Cybersecurity threats in the age of IoT: A review of protective measures

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) heralds a new era of connectivity, transforming the way devices interact and share information. With this transformative potential comes a concomitant rise in cybersecurity threats that pose significant challenges to the integrity of the IoT ecosystem. This paper undertakes a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity threats in the age of IoT, categorizing them into data breaches, malware attacks, physical manipulation, and more. Counteracting these threats necessitates a multifaceted approach encompassing device-level security, network-level measures, and effective management practices. Protective measures discussed include secure boot processes, encryption protocols, and the implementation of intrusion detection systems. However, persistent challenges, such as device diversity and resource constraints, underscore the need for ongoing research and development. Emerging technologies like blockchain, edge computing, and artificial intelligence offer promising avenues to bolster IoT security. In the pursuit of a secure IoT future, this paper emphasizes the critical importance of collaboration and collective efforts. The key findings underscore the centrality of robust security measures in the IoT landscape. The call to action resonates throughout the paper, urging stakeholders to unite in addressing challenges, embracing emerging technologies, and ensuring the responsible growth of IoT. Together, through shared knowledge and collaborative endeavors, we can forge a secure foundation for the continued expansion of IoT technologies

Full text

 Corresponding author: Temitayo Oluwaseun Abrahams.
Copyright © 2024 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0.
Cybersecurity threats in the age of IoT: A review of protective measures
Olukunle Oladipupo Amoo 1, Femi Osasona 2, Akoh Atadoga 3, Benjamin Samson Ayinla 4, Oluwatoyin Ajoke
Farayola 5 and Temitayo Oluwaseun Abrahams 6, *
1 Department of Cybersecurity, University of Nebraska at Omaha, United States of America.
2 Scottish Water, UK.
3 Independent Researcher, San Francisco, USA.
4 University of Law Business School, Manchester, United Kingdom.
5 Financial Technology and Analytics Department, Naveen Jindal School of Management. Dallas, Texas, USA.
6 Independent Researcher, Adelaide, Australia.
International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 1304–1310
Publication history: Received on 26 December 2023; revised on 03 February 2024; accepted on 05 February 2024
Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.11.1.0217
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) heralds a new era of connectivity, transforming the way devices interact and share
information. With this transformative potential comes a concomitant rise in cybersecurity threats that pose significant
challenges to the integrity of the IoT ecosystem. This paper undertakes a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity
threats in the age of IoT, categorizing them into data breaches, malware attacks, physical manipulation, and more.
Counteracting these threats necessitates a multifaceted approach encompassing device-level security, network-level
measures, and effective management practices. Protective measures discussed include secure boot processes,
encryption protocols, and the implementation of intrusion detection systems. However, persistent challenges, such as
device diversity and resource constraints, underscore the need for ongoing research and development. Emerging
technologies like blockchain, edge computing, and artificial intelligence offer promising avenues to bolster IoT security.
In the pursuit of a secure IoT future, this paper emphasizes the critical importance of collaboration and collective efforts.
The key findings underscore the centrality of robust security measures in the IoT landscape. The call to action resonates
throughout the paper, urging stakeholders to unite in addressing challenges, embracing emerging technologies, and
ensuring the responsible growth of IoT. Together, through shared knowledge and collaborative endeavors, we can forge
a secure foundation for the continued expansion of IoT technologies
Keywords: Cybersecurity; Threats; Internet of Things (IoT); Protective Measures.
1. Introduction
The Internet of Things (IoT) is an intricate network that interconnects devices, sensors, and everyday objects,
facilitating seamless communication and data exchange over the internet. This interconnected ecosystem extends
beyond traditional computing devices, incorporating a diverse range of objects such as household appliances, industrial
machinery, and wearable devices. This connectivity enables a myriad of applications, ranging from smart homes and
cities to industrial automation and healthcare advancements. The definition of IoT encompasses the idea of a vast
network where devices, equipped with sensors and actuators, communicate and share data in real-time. These devices,
often embedded with computing capabilities, collectively form a dynamic infrastructure that transcends the boundaries
of conventional computing. The result is a transformative paradigm that enhances efficiency, automates processes, and
introduces a new level of convenience in various aspects of daily life and industrial operations.

