Secure Routing and Forwarding in RPL-based Internet of Things: Challenges and Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the Internet of Things (IoT) becomes an integral part of our everyday life, securing the IoT devices against malicious activities became critical for their deployment, especially with such devices entering homes and controlling essential services.Most IoT devices still have limited resources (i.e., energy, processing power, and memory), complicating the use of traditional security measures.A modified version of the traditional TPC/IP protocol stack was developed for IoT devices, commonly known as the uIP protocol stack.This protocol stack includes either lightweight versions of the traditional protocols, operating at each layer or IoT-suitable replacement protocols.Among these protocols, the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) was designed to perform network-layer routing in IoT, while the IPv6 over Low-powered Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) protocol was introduced to a new network-sub-layer called the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer.While exploring the challenges that face the routing and forwarding processes at the Network layer in RPL-based networks (or 6LoWPAN networks), from the work in this dissertation, it was found that both processes suffer from a significant vulnerability: the inability to authenticate the message's immediate sender.This problem is explored in detail, and its effects on the performance and security of IoT devices are thoroughly investigated.A solution is proposed to the authentication problem, in the form of a framework based on Network Coding (NC), which is introduced as a third security mode for RPL: the Chained Secure mode (CSM).A prototype for the proposed solution is evaluated, through simulations, for the RPL against several replay attacks, which proved to be effective against the investigated attacks.An integration of the 6LoWPAN protocol and the CSM framework is proposed to reduce the effect of buffer-reservation attacks.The preliminary evaluation results show that this integration between RPL and 6LoWPAN has potential mitigating and minimizing the effect of the external adversaries of the buffer-reservation attack with minimal resource consumption.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".