Internet of Things (IoT) plays a vital role in our day to day life and normally used in our houses, in industry, schools and in hospitals which implemented outside to manage and control for taking report the changes in location prevent from dangers and many more favorable things. Moreover all other advantages can approach of big risks of privacy loss and security issues. To protect the IoT devices, so many research works have been measure to find those problems and locate a best way to eradicate those risks or at least to reduce their effect on the security and privacy requirement. Formation the concept of device to device (D2D) communication technology, IoT plays the information transfer from one end to another end as node of interconnection. This paper examines the constraints and security challenges posed by IoT connected devices and the ability to connect, communicate with, and remotely manage an incalculable number of networked, automated devices via the Internet is becoming pervasive.

1. A Review on Privacy and Security Challenges in
the Internet of Things (IoT) to protect the Device
and Communication Networks
S. Balamurugan
Ph.D., Research Scholar
Department of CSE,
Annamalai University.
chella40978@gmail.com
Dr. A. Ayyasamy
Assistant Professor
Department of CSE
Annamalai University.
samy7771@yahoo.co.in
Dr. K. Suresh Joseph
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science
Pondicherry University,
Ksjoseph.csc@gmail.com
Abstract— Internet of Things (IoT) plays a vital role in our
day to day life and normally used in our houses, in industry,
schools and in hospitals which implemented outside to manage
and control for taking report the changes in location prevent
from dangers and many more favorable things. Moreover all
other advantages can approach of big risks of privacy loss and
security issues. To protect the IoT devices, so many research
works have been measure to find those problems and locate a
best way to eradicate those risks or at least to reduce their effect
on the security and privacy requirement. Formation the concept
of device to device (D2D) communication technology, IoT plays
the information transfer from one end to another end as node of
interconnection. This paper examines the constraints and
security challenges posed by IoT connected devices and the
ability to connect, communicate with, and remotely manage an
incalculable number of networked, automated devices via the
Internet is becoming pervasive.
Keywords— Internet of Things, D2D, communication
Technology, internet, privacy, security, issues, challenges.
I. INTRODUCTION
Now-a-days the different communication technologies are
used to interconnection for the transfer of information, more
number of issues in security and privacy sectors. IoT [1] finds
its application in the all the fields, since new mode of
communication between the different systems and devices.
Internet of Things (IoT) also called the internet of everything
or industrial network is a wide technology which is been
viewed as a global network of machines and devices capable
of interacting with each other. The IoT allows things to be
controlled remotely across existing network infrastructure,
provide opportunities for more direct integration of the
physical world into computer-based systems, and resulting in
improved efficiency, accuracy and economic benefit in
addition to reduced human intervention. If the IOT devices are
poorly secured, cyber attackers will use them as gateway to
cause harm to other devices in the network. So, here arises the
issues in security and privacy and more attention is required in
IoT especially authenticity, confidentiality and integrity cum
availability [2] of data and services in IoT.
The main objective of this paper is to highlight security and
privacy issues surrounding Internet of Things. In terms of
security, IoT is a technology with unlimited challenges
because of following reasons:
a) IoT is typically regarded as extension of current
internet to several different technologies like Mobile
Broadband, Wireless Sensor Network which are open to attack
because of various loopholes.
b) In IoT, each and every device is be connected to
Internet and Internet is always an unsecured mode which
makes all these devices open door for hackers for various
breaches and remote code executions
c) If the IoT has a problem, or is exposed to
weaknesses, then the enterprises that are connected to it are
equally threatened. In fact, while security [27] is undoubtedly
one of major issues impacting the development, there are a
number of other problems that stem directly from this.
Figure 1 Data Security
Confidentiality makes sure the data at rest or data
transferred between end points remains secured through
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2018
57 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

2. encryption. Integrity is to make sure the software in the device
or any part of the system is protected against unauthorized
modification. This can be achieved from different techniques
starting from simple hashing to digital signatures using Public
key cryptography. Availability is to make sure that the system
is available based on the service level expectations. This
requires systems to be aware of their weakness and have
counter measures built in.
II. KEY ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN IOT
A. Sensing
The first step in IoT workflow is gathering information at a
“point of activity.” The information collected may be
information collected by the appliance or any devices. The
sensing can be biometric, biological, environmental, visual or
audible.
B. Communication
IoT devices need a channel for sending collected
information at the device level to the Cloud-based service for
further processing. This expects either Wi-Fi (wireless LAN
based communications) or WAN (wide area network… i.e.
cellular) communications. Depending on the need of
communication other capabilities may also be required. That
may include Bluetooth, ZigBee, Near-field or a range of other
short range communication methods. GPS is required for
positioning.
