HoneyNetCloud Investigation Model, A Preventive Process Model for IoT Forensics
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
With the pervasive usage of sensing systems and IoT things, the importance of security has increased. Attempts towards breaching IoT security systems by attackers are on upsurge. Many intrusions in embedded systems, sensing equipment and IoT things have occurred in the past. Though there are cyber security tools like Antivirus, Intrusion detection and prevention systems available for securing the digital devices and its networks. However, a forensic methodology to be followed for the analysis and investigation to detect origin cause of network incidents is lacking. This paper derives a comprehensive preventive cyber forensic process model with honeypots for the digital IoT investigation process which is formal, that can assist in the court of law in defining the reliability of the investigative process. One year data of various attacks to the IoT network has been recorded by the honeypots for this study. The newly derived model HIM has been validated using various methods and instead of converging on a particular aspect of investigation, it details the entire lifecycle of IoT forensic investigation. The model is targeted to address the forensic analysts’ requirements and the need of legal fraternity for a forensic model. The process model follows a preventive method which reduce further attacks on network.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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