MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763925543 · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2762345

Securing Fog Computing for Internet of Things Applications: Challenges and Solutions

2017· article· en· W2763925543 on OpenAlexaff
Jianbing Ni, Kuan Zhang, Xiaodong Lin, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityEdge computingFog computingArchitectureLocation awarenessInternet of ThingsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) allows billions of physical objects to be connected to collect and exchange data for offering various applications, such as environmental monitoring, infrastructure management, and home automation. On the other hand, IoT has unsupported features (e.g., low latency, location awareness, and geographic distribution) that are critical for some IoT applications, including smart traffic lights, home energy management and augmented reality. To support these features, fog computing is integrated into IoT to extend computing, storage and networking resources to the network edge. Unfortunately, it is confronted with various security and privacy risks, which raise serious concerns towards users. In this survey, we review the architecture and features of fog computing and study critical roles of fog nodes, including real-time services, transient storage, data dissemination and decentralized computation. We also examine fog-assisted IoT applications based on different roles of fog nodes. Then, we present security and privacy threats towards IoT applications and discuss the security and privacy requirements in fog computing. Further, we demonstrate potential challenges to secure fog computing and review the state-of-the-art solutions used to address security and privacy issues in fog computing for IoT applications. Finally, by defining several open research issues, it is expected to draw more attention and efforts into this new architecture.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations650
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207