Towards Secure Fog Computing: A Survey on Trust Management, Privacy, Authentication, Threats and Access Control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fog computing is an emerging computing paradigm that has come into consideration for the deployment of Internet of Things (IoT) applications amongst researchers and technology industries over the last few years. Fog is highly distributed and consists of a wide number of autonomous end devices, which contribute to the processing. However, the variety of devices offered across different users are not audited. Hence, the security of Fog devices is a major concern that should come into consideration. Therefore, to provide the necessary security for Fog devices, there is a need to understand what the security concerns are with regards to Fog. All aspects of Fog security, which have not been covered by other literature works, need to be identified and aggregated. On the other hand, privacy preservation for user’s data in Fog devices and application data processed in Fog devices is another concern. To provide the appropriate level of trust and privacy, there is a need to focus on authentication, threats and access control mechanisms as well as privacy protection techniques in Fog computing. In this paper, a survey along with a taxonomy is proposed, which presents an overview of existing security concerns in the context of the Fog computing paradigm. Moreover, the Blockchain-based solutions towards a secure Fog computing environment is presented and various research challenges and directions for future research are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it