C. Cloud Based Capture & Consolidation
Collected data is sent to the cloud based service where the
data is combined with other data to produce useful information
to the user. Collected information may be forming any
sources. Data processing is always required for analyzing.
D. Delivery of Information
Delivery of Information is the last step where the useful
information is sent to the user. That may be a consumer, a
commercial or an industrial user. The aim is to provide
information in a simple and transparent manner. It requires
execution of a well thought out, designed and executed user
interface that provides an optimized experience across
multiple device platforms – tablets, smart phones, desktop –
across multiple operating systems – iOS, Android, Windows,
etc.
III. PROTOCOLS AND NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES
IoT mainly uses the standard protocols and networking
technologies. The most important technologies and protocols
of IoT are RFID [9], NFC, low-energy Bluetooth, low-energy
wireless, low-energy radio protocols, LTE-A, and Wi-Fi
Direct. These technologies hold the explicit networking
functionality desirable in an IoT arrangement in dissimilarity
to a typical standardized network of general systems.
A. NFC and RFID
RFID (radio-frequency identification) and NFC (near-
field communication) offers simple, less energy, and flexible
options for characteristics and contact tokens, connection
bootstrapping, and payments. RFID technology utilizes 2-way
radio transmitter-receivers [25] to find and trail tags linked
with objects. NFC contains communication protocols for
electronic devices, generally a mobile device [16].
B. Low-Energy
Bluetooth affords the low-power, long-use require of IoT
purpose while uses a normal technology with local support
across systems.
C. Low-Energy Wireless
These technologies return the mass power starving
attribute of an IoT structure. Even though sensors and
additional elements can ability following over extended
periods, communication links (i.e., wireless) must remain in
listening mode. Low-energy wireless diminish consumption
thus extends the existence of the device. The following list
shows the protocols involved in internet of things devices and
applications.
• Infrastructure (ex: 6LowPAN, IPv4/IPv6, RPL)
• Identification (ex: EPC, uCode, IPv6, URIs)
• Communication / Transport (ex: Wi-fi, Bluetooth,
LPWAN)
• Discovery (ex: Physical Web, mDNS, DNS-SD)
• Data Protocols (ex: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP, Web
socket, Node)
• Device Management (ex: TR-069, OMA-DM)
• Semantic (ex: JSON-LD, Web Thing Model)
• Multi-layer Frameworks (ex: Alljoyn, IoTivity,
Weave, Homekit)
Figure 2 Compare Internet Protocol Suite with IP Smart
object protocol suite
D. CoAP
CoAP is designed to enable low-power sensors to use
RESTful services while meeting their power constrains. It is
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2018
58 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

3. built over UDP, instead of TCP commonly used in HTTP [26]
and has a light mechanism to provide reliability. CoAP
architecture is divided into two main sub layers: messaging
and request/response. The messaging sub layer is responsible
for reliability and duplication of messages while the
request/response sub layer is responsible for communication.
E. 6LoWPAN
IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) is the first and most commonly used standard in
this category. It efficiently encapsulates IPv6 long headers in
IEEE802.15.4 small packets, which cannot exceed 128 bytes.
The specification supports [15] different length addresses, low
bandwidth, different topologies including star or mesh, power
consumption, low cost, scalable networks, mobility,
unreliability and long sleep time.
F. MQTT
It is designed to provide embedded connectivity between
applications and middleware’s on one side and networks and
communications on the other side.
G. Radio Protocols
ZigBee, Z-Wave, and Thread are radio protocols used for
establishing low-rate private area networks. These
technologies not only use low-power but also offer high
throughput. This increases the power of small local device
networks without the typical costs.
H. LTE-A
LTE-A, or LTE Advanced, provides an important boost to
LTE technology by increasing not only its coverage, but also
reducing its latency and raising its throughput. It gives IoT an
enormous power by increasing its range, with its most
noteworthy applications being vehicle, UAV.
