A Systematic Review of Fault Injection Attacks on IoT Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of the Internet of Things (IoT) is growing at a breakneck pace and its applications are becoming increasingly sophisticated with time. Fault injection attacks on IoT systems are aimed at altering software behavior by introducing faults into the hardware devices of the system. Attackers introduce glitches into hardware components, such as the clock generator, microcontroller, and voltage source, which can affect software functioning, causing it to misbehave. The methods proposed in the literature to handle fault injection attacks on IoT systems vary from hardware-based attack detection using system-level properties to analyzing the IoT software for vulnerabilities against fault injection attacks. This paper provides a systematic review of the various techniques proposed in the literature to counter fault injection attacks at both the system level and the software level to identify their limitations and propose solutions to address them. Hybrid attack detection methods at the software level are proposed to enhance the security of IoT systems against fault injection attacks. Solutions to the identified limitations are suggested using machine learning, dynamic code instrumentation tools, hardware emulation platforms, and concepts from the software testing domain. Future research possibilities, such as the use of software fault injection tools and supervised machine learning for attack detection at the software level, are investigated.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".