International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 1304–1310
1305
The Internet of Things (IoT) stands as a revolutionary paradigm in the digital landscape, redefining the way devices
interact and communicate (Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010). At its core, IoT involves the interconnection of physical
objects, embedded with sensors, actuators, and communication capabilities, allowing them to collect and exchange data
seamlessly. This interconnected network encompasses a vast array of devices, ranging from everyday consumer goods
to sophisticated industrial machinery (Gubbi et al., 2013). The significance of IoT lies in its ability to enhance efficiency,
provide valuable insights through data analytics, and streamline various aspects of daily life and industry.
The pervasive integration of IoT into diverse sectors has ushered in a new era of connectivity and automation (Al-
Fuqaha et al., 2015). As more devices become interconnected, the potential benefits increase exponentially. However,
this surge in connectivity also introduces a multitude of cybersecurity threats that pose significant challenges to the
integrity and security of IoT systems (Roman, Alcaraz, Lopez, & Sklavos, 2011).
The IoT landscape is rife with increasing cybersecurity threats that demand immediate attention and comprehensive
solutions. The sheer complexity and diversity of IoT devices create an expansive attack surface, attracting malicious
actors seeking to exploit vulnerabilities for various purposes (Zhang et al., 2014). From data breaches and privacy
violations to the creation of formidable botnets and sophisticated malware attacks, the range and sophistication of
threats continue to evolve rapidly (Ray, De, & Chattopadhyay, 2018).
This paper aims to address the critical need for understanding, mitigating, and proactively managing cybersecurity
threats within the IoT ecosystem. The primary objective is to provide a comprehensive review of both existing and
emerging protective measures that can safeguard IoT devices and networks (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas,
2018). By examining the current threat landscape and delving into the protective measures designed to counter these
threats, this paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse on securing the future of IoT technologies.
In navigating the intricate intersection of IoT and cybersecurity, it becomes imperative to assess the efficacy of existing
security measures and explore innovative solutions (Sicari et al., 2015). By doing so, we can not only fortify the
foundations of IoT but also foster an environment where the benefits of interconnected technologies can be realized
without compromising on security and privacy. As we delve into the nuances of protective measures, it is crucial to
consider the dynamic nature of cybersecurity threats, necessitating continual adaptation and innovation in our defense
strategies (Jalali, Bakar, & Anuar, 2016).
In the subsequent sections, this paper will delve into the various types of cybersecurity threats prevalent in the IoT
landscape, elucidate the consequences of these threats, and systematically review protective measures at the device,
network, and operational levels. Furthermore, challenges and future directions in IoT security will be explored, paving
the way for informed recommendations and collaborative efforts to fortify the IoT ecosystem against emerging threats
(Alaba, Othman, Hashem, & Jawawi, 2017).
Through this comprehensive exploration, it is anticipated that this paper will contribute valuable insights to
researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, fostering a collective understanding of the evolving landscape of IoT
cybersecurity and promoting the development of robust protective measures to ensure a secure and resilient IoT future.
2. Cybersecurity threats in the age of IOT
The burgeoning landscape of the Internet of Things (IoT) brings unprecedented connectivity and convenience, but
concurrently introduces a spectrum of cybersecurity threats that demand meticulous attention. This section will
comprehensively explore various types of threats within the IoT ecosystem, each accompanied by its distinctive set of
challenges and consequences.
2.1. Types of Threats
One of the foremost concerns in the IoT landscape is the potential compromise of sensitive data, leading to privacy
infringements (Douceur, 2002). Malicious actors exploit vulnerabilities within IoT systems to gain unauthorized access,
resulting in unauthorized data access and potential misuse. The creation and deployment of IoT-based botnets and
malware represent a sophisticated threat vector (Antonakakis et al., 2017). Compromised devices can be enlisted into
botnets, enabling large-scale attacks with consequences ranging from data theft to distributed denial-of-service (DDoS)
incidents. IoT devices, if inadequately secured, are susceptible to DoS attacks, rendering them non-operational and
disrupting critical services (Roman, Alcaraz, & Lopez, 2011). Such attacks can have cascading effects, affecting entire
networks or even critical infrastructures.