I. Wi-Fi Direct
Wi-Fi Direct removes the need of an access point. It allows
P2P (peer-to-peer) connections retaining the speed of Wi-Fi,
but with lower latency. Wi-Fi Direct removes an element of a
network that often marshs it down and it does not compromise
on speed or throughput
IV. BACKGROUND
The most significant features of IoT include artificial
intelligence, connectivity, sensors, active engagement, and
small device use. An overview of this features are IoT mainly
makes virtually anything “smart”, meaning it improves every
phase of life with the influence of data collection, artificial
intelligence algorithms, and networks. New IoT networking
mean networks are no longer entirely tied to major service
providers. Networks can exist on a much smaller and cheaper
scale. IoT creates these small networks between its system
devices [10]. IoT loses its merit without sensors. They act as
major instruments which transfers IoT from a standard passive
network of devices into an active system capable of real-time
integration. Most of the interaction with technology is done
through passive engagement. IoT paves a new way for active
content, product, or service engagement. Devices have
become smaller, cheaper, and more powerful over time. IoT
explores purpose-built small devices to deliver its accuracy,
scalability, and flexibility [24].
V. ALGORITHM USED IN IOT
Trilateration is the process of shaping absolute or relative
locations of points by measurement of distances. Trilateration
does have realistic applications in surveying and navigation,
including global positioning systems (GPS).
Figure 3 GPS technology determines your location by
measuring distances from three satellites, using the
mathematical principle of trilateration.
VI. CHALLENGES IN IOT
A. Security Challenges
For many tech firms across the world IoT has become a
serious concern in terms of security. The hacking of baby
monitors, smart fridges, Barbie dolls, drug infusion pumps,
cameras and even assault rifle has caused a nightmare for the
future of IoT. So many new nodes being added to networks
and the internet will provide malicious actors with
innumerable attack [3] vectors and possibilities to carry out
their evil deeds, especially since a considerable number of
them suffer from security holes. The most important transfer
in security will arise from the fact that IoT will become more
deep-seated in our lives. Alarms will no longer be narrowed to
the protection of sensitive information and assets. Our very
lives and health can become the target of IoT hack attacks.
There are many reasons for the state of insecurity in IoT.
Some of it has to do with the industry being in its “gold rush”
state, where every vendor is hastily seeking to find out the
next innovative connected gadget before their competitors do.
Under such circumstances, functionality becomes the main
focus and security takes a back seat [11, 22]. Scalability issues
also one of reason for the creation of unsecure IoT products.
The fact is that many security solutions present today have
been created with generic computing devices in mind. IoT
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2018
59 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

4. devices often lack the computational power, storage capacity
and even proper operating system to deploy such solutions.
B. Privacy Challenges
Some of the data collected by IoT are highly sensitive and
are protected by legislations such as the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the U.S. and
are basically different from our browsing and clicking habits.
But necessary measures are not taken for storing such kind of
data and sharing it with other service providers. Vendors and
manufacturers should either discard this data or remove the
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) [13] to ensure that
consumers aren’t damaged in case of data breaches.
Another consideration to be taken is that while data
generated about a single appliance may not be sensitive, but
when combined with data generated from other devices, it can
reveal information such as the life pattern of consumer, which
can become very danger if the data fall into the hands of the
wrong people. In many cases, criminals don’t even need to pry
into your encrypted communications in order to obtain the
information they want. The IoT creates unique challenges to
privacy, many that go beyond the data privacy issues that
currently exist. Much of this stems from integrating devices
into our environments without us consciously using them.
This is becoming more prevalent in consumer devices,
such as tracking devices [14] for phones and cars as well as
smart televisions. In terms of the latter, voice recognition or
vision features are being integrated that can continuously
listen to conversations or watch for activity and selectively
transmit that data to a cloud service for processing, which
sometimes includes a third party. The collection of this
information exposes legal and regulatory challenges facing
data protection and privacy law. In addition, many IoT
scenarios involve device deployments and data collection
activities with multinational or global scope that cross social
and cultural boundaries.
Security is an essential pillar of the and most significant
challenge for the IoT. Increasing the number of connected
devices increases the opportunity to exploit security
vulnerabilities [30], as do poorly designed devices, which can
expose user data to theft by leaving data streams inadequately
protected and in some cases people’s health and safety
(implanted, Internet-enabled medical devices and hackable
cars) can be put at risk. Many IoT deployments will also
consist of collections of identical or near identical devices.
This homogeneity magnifies the potential impact of any single
security vulnerability by the sheer number of devices that all
have the same characteristics. Without standards to guide
manufacturers, developers sometimes design products that
operate in disruptive ways on the Internet without much regard
to their impact. If poorly designed and configured, such
devices can have negative consequences for the networking
resources they connect to and the broader Internet. A lot of
this comes down to cost constraints and the need to develop a
product for release quicker than competitors. Add to this the
difficulties with managing and configuring larger numbers of
IoT devices, the need for thoughtful design and
standardization of configuration tools, methods, and
interfaces, coupled with the adoption of IPv6, will be essential
in the future [6].
