Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 404

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anatomy of Threats to the Internet of Things

Open access
Makhdoom, Imran, Abolhasan, Mehran, Lipman, Justin, Liu, Ren Ping, Ni, Wei·2019·IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials

Abstract

The world is resorting to the Internet of Things (IoT) for ease of control and monitoring of smart devices. The ubiquitous use of IoT ranges from industrial control systems (ICS) to e-Health, e-Commerce, smart cities, supply chain management, smart cars, cyber physical systems (CPS), and a lot more. Such reliance on IoT is resulting in a significant amount of data to be generated, collected, processed, and analyzed. The big data analytics is no doubt beneficial for business development. However, at the same time, numerous threats to the availability and privacy of the user data, message, and device integrity, the vulnerability of IoT devices to malware attacks and the risk of physical compromise of devices pose a significant danger to the sustenance of IoT. This paper thus endeavors to highlight most of the known threats at various layers of the IoT architecture with a focus on the anatomy of malware attacks. We present a detailed attack methodology adopted by some of the most successful malware attacks on IoT, including ICS and CPS. We also deduce an attack strategy of a distributed denial of service attack through IoT botnet followed by requisite security measures. In the end, we propose a composite guideline for the development of an IoT security framework based on industry best practices and also highlight lessons learned, pitfalls and some open research challenges.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/comst.2018.2874978

