Fear and Logging in the Internet of Things
Open accessAbstract
As the Internet of Things (IoT) continues to proliferate, diagnosing incorrect behavior within increasinglyautomated homes becomes considerably more difficult.Devices and apps may be chained together in long sequences of triggeraction rules to the point that from an observable symptom (e.g., an unlocked door) it may be impossible to identify the distantly removed root cause (e.g., a malicious app).This is because, at present, IoT audit logs are siloed on individual devices, and hence cannot be used to reconstruct the causal relationships of complex workflows.In this work, we present ProvThings, a platform-centric approach to centralized auditing in the Internet of Things.ProvThings performs efficient automated instrumentation of IoT apps and device APIs in order to generate data provenance that provides a holistic explanation of system activities, including malicious behaviors.We prototype ProvThings for the Samsung SmartThings platform, and benchmark the efficacy of our approach against a corpus of 26 IoT attacks.Through the introduction of a selective code instrumentation optimization, we demonstrate in evaluation that ProvThings imposes just 5% overhead on physical IoT devices while enabling real time querying of system behaviors, and further consider how ProvThings can be leveraged to meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders in the IoT ecosystem.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Servicing many data protection rights could be facilitated through mechanisms for tracing the paths of data to identify where data resides, with whom it was shared, and how it was processed.
“As discussed in §II, servicing many of the rights afforded to individuals in data protection law could be facilitated through mechanisms for tracing the paths of data so as to identify where data resides, with whom it was shared, and how it was processed (e.g.see [23], [28]).”
From Decision Provenance: Harnessing Data Flow for Accountable Systems (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
Decision provenance can assist those responsible for systems in complying with their legal and other obligations.
“Decision provenance can assist those responsible for systems in complying with their legal (and other) obligations [28].”
From Decision Provenance: Harnessing Data Flow for Accountable Systems (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 196
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- M. Backes, S. Bugiel, and S. Gerling, "Scippa: system-centric ipc provenance on android," in ACSAC, 2014, pp. 36-45.
- A. Chen, Y. Wu, A. Haeberlen, W. Zhou, and B. T. Loo, "The Good, the Bad, and the Differences: Better Network Diagnostics with Differential Provenance," in ACM SIGCOMM, 2016.
- J. Cheney, S. Chong, N. Foster, M. Seltzer, and S. Vansummeren, "Provenance: a future history," in OOPSLA, 2009, pp. 957-964.
- X. Yuan, O. Setayeshfar, H. Yan, P. Panage, X. Wei, and K. H. Lee, "Droidforensics: Accurate reconstruction of android attacks via multi- layer forensic logging," in ASIA CCS, 2017, pp. 666-677.
- Authors
- Wang, Q., Hassan, W. U., Bates, A., & Gunter, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium
- Publisher
- Internet Society
- Published
- 2018
- OpenAlex
- W2792078641
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 19
- FWCI
- 23.45
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital and Cyber Forensics
- Keywords
- Internet of Things security, audit logs, data provenance, automated instrumentation, root cause analysis, malicious app detection, IoT attacks
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