Like privacy, there are a wide range of regulatory and legal
questions surrounding the IoT, which need thoughtful
consideration. Legal issues with IoT devices include cross
border data flow [4]; conflict between law enforcement
surveillance and civil rights; data retention and destruction
policies; and legal liability for unintended uses, security
breaches or privacy lapses. Further, technology is advancing
much more rapidly than the associated policy and regulatory
environments. Regulatory analysis of IoT devices is
increasingly being viewed from a general, technology-neutral
perspective legal lens, which seeks to prevent unfair or
deceptive practices against consumers [29].
C. Technological challenges
Progressing from the Internet of computers to the remote
and somewhat unclear goal of an Internet of Things is
something that must therefore be done one step at a time. In
addition to the expectation that the technology must be
available at low cost if a large number of objects are actually
to be equipped, we are also faced with many other challenges,
such as:
a) Scalability: An Internet of Things has a larger scope than
the usual Internet of computers. But then things work together
mainly within a local environment. Basic functionality such as
communication and service discovery therefore need to
function equally efficiently in both small scale and large-scale
environments [5, 31].
b) Interoperability: Since the world of physical things is
extremely diverse, in an Internet of Things each type of smart
object will have different information, processing and
communication capabilities. Different smart objects would
also be subjected to very different conditions such as the
energy available and the communications bandwidth required.
However, to ease communication and cooperation, general
practices and standards are required.
C) Detection: In dynamic environments, suitable services for
things must be automatically identified, which requires
appropriate semantic [7] means of explaining their
functionality. Users will want to receive product-related
information, and will want to use search engines that can find
things or provide information about an object’s state.
d) Software complexity: Although the software systems in
smart objects will have to function with minimal resources, as
in traditional embedded systems, an extensive software
infrastructure will be needed on the network and on
background servers in order to control the smart objects and
provide services to support them.
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2018
60 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

5. e) Data volumes: While some application will involve brief
communication, others, such as sensor networks, large-scale
“real-world awareness” scenarios, will involve huge volumes
of data on central network nodes.
f) Data interpretation: To support the users of smart things,
we would want to interpret the local context determined by
sensors [25] as accurately as possible.
g) Security and individual privacy: In addition to the security
and protection aspects of the Internet, other requirements
would also be important in an Internet of Things. At times we
might want to give selective access to certain services, or
prevent them from communicating with other things. Ex.
Business transactions involving smart objects would need to
be protected from competitors’ prying eyes.
h) Fault tolerance: Structuring an Internet of Things in a
robust and trustworthy manner would require redundancy on
several levels and an ability to automatically adapt to changed
conditions since we want to rely on things functioning
properly [28].
i) Power supply: Things typically move around and are not
connected to a power supply, so their smartness needs to be
powered from a self-sufficient energy source. Unfortunately,
battery technology is making relatively slow progress, and
“energy harvesting”, i.e. generating electricity from the
environment (using temperature differences, vibrations, air
currents, light, etc.), is not yet powerful enough to meet the
energy requirements of current electronic systems in many
application scenarios. Hopes are pinned on future low-power
processors and communications units for embedded systems
that can function with significantly less energy. Energy saving
is a factor not only in hardware and system architecture, but
also in software, for example the implementation of protocol
stacks, where every single transmission byte will have to
justify its existence. There are already some battery-free
wireless sensors that can transmit their readings a distance of a
few meters. Like RFID systems [22], they obtain the power
they require either remotely or from the measuring process
itself, for example by using piezoelectric or electric materials
for pressure and temperature measurements.
D. Connectivity Challenges
The biggest challenge lies in connection of more number
of devices, and it will challenge the very structure of current
communication models and the fundamental technologies. At
present we rely on the centralized, server/client paradigm to
authenticate, authorize and connect different nodes [19] in a
network. This model is sufficient for only for present IoT
ecosystems, where tens, hundreds or even thousands of
devices are engaged. But when networks grow to join billions
and hundreds of billions of devices, centralized brokered
systems will turn into a bottleneck. Such systems will require
large investments and spending in maintaining cloud servers
that can handle such large amounts of information exchange,
and entire systems can go down if the server becomes
unavailable. The future of IoT will very much have to rely on
decentralizing IoT networks. Part of it can become possible by
moving functionality to the edge, such as using fog computing
models [18] where smart devices such as IoT hubs take charge
of time-critical operations and cloud servers take care of
gathering data of and analytical responsibilities.
