Secure Routing in IoT: Evaluation of RPL's Secure Mode under Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) became the standard for routing in the Internet of Things (IoT) networks, many researchers had investigated the security aspects of this protocol. However, no work (to the best of our knowledge) has investigated the use of the security mechanisms included in the protocol's standard, due to the fact that there was no implementation for these features in any IoT operating system yet. A partial implementation of RPL's security mechanisms was presented recently for Contiki operating system (by Perazzo et al.), which provided us with the opportunity to examine RPL's security mechanisms. In this paper, we investigate the effects and challenges of using RPL's security mechanisms under common routing attacks. First, a comparison of RPL's performance, with and without its security mechanisms, under three routing attacks (Blackhole, Selective-Forward, and Neighbor attacks) is conducted using several metrics (e.g., average data packet delivery rate, average data packet delay, average power consumption... etc.) Based on the observations from this comparison, we come up with few suggestions that could reduce the effects of such attacks, without having added security mechanisms for RPL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".