International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 1304–1310
1306
Physical security of IoT devices is paramount, as these devices can be vulnerable to physical tampering or hijacking,
allowing unauthorized control or manipulation (Radoglou-Grammatikis et al., 2018). Such attacks can compromise the
integrity and functionality of the devices.
Insecure communication protocols and encryption: Weaknesses in communication protocols and encryption
mechanisms expose IoT devices to eavesdropping and unauthorized access (Al-Fuqaha et al., 2015). Malicious actors
can exploit these vulnerabilities to intercept sensitive information or inject malicious commands. The complex supply
chains involved in manufacturing IoT devices create opportunities for attackers to introduce malicious components or
compromise device integrity during production (Koscher et al., 2010). Such vulnerabilities can lead to widespread
security breaches.
2.2. Specific IoT Security Challenges
Successful cyber-attacks on IoT systems can result in significant financial losses for businesses, stemming from
operational downtime, remediation costs, and potential legal repercussions (Schneier, 2000). Compromised IoT devices
may pose direct safety risks to individuals and critical infrastructure (Zhou, Zhang, & Xu, 2014). For example, in the
context of smart cities, compromised infrastructure could lead to life-threatening situations. Data breaches within the
IoT can lead to the compromise of personal and sensitive information, eroding user privacy and trust (Raj et al., 2012).
The exposure of personal data can have long-lasting consequences for individuals. Repeated cybersecurity incidents
can undermine public trust in IoT technologies (Jazri & Boudriga, 2017). A loss of confidence may impede the
widespread adoption of IoT solutions, hindering the realization of their full potential.
The multifaceted nature of cybersecurity threats in the IoT landscape necessitates a comprehensive and adaptive
approach to security measures. Understanding the types of threats and their consequences is foundational for
developing effective protective strategies to mitigate risks and safeguard the integrity of IoT ecosystems.
2.3. Protective measures and best practices against IOT threats
As the proliferation of the Internet of Things (IoT) continues, the imperative to fortify devices and networks against an
evolving array of cybersecurity threats becomes paramount. This section delineates comprehensive protective
measures categorized into device-level security, network-level security, and management and operational practices.
Initiating the boot process in a secure manner and ensuring timely firmware updates are critical to addressing
vulnerabilities and preventing unauthorized access (Garcia-Morchon et al., 2016). Implementing robust authentication
protocols and authorization mechanisms ensures that only authorized entities access IoT devices, minimizing the risk
of unauthorized control (Raza et al., 2013). Encrypting data both when it is stored and when it is transmitted safeguards
sensitive information, mitigating the risk of data breaches and unauthorized interception (Suo, Wan, Zou, & Liu, 2012).
Adhering to secure coding standards during the development phase and promptly patching identified vulnerabilities
helps create resilient IoT software (Egele, Scholte, Kirda, & Kruegel, 2012). Limiting the functionality to essential
operations and minimizing the attack surface diminishes potential entry points for attackers (Roman, Alcaraz, & Lopez,
2011).
Employing industry-standard secure communication protocols and encryption ensures the confidentiality and integrity
of data transmitted between IoT devices and backend servers (Zhang et al., 2014). Dividing networks into segments
with controlled access limits lateral movement of attackers, confining potential breaches and minimizing the impact
(Antonakakis et al., 2017). Implementing intrusion detection and prevention systems helps identify and thwart
malicious activities in real-time, enhancing the overall security posture (Mahmood & König, 2012). Continuous
monitoring of network traffic coupled with anomaly detection mechanisms enables the early identification of suspicious
activities (Mahmood & König, 2012).
2.4. Management and Operational Practices:
Educating both end-users and developers about security best practices fosters a culture of security consciousness,
reducing the likelihood of unintentional vulnerabilities (Sicari et al., 2015), Periodic risk assessments and systematic
vulnerability management protocols enable organizations to identify and remediate potential security weaknesses
(Douceur, 2002), Establishing comprehensive incident response plans and disaster recovery protocols ensures a swift
and effective response to security incidents, minimizing downtime and potential damage (Roman, Alcaraz, & Lopez,
2011), Integrating security measures throughout the entire product lifecycle and defining secure end-of-life procedures
prevent vulnerabilities from lingering after a device is decommissioned (Raza et al., 2013), Adhering to established

International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 1304–1310
1307
regulatory frameworks and industry standards provides a structured approach to ensuring compliance and best
practices in IoT security (Alaba et al., 2017).
