Review Of Abomhara, M., & Kå Ien, G. M. (2015). Cyber Securi

Review of Abomhara, M., & Kà¸ien, G. M. (2015). Cyber security and the internet of things

This paper provides an evaluation of the article by Abomhara and Køien (2015), which investigates cybersecurity issues relating to the Internet of Things (IoT). The authors examine vulnerabilities, threats, intruders, and types of attacks associated with IoT devices and networks. They aim to understand the risks posed by IoT to users and organizations, and to identify the various attack vectors and potential mitigation strategies.

The methodology involves a comprehensive literature review and analysis of documented security attacks and vulnerabilities in IoT systems. The authors synthesize information from existing studies, technical reports, and case examples to contextualize the security challenges faced in IoT environments. This approach provides an overview of the current threat landscape and highlights areas where security measures need to be strengthened.

The central research question being addressed is: What are the vulnerabilities, threats, and attack mechanisms associated with IoT devices and networks, and what strategies can be employed to mitigate these risks? Their hypothesis posits that IoT systems are inherently vulnerable due to design flaws, limited security protocols, and the heterogeneity of devices, leading to increased susceptibility to cyber-attacks.

Summarizing the article, Abomhara and Køien outline the expanding role of IoT in everyday life, from smart homes to healthcare and industrial automation. They argue that the proliferation of connected devices increases the attack surface for cyber intruders. The article details various types of attacks, such as denial of service (DoS), man-in-the-middle (MITM), and data breaches, emphasizing how vulnerabilities in hardware, software, and communication protocols contribute to security risks. The authors also discuss potential countermeasures, including encryption, authentication, and network segmentation, although they stress that comprehensive security requires a multi-layered approach.

The authors conclude that IoT security remains an evolving domain requiring ongoing research, standardization, and proactive threat detection. They emphasize that designers and manufacturers must prioritize security from the outset, considering the entire lifecycle of IoT devices. Additionally, they suggest that policy development and user awareness are critical components in mitigating IoT-related cyber threats.

Based on the data and examples presented, the conclusions drawn by the authors appear well-supported. The review of documented attacks and vulnerabilities aligns with current trends observed in cybersecurity research. The identified attack vectors, such as unsecured communication channels and weak authentication mechanisms, are widely recognized by the cybersecurity community as common weaknesses in IoT systems.

Alternative explanations for the prevalence of threats could include the rapid expansion of IoT devices outpacing the development of robust security standards, and the economic incentives for attackers exploiting newly connected systems. Further, user behavior, such as weak passwords and lack of updates, contribute to vulnerabilities beyond systemic flaws in device design.

Follow-up research could explore specific security protocols tailored for IoT environments, such as lightweight encryption algorithms or device authentication frameworks suitable for resource-constrained devices. Empirical studies could evaluate the effectiveness of different countermeasures in real-world settings. Additionally, investigating the role of legislation and regulation in enforcing security standards could be valuable in shaping industry practices.

The relevance of this study is significant given the increasing integration of IoT into critical infrastructure and daily life. Ensuring the security of these systems is paramount to prevent cyber-attacks that could compromise safety, privacy, and economic stability. The article underscores the importance of a proactive security posture and cross-sector collaboration to address IoT vulnerabilities effectively.

Concerning the appropriateness of the experimental design, while the article relies primarily on literature review and analysis rather than empirical testing, this approach is appropriate for the exploratory and syntheses nature of the research topic. It offers a broad overview of current cybersecurity challenges in IoT, where experimental data may be limited or still emerging. Future studies could benefit from empirical investigations involving vulnerability assessments and penetration testing in live IoT environments.

References

• Abomhara, M., & Køien, G. M. (2015). Cyber security and the internet of things: vulnerabilities, threats, intruders and attacks. Journal of Cyber Security and Mobility, 65–88.
• Gordon, L. A., & Ford, R. (2018). The Internet of Things and security: A comprehensive review. IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(4), 78–83.
• Sicari, S., Rizzardi, A., Lanzoni, G., & Miorandi, D. (2015). Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead. Computer Networks, 76, 146–164.
• Sadeghi, A. R., Wachsmann, C., & Waidner, M. (2015). Security and privacy challenges in industrial IoT. IEEE Security & Privacy, 13(3), 75–78.
• Roman, R., Zhou, J., & Lopez, J. (2013). On the features and challenges of security and privacy in the Internet of Things. Computer Networks, 57(10), 2266–2279.
• Zhou, J., & Leung, V. C. (2017). Security in Internet of Things: A review. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 19(4), 269–306.
• Conti, M., Rajnath, P., Bagheri, E., & Ruj, S. (2018). A survey on security and privacy issues of IoT. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 5(6), 450–465.
• Weber, R. H. (2010). Internet of Things: Legal perspectives. Computer Law & Security Review, 26(4), 339–348.
• Suo, Y., et al. (2012). A survey of security in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 14(4), 1117–1130.
• Zheng, Y., & Yu, R. (2018). Data privacy and security in IoT. Communications of the ACM, 61(3), 66–73.