Cited by 764IoT and Edge/Fog ComputingInternet of Things and AINetwork Security and Intrusion Detection

IoT Privacy and Security: Challenges and Solutions

Open access
Tawalbeh, Lo’ai, Muheidat, Fadi, Tawalbeh, Mais, Quwaider, Muhannad·2020·Applied Sciences

Abstract

Privacy and security are among the significant challenges of the Internet of Things (IoT). Improper device updates, lack of efficient and robust security protocols, user unawareness, and famous active device monitoring are among the challenges that IoT is facing. In this work, we are exploring the background of IoT systems and security measures, and identifying (a) different security and privacy issues, (b) approaches used to secure the components of IoT-based environments and systems, (c) existing security solutions, and (d) the best privacy models necessary and suitable for different layers of IoT driven applications. In this work, we proposed a new IoT layered model: generic and stretched with the privacy and security components and layers identification. The proposed cloud/edge supported IoT system is implemented and evaluated. The lower layer represented by the IoT nodes generated from the Amazon Web Service (AWS) as Virtual Machines. The middle layer (edge) implemented as a Raspberry Pi 4 hardware kit with support of the Greengrass Edge Environment in AWS. We used the cloud-enabled IoT environment in AWS to implement the top layer (the cloud). The security protocols and critical management sessions were between each of these layers to ensure the privacy of the users’ information. We implemented security certificates to allow data transfer between the layers of the proposed cloud/edge enabled IoT model. Not only is the proposed system model eliminating possible security vulnerabilities, but it also can be used along with the best security techniques to countermeasure the cybersecurity threats facing each one of the layers; cloud, edge, and IoT.

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 · 10.3390/app10124102

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • The constrained resources of IoT devices render them susceptible to physical and cyber threats.

    “The constrained resources of IoT devices render them susceptible to both physical and cyber threats.”

    From Privacy-preserving security of IoT networks: A comparative analysis of methods and applications (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction (page not available) describes IoT devices as vulnerable to cyberattacks, and §3.1 Security links weak protection to cyberattacks. The passages found do not say that constrained device resources cause this vulnerability or that they make devices susceptible to physical threats. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Transparency and accountability deficits among IoT service providers and users raise ethical and legal concerns.

    “transparency and accountability deficits among IoT service providers and users raise ethical and legal concerns”

    From Privacy-preserving security of IoT networks: A comparative analysis of methods and applications (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    Section 3.1 (page unavailable) says users and developers have an obligation not to expose others to harm, and Section 3.2 discusses privacy rights and potential harms. The paper does not identify transparency or accountability deficits among service providers and users, or characterize those deficits as raising legal concerns. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Insufficient awareness and education among IoT stakeholders heighten the risk of privacy violations and security breaches.

    “insufficient awareness and education among IoT stakeholders heighten the risk of privacy violations and security breaches”
  • The large-scale and heterogeneous composition of IoT networks complicates management and oversight.

    “Among the primary challenges is the large-scale and heterogeneous composition of IoT networks, which complicates management and oversight.”
  • A lack of standardized protocols exacerbates interoperability issues in IoT.

    “A lack of standardized protocols exacerbates interoperability issues”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Siby, S.; Maiti, R.R.; Tippenhauer, N.O. Iotscanner: Detecting privacy threats in IoT neighborhoods. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and Security, Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates, 2 April 2017; pp. 23-30.
  2. Izzat, A.; Chuck, E.; Lo'ai, T. The NICE Cyber Security Framework, Cyber Security Management; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-41987-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tawalbeh, L., Muheidat, F., Tawalbeh, M., & Quwaider, M.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University – San Antonio (US)
  • California State University, San Bernardino (US)
  • Jordan University of Science and Technology (JO)
Corresponding author
Tawalbeh, Lo’ai
Venue
Applied Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-06-15
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
4102
ISSN
2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3034175800
Cited by
764
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 150 · 2024: 173 · 2023: 160 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 96 · 2020: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
45.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Commons @ Texas A&M University-San Antonio (Texas A&M University-San Antonio) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Expanded Chancellor Research Initiative grant (CRI) awarded to Texas A&M University- San Antonio, TX, USA. (2019)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Internet of Things and AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
Keywords
Internet of Things security, IoT privacy, Raspberry Pi, security certificates, security protocols, user awareness, IoT vulnerabilities

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