2.5. Challenges and future directions in IOT security
The landscape of Internet of Things (IoT) security is dynamic, marked by persistent challenges and a continuous quest
for innovative solutions. This section delves into the current challenges, emerging technologies, and outlines areas for
future research and development in the realm of IoT cybersecurity. Diversity of Devices and Standards: The vast
diversity in IoT devices, coupled with a lack of standardized security protocols, poses a significant challenge. Ensuring
consistent security across heterogeneous devices remains an ongoing struggle (Bandyopadhyay, Sen, & Misra, 2015).
Resource Constraints: Many IoT devices operate with limited computational resources, restricting their ability to
implement robust security measures. Striking a balance between security and resource efficiency remains a formidable
challenge (Khan, Khan, Zaheer, & Khan, 2012).
Inadequate Authentication and Authorization: Weak authentication mechanisms and insufficient authorization
practices contribute to unauthorized access, making it challenging to establish and maintain secure IoT ecosystems (Al-
Fuqaha et al., 2015).
Data Privacy Concerns: The vast amounts of sensitive data generated by IoT devices raise significant privacy concerns.
Developing effective strategies to manage and protect this data without hindering functionality is an ongoing challenge
(Jara, Zamora-Izquierdo, & Skarmeta, 2014).
Legacy System Integration: Integrating security measures into existing IoT systems, particularly those utilizing legacy
devices, is challenging. Retrofitting security into older infrastructure without disrupting functionality requires careful
consideration (Atzori et al., 2010).
2.6. Emerging Technologies and Trends for Improved Security
Blockchain Technology: The use of blockchain in securing IoT transactions and data exchange is gaining traction. Its
decentralized and tamper-resistant nature offers enhanced security and transparency (Dorri, Kanhere, Jurdak, &
Gauravaram, 2017).
Edge Computing: Distributing security measures to the edge of the IoT network, closer to devices, reduces latency and
enhances real-time threat detection. Edge computing complements cloud-based security solutions (Ray, De, &
Chattopadhyay, 2018).
AI and Machine Learning: Leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning for anomaly detection and behavior
analysis enhances the ability to identify and mitigate emerging threats in real-time (Khan, Salah, & Aalsalem, 2019).
Hardware-based Security: Incorporating security features at the hardware level, such as trusted execution
environments, secure elements, and hardware-based encryption, provides a more resilient foundation for IoT devices
(Kang, Yi, & Lee, 2018).
2.7. Recommendations for Further Research and Development in IoT Cybersecurity
Standardization and Interoperability: Establishing industry-wide standards for IoT security and ensuring
interoperability among devices can significantly enhance the overall security posture of the IoT ecosystem (Gubbi et al.,
2013).
User-Centric Security Solutions: Research into user-centric security solutions, including intuitive interfaces for security
settings and user-friendly authentication methods, can empower end-users to actively participate in securing their IoT
devices (Huang et al., 2019).
Dynamic Security Policies: Developing adaptive and dynamic security policies that can evolve with the changing threat
landscape is crucial. This includes automated updates and patches, as well as proactive threat intelligence integration
(Kumar & Lee, 2018).

International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 1304–1310
1308
Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Investigating and implementing privacy-preserving technologies, such as differential
privacy and homomorphic encryption, can address growing concerns about the privacy implications of widespread IoT
deployment (Ziegeldorf et al., 2014).
Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration: Encouraging collaboration between cybersecurity experts, IoT developers,
policymakers, and ethicists can foster a holistic approach to IoT security. Integrating diverse perspectives can lead to
more robust and socially responsible solutions (Fernandez-Carames & Fraga-Lamas, 2018).
In navigating the complex landscape of IoT security, addressing these challenges, embracing emerging technologies, and
committing to ongoing research and development are imperative to ensure the continued growth and sustainability of
the Internet of Things.