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 116 references

Research works printed but not linked: 102

  1. 2012, Information Security Advice Network Segmentation and Segregation
  2. 2017, Save the Data Self Encrypting Drives
  3. abdi, 2016, ReSecure: A restart-based security protocol for tightly actuated hard real-time systems, Proc IEEE CERTS, 47
  4. 10.1016/j.comnet.2017.10.006 · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2017.10.006
  5. 2017, HPE Fortift and the Internet of Things
  6. 2016, Ransomware 5 Dos and Don’ts
  7. lee, 2016, 2016 Saw an Insane Rise in the Number of Ransomware attacks
  8. sara, 2018, Facebook Has Been Worried About Data Leaks Like This Since it Went Public in 2012
  9. gaetani, 2017, Blockchain-based database to ensure data integrity in cloud computing environments
  10. 2017, LPWA Technology Security Comparison A White paper by Franklin Health Ltd
  11. granville, 2018, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica What you need to know as fallout widens
  12. kovacs, 2017, Shamoon Attacks Possibly Aided by Greenbug Group
  13. 2015, Duqu2 0 The Most Sophisticated Malware Ever Seen
  14. 2015, Guidance for Securing IoT Using TCG Technology Version 1 Revision 21
  15. lewis, 2017, IoT Security What Are the Keys to Protecting the Castle 247?
  16. 2017, Five Indisputable Facts About IoT Security
  17. 2015, TCG Infrastructure WG TPM Keys for Platform Identity for TPM 1 2
  18. 2012, NIST 800–30 Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments
  19. greenstein, 2016, IoT Devices Used in DDoS Attacks
  20. 2017, Do You Have a Defense-in-Depth Security Strategy?
  21. 2017, ISO 27001 Risk Assessments
  22. 2014, Alcatel-Lucent 1830 Photonic Service Switch (PSS-64 and PSS-36) Alcatel Lucent
  23. 10.1016/S1353-4858(07)70036-3 · doi:10.1016/s1353-4858(07)70036-3
  24. 10.1109/ICTON.2014.6876451 · doi:10.1109/icton.2014.6876451
  25. 10.1002/sec.1407 · doi:10.1002/sec.1407
  26. 2017, Hyperledger- blockchain technologies for business
  27. 2017, Microsoft Azure
  28. smith, 2016, IBM Blockchain: An enterprise deployment of a distributed consensus-based transaction log, Proc 4th Int IBM Cloud Acad Conf, 140
  29. poulsen, 2003, Slammer Worm Crashed Ohio Nuke Plant Network
  30. 2003, Computer virus strikes CSX transportation computers
  31. 2017, Secure Authentication and Anti-Counterfeit Technology
  32. greenberg, 2015, Hackers remotely kill a jeep on the highway—with me in it
  33. 2017, Arm mbed
  34. manolov, 2015, IMA/EVM: Real applications for embedded networking systems, Linux Security Summit
  35. 10.1109/MALWARE.2014.6999418 · doi:10.1109/malware.2014.6999418
  36. 2016, Mirai ‘Internet of Things’ Malware From Krebs DDoS Attack Goes Open Source
  37. 2016, IoT Security An IBM Position Paper
  38. 2007, Xbox 360 timing attack
  39. lemos, 2014, Sony Left Passwords Code-Signing Keys Virtually Unprotected
  40. fowler, 2015, Some Top Baby Monitors Lack Basic Security Features Report Finds
  41. skorobogatov, 2011, Fault attacks on secure chips: From glitch to flash, Design and Security of Cryptographic Algorithms and Devices (ECRYPT II), 1
  42. 10.1007/s11107-011-0322-2 · doi:10.1007/s11107-011-0322-2
  43. 10.1109/ECOC.2010.5621217 · doi:10.1109/ecoc.2010.5621217
  44. hernandez, 2014, Smart nest thermostat: A smart spy in your home, Proc Black Hat USA
  45. 2016, Attack of things
  46. thomas, 2015, It’s Depressingly Easy to Spy on Vulnerable Baby Monitors Using Just a Browser
  47. johan, 2017, Firmware Updates Over Low-Power Wide Area Networks
  48. 2018, What is Cloud Computing
  49. 2017, Neo—Whitepaper
  50. 10.4018/978-1-4666-0026-3.ch008 · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0026-3.ch008
  51. 2018, Cross-Site Scripting Attacks (XSS)
  52. 0, SQLi XSS zero-days expose Belkin IoT devices Android smart phones
  53. 2016, Deloitte Threat Intelligence and Analytics
  54. 0, Top 10-2010 the Ten Most Critical Web Application Security Risks
  55. shahzad, 2017, A survey of active attacks on wireless sensor networks and their countermeasures, CoRR, abs 1702 7136, 54
  56. murphy, 2016, Enhanced Security Controls for IBM Watson IoT Platform
  57. 2018, Secure Adaptive Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
  58. 2015, Fog Computing and the Internet of Things Extend the Cloud to Where the Things Are
  59. 2017, Implement IoT and Blockchain for Accountability and Security IBMWATSON IOT
  60. 2016, Blockchain Startup Factom Inc Raises Series a Funding
  61. reid, 2015, How bitcoin's technology could make supply chains more transparent
  62. 2015, RISI Online Incident Database
  63. 2013, The Icefog APT A Tale of Cloak and Three Daggers
  64. 2012, Gauss Nation-state cyber-surveillance meets banking trojan
  65. 2010, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures CVE-2010-2568
  66. 2014, Red October—Diplomatic Cyber Attacks Investigation
  67. 2016, Dragonfly Western Energy Companies Under Sabotage Threat Symantec Security Response
  68. wangen, 2015, The role of malware in reported cyber espionage: A review of the impact and mechanism, Information, 6, 183, 10.3390/info6020183 · doi:10.3390/info6020183
  69. 2017, Trojans Exploit WAP Subscriptions to Steal Money
  70. 2011, Night Dragon Attacks Target Technology in Energy Sector
  71. victoria, 2017, WannaCry Ransomware What is it and How to Protect Yourself
  72. goodin, 2013, You’re Infected If You Want to See Your Data Again Pay U S $300 in Bitcoins
  73. carol, 2016, The Impact of WannaCry on Industrial Control Systems (ICS)
  74. oberhaus, 2017, This Luxury Hotel is Sick of Ransomware Attacks So It’s Going Analog
  75. 2016, Mirai What you Need to Know About the Botnet Behind Recent Major DDoS Attacks
  76. 2014, ICS-ALERT-14-176-02A ICS-CERT
  77. 2014, Havex Hunts for ICS/SCADA Systems
  78. falliere, 2011, W32 stuxnet Dossier
  79. langner, 2013, To Kill a Centrifuge A Technical Analysis of What Stuxnet’s Creators Tried to Achieve
  80. 10.1145/2897937.2905004 · doi:10.1145/2897937.2905004
  81. 2017, Timeline of Computer Viruses and Worms
  82. 1994, NIST Computer Security Resource Center
  83. lorenzo, 2016, Hackers Make the First-Ever Ransomware for Smart Thermostats
  84. bruce, 2017, Schneier on Security The Future of Ransomware
  85. 2017, New Petya/NotPetya/ExPetr Ransomware Outbreak
  86. 2015, Duqu2 0 The Most Sophisticated Malware Ever Seen
  87. 2018, National Cyber Awareness System U S CERT
  88. andrew, 2016, How the Internet of Things will affect security & privacy
  89. steinberg, 2014, These Devices May Be Spying On You (Even In Your Own Home)
  90. 2017, Internet of Things Security Study Smartwatches
  91. 2015, IBM Point of View Internet of Things Security
  92. storm, 2015, SCADA StrangeLove Zero-Days & Hacking for Full Remote Control
  93. 2017, Shamoon Attacks Possibly Aided by Greenbug Group
  94. 2016, The CEO’s Guide to Data Security Protect Your Data Through Innovation—AT&T Cybersecurity Insights
  95. 10.1109/ICDCSW.2013.30 · doi:10.1109/icdcsw.2013.30
  96. ducklin, 2016, Mirai ‘Internet of Things’ Malware From Krebs DDoS Attack Goes Open Source
  97. 2017, Shamoon Return Prompts Saudi Arabia Cyber Warning
  98. 2014, Microsoft Issued a Critical Out-of-Band Patch for Kerberos Flaw
  99. 2014, Microsoft Fixes 3 Zero-Day and Many Other Flaws Being Exploited in the Wild
  100. 2015, What Exactly is Duqu 2 0? Rapid7 Community
  101. nakashima, 2012, U S Israel Developed Flame Computer Virus to Slow Iranian Nuclear Efforts Officials Say
  102. gostev, 2012, The Flame Questions and Answers

Cited by

See all 404

Metadata

Authors
Makhdoom, I., Abolhasan, M., Lipman, J., Liu, R. P., & Ni, W.
Venue
IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
Published
2019
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
1636-1675
ISSN
  • 1553-877X (ISSN-L)
  • 2373-745X
OpenAlex
W2897514040
Cited by
404
References
116
FWCI
20.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anatomy of Threats to the Internet of Things. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/comst.2018.2874978
The paper
Makhdoom, I., Abolhasan, M., Lipman, J., Liu, R. P., & Ni, W. (2019). Anatomy of Threats to the Internet of Things. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2018.2874978

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.