Other solutions involve the use of peer-to-peer
communications, where devices identify and authenticate each
other directly and exchange information without the
involvement of a broker. Networks will be created in meshes
with no single point of failure. This model will have its own
set of challenges, especially from a security perspective, but
these challenges can be met with some of the emerging IoT
technologies such as the Phantom protocol, or leveraging the
success of other tried and tested models such as the block
chain.
E. Compatibility and Longevity Challenges
As an industry that is going through its baby steps, IoT is
growing in many different directions, with many different
technologies competing to become the standard. For instance,
we currently have ZigBee, Z-Wave, WI-Fi, Bluetooth and
Bluetooth Low Energy (BTLE) all vying to become the
dominant transport mechanism between devices and hubs.
This will cause difficulties and require the deployment of extra
hardware and software when connecting devices. Other
compatibility issues stem from non-unified cloud services,
lack of standardized M2M protocols and diversities in
firmware and operating systems among IoT devices [23].
Some of these technologies [20] will eventually become
obsolete in the next few years, effectively rendering the
devices implementing them useless. This is especially
important, since in contrast to generic computing devices
which have a lifespan of a few years, IoT appliances (such as
smart fridges or TVs) tend to remain in service for much
longer, and should be able to function even if their
manufacturer goes out of service.
VII. APPLICATIONS OF IOT
The applications of IoT in environmental monitoring are
broad: environmental protection, extreme weather monitoring,
water safety, endangered species protection, commercial
farming, and more. In these applications, sensors detect and
measure every type of environmental change. Present
monitoring technology for air and water safety mainly uses
manual labor along with advanced instruments, and lab
processing. IoT improves this technology by decreasing the
need for human labor, allowing frequent sampling, increasing
the range of sampling and monitoring [12], allowing
sophisticated testing on-site and joining response efforts to
detection systems New IoT advances promise more fine-
grained data, better accuracy, and flexibility. Effective
forecasting [8] requires high detail and flexibility in range,
instrument type, and deployment. This allows early detection
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2018
61 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

6. and early responses to prevent loss of life and property.
Today’s sophisticated commercial farms have exploited
advanced technology and biotechnology for quite some time,
however, IoT introduces more access to deeper automation
and analysis. Much of commercial farming, like weather
monitoring, suffers from a lack of precision and requires
human work in the area of monitoring [21].
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The foremost highlighting of this paper was to
underline major issues in security of IoT predominantly,
meeting point the security attacks and their solutions.
Concession security mechanism in IoT devices, finished many
devices objective for hackers. In this paper, the security
necessities are discussed such as confidentiality, integrity, and
authentication, etc. Trust in mind the significance of security
in IoT environment, it is really very important to include
security method in IoT devices and communication networks.
Moreover, to protect from any security threat, it is also
recommended not to use default passwords for the devices and
read the security requirements for the devices before using it
for the first time. Disabling the features that are not used may
decrease the chances of security attacks. Moreover, it is
important to study different security protocols used in IoT
devices and networks.
References
[1] J. S. Kumar and D. R. Patel, “A survey on internet of things: Security
and privacy issues,” International Journal of Computer Applications,
vol. 90, no. 11, 2014.
[2] M. Abomhara and G. M. Køien, “Security and privacy in the internet of
things: Current status and open issues,” in Privacy and Security in
Mobile Systems (PRISMS), International Conference on. IEEE, 2014,
pp. 1–8.
[3] S. Chen, H. Xu, D. Liu, B. Hu, and H. Wang, “A vision of iot:
Applications, challenges, and opportunities with china perspective,”
IEEE Internet of Things journal, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 349–359, 2014.
[4] L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, “The internet of things: A survey,”
Comput. Netw., vol. 54, no. 15, pp. 2787–2805, Oct 2010.
[5] M. M. Hossain, M. Fotouhi, and R. Hasan, “Towards an analysis of
security issues, challenges, and open problems in the internet of things,”
in Services (SERVICES), 2015 IEEE World Congress on. IEEE, 2015,
pp. 21–28.
[6] L. Da Xu, W. He, and S. Li, “Internet of things in industries: A survey,”
IEEE Transactions on industrial informatics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2233–
2243, 2014.
[7] L. M. R. Tarouco, L. M. Bertholdo, L. Z. Granville, L. M. R. Arbiza, F.