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, the dynamic landscape of the Internet of Things (IoT) presents immense opportunities for innovation and
efficiency, yet it is entangled with a complex web of cybersecurity challenges that demand vigilant attention. This paper
has traversed the diverse terrain of IoT security, exploring the threats that lurk within the interconnected web of
devices, the protective measures designed to fortify this digital ecosystem, and the persisting challenges that cast a
shadow on its secure evolution.
Key Findings include the examination of cybersecurity threats within the IoT unveiled a spectrum of challenges, from
data breaches and privacy violations to the looming threats of botnets, malware, and physical manipulation.
Consequences stemming from these threats, including financial losses, safety risks, and erosion of trust, underscored
the imperative of robust security measures. The exploration of protective measures delineated strategies at the device,
network, and operational levels. Secure boot processes, encryption protocols, and management practices emerged as
pivotal elements in establishing a resilient defense against the evolving threat landscape. Network segmentation,
intrusion detection systems, and adherence to regulatory frameworks were identified as crucial components in
bolstering the security posture of the IoT ecosystem.
The overarching narrative gleaned from this exploration is the critical importance of robust security in the IoT
ecosystem. As IoT becomes increasingly pervasive, embedded in everyday life and critical infrastructure, the
repercussions of security lapses become more profound. A breach in the interconnected web not only jeopardizes
individual privacy and organizational assets but also poses systemic risks with potential cascading effects on society at
large.
Security in the IoT is not merely a technological concern but a societal imperative. It is the linchpin that ensures the
responsible and ethical deployment of technology, safeguarding individuals, businesses, and entire communities. As we
witness the transformative power of IoT technologies, it becomes evident that their positive impact can only be fully
realized in a secure and resilient environment.
In recognizing the multifaceted nature of IoT security, it is clear that a collective and collaborative approach is
indispensable. No single entity can tackle the diverse challenges and evolving threat landscape in isolation. A call-to-
action echoes through this conclusion – a call for collaboration among industry stakeholders, policymakers, researchers,
and the global community.
Mitigating cybersecurity threats in the IoT demands shared knowledge, collaborative research efforts, and a
commitment to the ethical development and deployment of technology. It requires industry standards that prioritize
security, regulatory frameworks that evolve with technological advancements, and a collective ethos that places user
privacy and data integrity at the forefront.
In this spirit, let us forge alliances, share insights, and engage in an ongoing dialogue that transcends boundaries.
Together, we can weave a secure fabric for the IoT ecosystem, ensuring that the promise of interconnected technologies
is fulfilled responsibly, sustainably, and safely.
As we embark on the journey of the IoT's growth, let collaboration be the cornerstone, and let our collective efforts pave
the way for a future where innovation thrives within the resilient embrace of robust security.

International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 1304–1310
1309
Compliance with ethical standards
Disclosure of conflict of interest
No conflict of interest to be disclosed.
References
[1] Alaba, F. A., Othman, M., Hashem, I. A. T., & Jawawi, D. N. (2017). Internet of Things security: A survey. Journal of
King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences.
[2] Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., & Ayyash, M. (2015). Internet of Things: A survey on
enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17(4), 2347-2376.
[3] Antonakakis, M., April, T., Bailey, M., Bernhard, M., Bursztein, E., Cochran, J., ... & Zeltser, L. (2017). Understanding
the Mirai botnet. In 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 17) (pp. 1092-1110).
[4] Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The Internet of Things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787-
2805.
[5] Bandyopadhyay, D., Sen, J., & Misra, S. (2015). Internet of Things: Applications and challenges in technology and
standardization. Wireless Personal Communications, 83(2), 1087-1110.
[6] Dorri, A., Kanhere, S. S., Jurdak, R., & Gauravaram, P. (2017). Blockchain for IoT security and privacy: The case
study of a smart home. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications
Workshops (PerCom Workshops) (pp. 618-623).
[7] Douceur, J. R. (2002). The Sybil attack. In International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (pp. 251-260).
[8] Egele, M., Scholte, T., Kirda, E., & Kruegel, C. (2012). A survey on automated dynamic malware-analysis techniques
and tools. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 44(2), 6.
