by IoT inside the not so distant future. Hence, it is essential to grasp a new
prominent affirmation, remote, programming, and equipment types of progress to choose the
before long open challenges in research related to IoT similar to the measures for diverse
gadgets, utilization of vital association as well as character foundation structures, and trust
association center core interests.
The security in IoT is overseen by different components along with security standards
examined already, and the inconveniences that are looked by IoT security has been the purpose
of merging of different specialists. Here, an examination of some interrelated work is appeared
besides the commitment of this research study has been shown. In a paper review by various

57COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
authors, an isolated presentation around IoT and major issues with security close-by the essential
IoT benchmarks have been reflected. Regardless, no strategies have suited the identified
challenges with security. This work was trailed by the graph examination in which
countermeasures are obliged all security challenges. Regardless, by and large game-plans for
secures IoT and computational assets of security strategies with respect to gadgets are not given.
The work endeavors to depict the issues being faced at different layers of IoT with assured
prosperity attempts. By the way, no arrangement is given apart from encryption at the network
layer. The examination indicated reports the risks related to security, difficulties, fundamentals
besides that the present condition of-craftsmanship countermeasures for just a single security
highlight of access control. In this work, IoT security to the degree the basic rules of security like
assurance, uprightness, and receptiveness are tended to in a way. The producers recommended
two-push support utilizing biometrics which is not material if there should be an occurrence of
communication between machines. The proposed actions are not undeniable and do not takes
into account the particular idea of IoT in context to low power diverse gadgets alongside colossal
structure improvement.
A nice review for IoT along with Web of Things (WoT) and Social Web of Things
(SWoT) has been exhibited in this paper, where the issues of security, mitigation strategies and
other potential study has been reflected. In study presented with this research, the difficulties of
security alongside necessities then condition of-workmanship procedures besides research has
been given supplement on utilizing the most recent system customs like IPv6 along with 5G to
besides point out the measures for IoT security. The study has also presented the condition of
craftsmanship advances to stay many outfit countermeasures has been demonstrated by IoT to
switch up to different challenges faced due to security, a liberal bit of them are kept for

58COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
authentication, character establishment, and functionalities to support access control. RISP that is
Remote Internet Service Provider along with RADIUS are prevailing responses to provide
insistence and endorsing in IoT by systems for Wi-Fi being used to access the Internet. In the
present day, numerous sharp gadgets strengthen IPv6 correspondences, at any rate the present
approaches in IoT in all probability will not bolster it, and in this way requires unrehearsed doors
and middleware's. The examination demonstrates that challenges related to open research are
available to accomplish joined freedom in terms of IoT gadgets by incorporating a Management
Hub that deals with obvious proof of issues with communication in context to IoT.
6.2 Recommendations
Many changes has been seen in IoT since the beginning, late in the locales of stages of
Telemedicine, systems for Intelligent Transportation along with Monitoring of logistics and
systems for Pollution Monitoring. Two or three inspectors even accept that the concept of IoT
will enlarge up to about 26 billion units in future by the year 2020. Regardless, the challenges
identified in context to security in IoT should be considered as how to accomplish its headway
and change. Given underneath are future heading for investigate with a particular true objective
to make the IoT perspective more secure. Each inquiry in the IoT must have the ability to
obviously recognize and approve diverse things. In any case, this method can be to a great degree
testing an aftereffect of the possibility of the IoT; various components are incorporated (devices,
people, organizations, authority associations and getting ready units) and one other thing is that
once in a while dissents may need to work together with others out of nowhere. In light of this,
an instrument to for the most part attest segments in each relationship in the IoT is required.
Lightweight courses of action are an emerging security consolidate that is shown on account of
the snags in computational as well power limits of the various gadgets related with IoT. As the

59COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
checks have to keep on running on various IoT gadgets within constrained points of
confinement, so they should be perfect with the gadget limits.
Architecture Standards: IoT right at present uses different gadgets, associations, and
customs to accomplish a common objective. Notwithstanding, to compose a game plan of IoT
structures to accomplish a more noticeable structure, for instance, to layout a sharp town by the
tradeoff of numerous adroit homes, there should be a strategy of principles that ought to be taken
after from the more diminutive scale to full scale points in context to the implementation of IoT.
Nowadays, the need of IoT is all around depicted arrangement measures including information
prototypes, mockup designs and customs that are able to fortify a wide-ranging collection of
people, gadgets, and tongues as well as working structures.
Personality Management: The association of identity in IoT is done by trading
perceiving data among the equipment for alliancing in the first time. This strategy is presented to
tuning in which can incite man-in within assault, and in like way can imperil the entire IoT
structure. In this way, there should be some predefined personality association substance or
center point that is able to screen the arrangement of communications between different gadgets
with the application of cryptography along with different systems for mitigating the issues of
data leakage or misuse.
Session Layer: As shown by most examiners, the working of IoT in three layers do not
support the initial, shutting along with dealing for a session among two things. Along these lines,
conventions are required that are able to mitigate the identified issues as well as empower the
communication in between various gadgets. A speculative layer that is session have to be
incorporated as an additional layer in framework of IoT that is capable of dealing with the

60COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
affiliations, conventions alongside sessions while communication occurs between various
devices.
5G Protocol: To comprehend the execution of IoT, there is a need of IPv4 for obliging
the massive amounts of IPidentifiable things. It is the main inspiration driving the people to
move towards IPv6, which can reinforce 3.4x1038 devices. In any case, such number will make
tremendous measure of movement, which can provoke more put off and in this way more
information transmission is required. 5G will be able to deal with the activity being performed by
the gadgets associated with IoT. Notwithstanding, every one of these types of progress run with
their individual particular challenges of security. In addition, dispersed enlisting and SDNs will
develop the measures of DDoS assaults because of the On-Demand Self-Service commonplace
for appropriated handling. Notwithstanding the manner in which that the check and security of
SDN have been tended to by having a decentralized control of certification utilizing client
subordinate security setting, the security of 5G and all the making advances attracted with 5G
must be by and large watched out for, so as to guarantee the security in IoT.

61COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
References
Abomhara, M. and Køien, G.M. (2014), May. Security and privacy in the Internet of Things:
Current status and open issues. In Privacy and Security in Mobile Systems (PRISMS) (2014)
International Conference on (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Abomhara, M. and Køien, G.M. (2015). Cyber security and the internet of things: vulnerabilities,
threats, intruders and attacks. Journal of Cyber Security, 4(1), pp.65-88.
Adat, V. and Gupta, B.B. (2018). Security in Internet of Things: issues, challenges, taxonomy,
and architecture. Telecommunication Systems, 67(3), pp.423-441.
Ahmed, E., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., Imran, M. and Guizani, M. (2016). Internet-of-things-based
smart environments: state of the art, taxonomy, and open research challenges. IEEE Wireless
Communications, 23(5), pp.10-16.
Ajay Vikram Singh, Bani Singh, M. Afshar Alam. (2011) “Issues and Challenges associated with
Secure QoS aware Routing in MANETs,” International Journal of Research and Reviews in Ad
Hoc Networks (IJRRAN), Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.73-76, ISSN: 2046-5106, Science Academy
Publisher, United Kingdom.
Ajay Vikram Singh, Vandana Juyal, Ravi Saggar (n.d). “Trust-based Intelligent Routing
Algorithm for Delay Tolerant Network Using Artificial Neural Network,” Wireless Networks
(WINE), Springer publication, US, Volume-22, Issue-135 pp 1-10.
Alaba, F.A., Othman, M., Hashem, I.A.T. and Alotaibi, F. (2017). Internet of things security: A
survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 88, pp.10-28.

62COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M. and Ayyash, M. (2015). Internet of
things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Communications
Surveys and Tutorials, 17(4), pp.2347-2376.
Alioto, M. ed. (2017). Enabling the Internet of Things: From Integrated Circuits to Integrated
Systems. Springer.
Alrawais, A., Alhothaily, A., Hu, C. and Cheng, X. (2017). Fog computing for the internet of
things: Security and privacy issues. IEEE Internet Computing, 21(2), pp.34-42.
Alur, R., Berger, E., Drobnis, A.W., Fix, L., Fu, K., Hager, G.D., Lopresti, D., Nahrstedt, K.,
Mynatt, E., Patel, S. and Rexford, J. (2016). Systems computing challenges in the Internet of
Things. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02980.
Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., Molinaro, A., Iera, A., Aguiar, R.L. and
Vasilakos, A.V. (2016). Information-centric networking for the internet of things: challenges and
opportunities. IEEE Network, 30(2), pp.92-100.
Andrea, I., chrysostomou, .C. and Hadjichristofi, G. (2015). Internet of Things: Security
Vulnerabilities and challenges. S.I., The 3rd IEEE ISCC 2015 International Workshop on Smart
City and Ubiquitous Computing Applications.
Andrea, I., Chrysostomou, C. and Hadjichristofi, G. (2015), July. Internet of Things: Security
vulnerabilities and challenges. In Computers and Communication (ISCC) (2015) IEEE
Symposium on (pp. 180-187). IEEE.

63COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Ansari, A.N., Sedky, M., Sharma, N. and Tyagi, A. (2015), January. An Internet of things
approach for motion detection using Raspberry Pi. In Intelligent Computing and Internet of
Things (ICIT) (2014) International Conference on (pp. 131-134). IEEE.
Atzori, L., Iera, A., and Morabito, G. (2010). The Internet of Things: a survey. Computer
Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805.
Bello, O. and Zeadally, S. (2016). Intelligent device-to-device communication in the internet of
things. IEEE Systems Journal, 10(3), pp.1172-1182.
Bertino, E. and Islam, N. (2017). Botnets and internet of things security. Computer, (2), pp.76-
79.
Bertino, E., Choo, K.K.R., Georgakopolous, D. and Nepal, S. (2016). Internet of Things (IoT):
Smart and secure service delivery. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 16(4),
p.22.
Bi, Z., Da Xu, L. and Wang, C. (2014). Internet of things for enterprise systems of modern
manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on industrial informatics, 10(2), pp.1537-1546.
Billure, R., Tayur, V.M. and Mahesh, V. (2015), June. Internet of Things-a study on the security
challenges. In Advance Computing Conference (IACC) (2015) IEEE International (pp. 247-252).
IEEE.
Borgohain, T., Kumar, U. and Sanyal, S. (2015). Survey of security and privacy issues of
internet of things. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.02211.
Botta, A., De Donato, W., Persico, V. and Pescapé, A. (2016). Integration of cloud computing
and internet of things: a survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 56, pp.684-700.

64COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Bradley, D., Russell, D., Ferguson, I., Isaacs, J., MacLeod, A. and White, R. (2015). The Internet
of Things–The future or the end of mechatronics. Mechatronics, 27, pp.57-74.
Brinkmann, S. (2014). Interview. In Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1008-1010).
Springer New York.
Bugeja, J., Jacobsson, A. and Davidsson, P. (2016), August. On privacy and security challenges
in smart connected homes. In Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC) (2016)
European (pp. 172-175). IEEE.
Cai, H., Xu, L., Xu, B., Xie, C., Quin, S., and Jiang, L. (2014), “It-Based Configurable
Information Service Platform for Product Lifecycle Management, “Industrial Informatics, IEEE
Transactions on, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1558-1567.
Chasaki, D. and Mansour, C. (2015). Security challenges in the internet of things. International
Journal of Space-Based and Situated Computing, 5(3), pp.141-149.
Chen, E.T. (2017). The Internet of Things: Opportunities, Issues, and Challenges. In The Internet
of Things in the Modern Business Environment (pp. 167-187). IGI Global.
Chen, F., Deng, P., Wan, J., Zhang, D., Vasilakos, A.V. and Rong, X. (2015). Data mining for
the internet of things: literature review and challenges. International Journal of Distributed
Sensor Networks, 11(8), p.431047.
Chen, Y., Han, F., Yang, Y. –H., Ma, H., Han, Y., Jiang, C., Lai, H.-Q., Claffey, D., Safar, Z.,
and Liu, K.R. (2014), “ Internet of Things Journal, IEEE, Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Chiang, M. and Zhang, T. (2016). Fog and IoT: An overview of research opportunities. IEEE
Internet of Things Journal, 3(6), pp.854-864.

65COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Choi, J., Li, S., Wang, X., and Ha, J. (2012), “A General Distributed Consensus Algorithm for
Wireless Sensor Networks, “Wireless Advanced (WiAd), 2012, London, United Kingdom: IEE,
pp. 16-21.
Choy, L.T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and
complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities
and Social Science, 19(4), pp.99-104.
Conti, M., Dehghantanha, A., Franke, K. and Watson, S. (2018). Internet of Things security and
forensics: Challenges and opportunities.
Da Xu, L., He, W. and Li, S. (2014). Internet of things in industries: A survey. IEEE
Transactions on industrial informatics, 10(4), pp.2233-2243.
Dang, G. and Pheng, L.S. (2015). Research methodology. In Infrastructure Investments in
Developing Economies (pp. 135-155). Springer, Singapore.
Daqiang Zhang, Laurence T. Yang, Hongyu Huang. (2011) “Searching in the Internet of Things:
Vision and challenges, “Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA) 2011 IEEE
9th International Symposium on 2011.
Darwish, A., Hassanien, A.E., Elhoseny, M., Sangaiah, A.K. and Muhammad, K. (2017). The
impact of the hybrid platform of internet of things and cloud computing on healthcare systems:
Opportunities, challenges, and open problems. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized
Computing, pp.1-16.
Dastjerdi, A.V. and Buyya, R. (2016). Fog computing: Helping the Internet of Things realize its
potential. Computer, 49(8), pp.112-116.

66COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Díaz, M., Martín, C. and Rubio, B. (2016). State-of-the-art, challenges, and open issues in the
integration of Internet of things and cloud computing. Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, 67, pp.99-117.
Dohr, A., Modre-Opsrian, R., Drobics, M., Hayn, D., and Schreier, G. (2010). The Internet of
Things for Ambient Assisted Living. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG).
Dorri, A., Kanhere, S.S. and Jurdak, R. (2016). Blockchain in internet of things: challenges and
solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.05187.
Dumay, J. and Cai, L. (2015). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating
intellectual capital disclosure: a critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), pp.121-155.
Eastman, D. and Kumar, S. A. (2017). A Simulation Study to Detect Attacks on the Internet of
Things. S.l., IEEE 15th Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, 15th Intl
Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 3rd Intl Conf on Big Data Intelligence and
computing and Cyber Science and Technology Congress.
Eastman, D. and Kumar, S. A. (2017). A Simulation Study to Detect Attacks on the Internet of
things. S.l., IEEE 15th Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, 15th Intl
Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 3rd Intl Conf on Big Data Intelligence and
Computing and Cyber Science and Technology Congress
Elkhodr, M., Shahrestani, S. and Cheung, H. (2016). The Internet of Things: new
interoperability, management and security challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.04824.

67COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Elmaghraby, A.S. and Losavio, M.M. (2014). Cyber security challenges in Smart Cities: Safety,
security and privacy. Journal of advanced research, 5(4), pp.491-497.
Farooq, M.U., Waseem, M., Khairi, A. and Mazhar, S. (2015). A critical analysis on the security
concerns of internet of things (IoT). International Journal of Computer Applications, 111(7).
Farooq, M.U., Waseem, M., Mazhar, S., Khairi, A. and Kamal, T. (2015). A review on Internet
of Things (IoT). International Journal of Computer Applications, 113(1), pp.1-7.
Fielding, R.T., and Taylor, R.N. (2002), “Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture, “
ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 115-150.
Fink, G.A., Zarzhitsky, D.V., Carroll, T.E. and Farquhar, E.D. (2015), June. Security and privacy
grand challenges for the Internet of Things. In Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)
(2015) International Conference on (pp. 27-34). IEEE.
Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology: A beginner's guide to doing a research
project. Sage.
Florea, I., Ruse, L., C. and Rughinis, R. (2016). Challenges in Security in the Internet of Things.
Bucharest Romania.
Granjal, J., Monteiro, E. and Silva, J.S. (2015). Security for the internet of things: a survey of
existing protocols and open research issues. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 17(3),
pp.1294-1312.
Guerrero-Ibanez, J.A., Zeadally, S. and Contreras-Castillo, J. (2015). Integration challenges of
intelligent transportation systems with connected vehicle, cloud computing, and internet of
things technologies. IEEE Wireless Communications, 22(6), pp.122-128.

68COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Hassanalieragh, M., Page, A., Soyata, T., Sharma, G., Aktas, M., Mateos, G., Kantarci, B. and
Andreescu, S. (2015), June. Health monitoring and management using Internet-of-Things (IoT)
sensing with cloud-based processing: Opportunities and challenges. In 2015 IEEE international
conference on services computing (SCC) (pp. 285-292). IEEE.
Ho, G., Leung, D., Mishra, P., Hosseini, A., Song, D. and Wagner, D. (2016), May. Smart locks:
Lessons for securing commodity internet of things devices. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM on
Asia conference on computer and communications security (pp. 461-472). ACM.
Hossain, M.M., Fotouhi, M. and Hasan, R. (2015), June. Towards an analysis of security issues,
challenges, and open problems in the internet of things. In Services (SERVICES) (2015) IEEE
World Congress on (pp. 21-28). IEEE.
Huckle, S., Bhattacharya, R., White, M. and Beloff, N. (2016). Internet of things, blockchain and
shared economy applications. Procedia computer science, 98, pp.461-466.
Hwang, Y.H. (2015), April. Iot security and privacy: threats and challenges. In Proceedings of
the 1st ACM Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and Security (pp. 1-1). ACM.
Iotamy.com. (2018). Sensors are the key to IoT. [online] Available at:
http://www.iotamy.com/IoT_Sensors [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].
Islam, S.R., Kwak, D., Kabir, M.H., Hossain, M. and Kwak, K.S. (2015). The internet of things
for health care: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access, 3, pp.678-708.
J. Challadhurai, P.R Chelliah, and S.A. Kumar. (2016). “ Securing Docker Containers from
Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks, in Proceedings of 2016 IEEE (2016)

69COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Jararweh, Y., Al-Ayyoub, M., Benkhelifa, E., Vouk, M. and Rindos, A. (2015). Sdiot: a software
defined based internet of things framework. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized
Computing, 6(4), pp.453-461.
Jing, Q., Vasilakos, A.V., Wan, J., Lu, J. and Qiu, D. (2014). Security of the Internet of Things:
perspectives and challenges. Wireless Networks, 20(8), pp.2481-2501.
Kshetri, N. (2017). Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?. IT Professional, 19(4),
pp.68-72.
Kumar, S.A., Vealey, T. and Srivastava, H. (2016), January. Security in internet of things:
Challenges, solutions and future directions. In System Sciences (HICSS) (2016) 49th Hawaii
International Conference on (pp. 5772-5781). IEEE.
Lake, D., Milito, R., Morrow, M. and Vargheese, R. (2014). Internet of things: Architectural
framework for ehealth security. J. ICT Stand, 1(3), pp.301-328.
Laplante, P.A. and Laplante, N. (2016). The internet of things in healthcare: Potential
applications and challenges. IT Professional, (3), pp.2-4.
Lee, I. and Lee, K. (2015). The Internet of Things (IoT): Applications, investments, and
challenges for enterprises. Business Horizons, 58(4), pp.431-440.
Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), pp.473-475.
Li, S., Da Xu, L. and Zhao, S. (2015). The internet of things: a survey. Information Systems
Frontiers, 17(2), pp.243-259.

70COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Li, S., Tryfonas, T. and Li, H. (2016). The Internet of Things: a security point of view. Internet
Research, 26(2), pp.337-359.
Lin, J., Yu, W., Zhang, N., Yang, X., Zhang, H. and Zhao, W. (2017). A survey on internet of
things: Architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications. IEEE
Internet of Things Journal, 4(5), pp.1125-1142.
Lui, J., Li, X., Chen, X., Zhen, Y., and Zeng, L. (2011). Applications of the Internet of Things on
the Smart grid in China. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advanced
Communication Technology (ICACT).
Mackey, A. and Gass, S.M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design.
Routledge.
Mahmoud, R., Yousuf, T., Aloul, F. and Zualkernan, I. (2015), December. Internet of things
(IoT) security: Current status, challenges and prospective measures. In Internet Technology and
Secured Transactions (ICITST) (2015) 10th International Conference for (pp. 336-341). IEEE.
Malina, L., Hajny, J., Fujdiak, R. and Hosek, J. (2016). On perspective of security and privacy-
preserving solutions in the internet of things. Computer Networks, 102, pp.83-95.
Mario Weber, M. (2016). Security Challenges of the Internet of the Things. Opatija, Croatia.
Matharu, G.S., Upadhyay, P. and Chaudhary, L. (2014), December. The internet of things:
Challenges and security issues. In Emerging Technologies (ICET) (2014) International
Conference on (pp. 54-59). IEEE.
Mavromoustakis, C.X., Mastorakis, G. and Batalla, J.M. eds. (2016). Internet of Things (IoT) in
5G mobile technologies (Vol. 8). Springer.

71COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Mehmood, Y., Ahmad, F., Yaqoob, I., Adnane, A., Imran, M. and Guizani, S. (2017). Internet-
of-things-based smart cities: Recent advances and challenges. IEEE Communications
Magazine, 55(9), pp.16-24.
Mineraud, J., Mazhelis, O., Su, X. and Tarkoma, S. (2016). A gap analysis of Internet-of-Things
platforms. Computer Communications, 89, pp.5-16.
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., De Pellegrini, F., and Chlamtac, I. (2012). Internet of Things: Vision
Applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 10(7), 1497-1516.
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R. and Wamba, S. (2016).
Vision, applications and future challenges of Internet of Things: A bibliometric study of the
recent literature. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(7), pp.1331-1355.
Misra, S., Maheswaran, M. and Hashmi, S. (2017). Security challenges and approaches in
internet of things. Springer International Publishing.
Moosavi, S.R., Gia, T.N., Nigussie, E., Rahmani, A.M., Virtanen, S., Tenhunen, H. and Isoaho,
J. (2016). End-to-end security scheme for mobility enabled healthcare Internet of Things. Future
Generation Computer Systems, 64, pp.108-124.
Mosenia, A. and Jha, N.K. (2017). A comprehensive study of security of internet-of-
things. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 5(4), pp.586-602.
Mukherjee, A. (2015). Physical-layer security in the internet of things: Sensing and
communication confidentiality under resource constraints. Proceedings of the IEEE, 103(10),
pp.1747-1761.

72COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Mukhopadhyay, S.C. and Suryadevara, N.K. (2014). Internet of things: Challenges and
opportunities. In Internet of Things (pp. 1-17). Springer, Cham.
Mumtaz, S., Alsohaily, A., Pang, Z., Rayes, A., Tsang, K.F. and Rodriguez, J. (2017). Massive
Internet of Things for industrial applications: Addressing wireless IIoT connectivity challenges
and ecosystem fragmentation. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, 11(1), pp.28-33.
Ni, J., Zhang, K., Lin, X. and Shen, X.S. (2017). Securing fog computing for internet of things
applications: Challenges and solutions. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 20(1),
pp.601-628.
Ning, H. (2016). Unit and ubiquitous internet of things. CRC press.
Ning, H., Liu, H. and Yang, L. (2015). Aggregated-proof based hierarchical authentication
scheme for the internet of things. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, (1),
pp.1-1.
Niu, J., Jin, Y., Lee, A.J., Sandhu, R., Xu, W. and Zhang, X. (2016), June. Panel security and
privacy in the age of Internet of Things: Opportunities and challenges. In Proceedings of the 21st
ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (pp. 49-50). ACM.
Panneerselvam, R. (2014). Research methodology. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd..
Perera, C., Liu, C.H. and Jayawardena, S. (2015). The emerging internet of things marketplace
from an industrial perspective: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in
Computing, 3(4), pp.585-598.
Puthal, D., Nepal, S., Ranjan, R. and Chen, J. (2016). Threats to networking cloud and edge
datacenters in the internet of things. IEEE Cloud Computing, 3(3), pp.64-71.

73COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Q. Jing, A.V. Vasilakos, J. Wan J. Lu, D. Quiv. (2014) “Security of the Internet of Things:
perspectives and challenges.” Volume 20, issue 8, pp. 2481-2507. Wireless Networks.
Qi, Jing, A.V. Vasilakos, J. Wan J. Lu, D. Quiv. (2014). The Internet of Things: A Security Point
of View. Springer Science, P. 2.
Rose, K., Eldridge, S. and Chapin, L. (2015). The internet of things: An overview. The Internet
Society (ISOC), pp.1-50.
Sadeghi, A.R., Wachsmann, C. and Waidner, M. (2015), June. Security and privacy challenges
in industrial internet of things. In Design Automation Conference (DAC) (2015) 52nd
ACM/EDAC/IEEE (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Saha, H.N., Mandal, A. and Sinha, A. (2017), January. Recent trends in the Internet of Things.
In Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) (2017) IEEE 7th
Annual (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Sain, M., Kang, Y.J. and Lee, H.J. (2017), February. Survey on security in Internet of Things:
State of the art and challenges. In Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT) (2017) 19th
International Conference on (pp. 699-704). IEEE.
Sajid, A., Abbas, H. and Saleem, K. (2016). Cloud-assisted IoT-based SCADA systems security:
A review of the state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Access, 4, pp.1375-1384.
Samaila, M.G., Neto, M., Fernandes, D.A., Freire, M.M. and Inácio, P.R. (2017). Security
challenges of the Internet of Things. In Beyond the Internet of Things (pp. 53-82). Springer,
Cham.

74COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Sedrati, A. and Mezrioui, A. (2017). Internet of Things Challenges: A focus on Security aspects.
Rabat, Morocco, 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems
(ICICS).
Sfar, A.R., Natalizio, E., Challal, Y. and Chtourou, Z. (2018). A roadmap for security challenges
in the Internet of Things. Digital Communications and Networks, 4(2), pp.118-137.
Sha, K., Wei, W., Yang, T.A., Wang, Z. and Shi, W. (2018). On security challenges and open
issues in Internet of Things. Future Generation Computer Systems, 83, pp.326-337.
Sicari, S., Rizzardi, A., Grieco, L.A. and Coen-Porisini, A. (2015). Security, privacy and trust in
Internet of Things: The road ahead. Computer networks, 76, pp.146-164.
Silverman, D. ed. (2016). Qualitative research. Sage.
Singh, D., Tripathi, G. and Jara, A.J. (2014), March. A survey of Internet-of-Things: Future
vision, architecture, challenges and services. In Internet of things (WF-IoT) (2014) IEEE world
forum on (pp. 287-292). IEEE.
Singh, S. and Singh, N. (2015), October. Internet of Things (IoT): Security challenges, business
opportunities and reference architecture for E-commerce. In Green Computing and Internet of
Things (ICGCIoT) (2015) International Conference on (pp. 1577-1581). IEEE.
Skarmeta, A.F., Hernandez-Ramos, J.L. and Moreno, M.V. (2014), March. A decentralized
approach for security and privacy challenges in the internet of things. In Internet of Things (WF-
IoT) (2014) IEEE World Forum on (pp. 67-72). IEEE.
Sood, K., Yu, S. and Xiang, Y. (2016). Software-defined wireless networking opportunities and
challenges for Internet-of-Things: A review. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 3(4), pp.453-463.

75COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Stojkoska, B.L.R. and Trivodaliev, K.V. (2017). A review of Internet of Things for smart home:
Challenges and solutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp.1454-1464.
Tasneem, Y., Rwan, M., Fadi, A. and Imran, Z. (2015). Internet of Things (IoT) Security:
Current Status, Challenges, and Countermeasures. International Journal for Information Security:
Current Status Challenges and Countermeasures. International Journal for Information Security
Research (IJISR), p. 9
Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods:
A guidebook and resource. John Wiley and Sons.
Thierer, A.D. (2015). The internet of things and wearable technology: Addressing privacy and
security concerns without derailing innovation.
Vasilomanolakis, E., Daubert, J., Luthra, M., Gazis, V., Wiesmaier, A. and Kikiras, P. (2015),
September. On the security and privacy of internet of things architectures and systems. In Secure
Internet of Things (SIoT) (2015) International Workshop on (pp. 49-57). IEEE.
Want, R., Schilit, B.N. and Jenson, S. (2015). Enabling the internet of things. Computer, 48(1),
pp.28-35.
Weber, M. and Boban, M. (2016), May. Security challenges of the internet of things.
In Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO)
(2016) 39th International Convention on (pp. 638-643). IEEE.
Williams, P.A. and McCauley, V. (2016), December. Always connected: The security challenges
of the healthcare Internet of Things. In Internet of Things (WF-IoT) (2016) IEEE 3rd World
Forum on (pp. 30-35). IEEE.

76COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Wortmann, F. and Flüchter, K. (2015). Internet of things. Business and Information Systems
Engineering, 57(3), pp.221-224.
Yan, Z., Zhang, P. and Vasilakos, A.V. (2014). A survey on trust management for Internet of
Things. Journal of network and computer applications, 42, pp.120-134.
Yaqoob, I., Ahmed, E., Hashem, I.A.T., Ahmed, A.I.A., Gani, A., Imran, M. and Guizani, M.
(2017). Internet of things architecture: Recent advances, taxonomy, requirements, and open
challenges. IEEE wireless communications, 24(3), pp.10-16.
Yu, T., Sekar, V., Seshan, S., Agarwal, Y. and Xu, C. (2015), November. Handling a trillion
(unfixable) flaws on a billion devices: Rethinking network security for the internet-of-things.
In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (p. 5). ACM.
Yuehong, Y.I.N., Zeng, Y., Chen, X. and Fan, Y. (2016). The internet of things in healthcare: An
overview. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 1, pp.3-13.
Zhang, Z.K., Cho, M.C.Y., Wang, C.W., Hsu, C.W., Chen, C.K. and Shieh, S. (2014),
November. IoT security: ongoing challenges and research opportunities. In Service-Oriented
Computing and Applications (SOCA) (2014) IEEE 7th International Conference on (pp. 230-
234). IEEE.
Zhou, J., Cao, Z., Dong, X. and Vasilakos, A.V. (2017). Security and privacy for cloud-based
IoT: challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(1), pp.26-33.
Ziegeldorf, J.H., Morchon, O.G. and Wehrle, K. (2014). Privacy in the Internet of Things: threats
and challenges. Security and Communication Networks, 7(12), pp.2728-2742.

77COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Appendix – Practical Work
Home page
Introduction

78COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Literature Review
Methodology

79COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Findings and Analysis
Results and Discussion

80COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
Conclusion and Recommendations
References