MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898545807 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2018.2877749

Playing With Danger: A Taxonomy and Evaluation of Threats to Smart Toys

2018· article· en· W2898545807 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversaryInternet of ThingsThe InternetTaxonomy (biology)Vulnerability (computing)Smart objectsHome automationPrivate information retrievalOrder (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart toys have captured an increasing share of the toy market, and are growing ubiquitous in households with children. Smart toys are a subset of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, containing sensors, actuators, and/or artificial intelligence capabilities. They frequently have Internet connectivity, directly or indirectly through companion apps, and collect information about their users and environments. Recent studies have found security flaws in many smart toys that have led to serious privacy leaks, or allowed tracking a child's physical location. Some well-publicized discoveries of this nature have prompted actions from governments around the world to ban some of these toys. Compared to other IoT devices, smart toys pose unique risks because of their easily vulnerable user base, and this paper is intended to define these risks and assess a subset of toys against them. We provide a classification of threats specific to smart toys in order to unite and complement existing adhoc analyses, and help comprehensive evaluation of other smart toys. Our vulnerability taxonomy addresses the potential security and privacy flaws that can lead to leakage of private information or allow an adversary to control the toy to lure, harm, or distress a child. Using this taxonomy, we perform a thorough experimental analysis of eleven smart toys and their companion apps. Our systematic analysis has uncovered that several current toys still expose children to multiple threats for attackers with physical, nearby, or remote access to the toy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207