Carbone, M. Marotta, and J. J. C. de Santanna, “Internet of things in
healthcare: Interoperatibility and security issues,” in Communications
(ICC), IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2012, pp. 6121–6125.
[8] A. Mohan, “Cyber security for personal medical devices internet of
things,” in Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), 2014
IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 372–374
[9] S. Yoon, H. Park, and H. S. Yoo, “Security issues on smarthome in iot
environment,” in Computer Science and its Applications. Springer,
2015, pp. 691–696.
[10] R. H. Weber, “Internet of things–new security and privacy challenges,”
Computer law & security review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2010.
[11] S. Babar, P. Mahalle, A. Stango, N. Prasad, and R. Prasad, “Proposed
security model and threat taxonomy for the internet of things (iot),” in
International Conference on Network Security and Applications.
Springer, 2010, pp. 420–429.
[12] Y. H. Hwang, “Iot security & privacy: threats and challenges,” in
Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and
Security. ACM, 2015, pp. 1–1.
[13] M. A. Qureshi, A. Aziz, B. Ahmed, A. Khalid, and H. Munir,
“Comparative analysis and implementation of efficientdigital image
watermarking schemes,” International Journal of Computer and
Electrical Engineering, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 558, 2012.
[14] M. Abdur Razzaq, R. A. Sheikh, A. Baig, and A. Ahmad, “Digital image
security: Fusion of encryption, steganography and watermarking,”
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
(IJACSA), vol. 8, no. 5, 2017.
[15] S. Singh and N. Singh, “Internet of things (iot): Security challenges,
business opportunities & reference architecture for e-commerce,” in
Green Computing and Internet of Things (ICGCIoT), 2015 International
Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 1577–1581.
[16] K. Rose, S. Eldridge, and L. Chapin, “The internet of things: An
overview,” The Internet Society (ISOC), pp. 1–50, 2015.
[17] H. Ning, H. Liu, and L. T. Yang, “Cyberentity security in the internet of
things,” Computer, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 46–53, 2013.
[18] L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, “The internet of things: A survey,”
Computer networks, vol. 54, no. 15, pp. 2787–2805, 2010.
[19] S. Andreev and Y. Koucheryavy, “Internet of things, smart spaces, and
next generation networking,” Springer, LNCS, vol. 7469, p. 464, 2012.
[20] J. S. Kumar and D. R. Patel, “A survey on internet of things: Security
and privacy issues,” International Journal of Computer Applications,
vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 20–26, March 2014, published by Foundation of
Computer Science, New York, USA.
[21] A. Stango, N. R. Prasad, and D. M. Kyriazanos, “A threat analysis
methodology for security evaluation and enhancement planning,” in
Emerging Security Information, Systems and Technologies, 2009.
SECURWARE’09. Third International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp.
262–267.
[22] D. Jiang and C. ShiWei, “A study of information security for m2m of
iot,” in Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE), 2010
3rd International Conference on, vol. 3. IEEE, 2010, pp. V3–576.
[23] B. Schneier, Secrets and lies: digital security in a networked world. John
Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[24] J. M. Kizza, Guide to Computer Network Security. Springer, 2013.
[25] M. Taneja, “An analytics framework to detect compromised iot devices
using mobility behavior,” in ICT Convergence (ICTC), 2013
International Conference on. IEEE, 2013, pp. 38–43.
[26] G. M. Koien and V. A. Oleshchuk, Aspects of Personal Privacy in
Communications-Problems, Technology and Solutions. River
Publishers, 2013.
[27] N. R. Prasad, “Threat model framework and methodology for personal
networks (pns),” in Communication Systems Software and Middleware,
2007. COMSWARE 2007. 2nd International Conference on. IEEE,
2007, pp. 1–6.
[28] O. Vermesan, P. Friess, P. Guillemin, S. Gusmeroli, H. Sundmaeker, A.
Bassi, I. S. Jubert, M. Mazura, M. Harrison, M. Eisenhauer et al.
“Internet of things strategic research roadmap,” Internet of ThingsGlobal
Technological and Societal Trends, pp. 9–52, 2011.
[29] S. De, P. Barnaghi, M. Bauer, and S. Meissner, “Service modelling for
the internet of things,” in Computer Science and Information Systems
(FedCSIS), 2011 Federated Conference on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 949–955.
[30] G. Xiao, J. Guo, L. Xu, and Z. Gong, “User interoperability with
heterogeneous iot devices through transformation,” 2014.
[31] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, “Internet of things
(iot): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,” Future
Generation Computer Systems, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1645–1660, 2013.
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS),
Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2018
62 https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500