[9] Fernandez-Carames, T. M., & Fraga-Lamas, P. (2018). A review on the use of blockchain for the Internet of Things.
IEEE Access, 6, 32979-33001.
[10] Garcia-Morchon, O., Heer, T., Hummen, R., Keoh, S. L., Kumar, S. S., & Wehrle, K. (2016). Security for the Internet
of Things: A survey of existing protocols and open research issues. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
18(3), 1294-1312.
[11] Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural
elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7), 1645-1660.
[12] Huang, L., Zhang, Q., Guo, J., Yu, R., & Yang, X. (2019). User-centric IoT security and privacy preservation: A survey.
Future Generation Computer Systems, 97, 376-393.
[13] Jalali, F., Bakar, K. A., & Anuar, N. B. (2016). Internet of Things (IoT) security: Current status, challenges and
prospective measures. In 2016 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC)
(pp. 1-6). IEEE.
[14] Jara, A. J., Zamora-Izquierdo, M. A., & Skarmeta, A. F. (2014). Interconnection framework for mHealth and remote
monitoring based on the Internet of Things. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 32(4), 647-654.
[15] Jazri, H., & Boudriga, N. (2017). Security in the Internet of Things: A review. In 2017 13th International Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC) (pp. 1665-1670).
[16] Kang, D., Yi, S., & Lee, K. (2018). Hardware-based security for the Internet of Things: A survey. ACM Computing
Surveys (CSUR), 51(5), 1-33.
[17] Khan, R., Khan, S. U., Zaheer, R., & Khan, S. (2012). Future Internet: The Internet of Things architecture, possible
applications and key challenges. In 2012 10th International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology
(pp. 257-260).
[18] Khan, R., Salah, K., & Aalsalem, M. Y. (2019). Blockchain for fog and edge computing: A comprehensive survey.
Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 135, 1-22.
[19] Koscher, K., Czeskis, A., Roesner, F., Patel, S., Kohno, T., Checkoway, S., ... & Savage, S. (2010). Experimental
security analysis of a modern automobile. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 447-462).

International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 1304–1310
1310
[20] Kumar, R., & Lee, H. (2018). Security in the Internet of Things (IoT): A review. Journal of Information Security
and Applications, 38, 8-27.
[21] Mahmood, Z., & König, S. (2012). Survey of intrusion detection systems in wireless sensor networks. Journal of
Network and Computer Applications, 35(1), 264-277.
[22] Radoglou-Grammatikis, P., Sarigiannidis, P., & Moscholios, I. (2018). Security threats in IoT-based healthcare
systems. Sensors, 18(11), 3729.
[23] Raj, R. G., Sandeep, B. S., & A, S. (2012). A survey on privacy in mobile participatory sensing applications.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 8(5), 129806.
[24] Ray, P. P., De, D., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2018). Security in Internet of Things: Issues, challenges, and solutions.
Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 30(3), 291-317.
[25] Raza, S., Wallgren, L., & Voigt, T. (2013). SVELTE: Real-time intrusion detection in the Internet of Things. In Ad
Hoc Networks (Vol. 11, No. 8, pp. 2661-2674).
[26] Roman, R., Alcaraz, C., & Lopez, J. (2011). Botnets of Things: A New Threat? Computer Networks, 55(2), 308-319.
[27] Schneier, B. (2000). Attack trees. Dr. Dobb's Journal, 24(12), 21-29.
[28] Sicari, S., Rizzardi, A., Grieco, L. A., & Coen-Porisini, A. (2015). Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things:
The road ahead. Computer Networks, 76, 146-164.
[29] Suo, H., Wan, J., Zou, C., & Liu, J. (2012). Security in the Internet of Things: A review. In 2012 International
Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (Vol. 3, pp. 648-651).
[30] Zhang, Y., Wen, Y., Guan, Y., Wu, Z., & Huang, D. (2014). Security and privacy for the Internet of Things: A survey.
IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(5), 381-394.
[31] Zhou, Y., Zhang, L., & Xu, Z. (2014). Security and privacy in cloud computing: A survey. Journal of Communications
and Networks, 16(2), 121-133.