All Your IoT Devices Are Belong to Us: Security Weaknesses in IoT Management Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IoT devices have become an integral part of our day to day activities, and are also being deployed to fulfil a number of industrial, enterprise and agricultural use cases. To efficiently manage and operate these devices, the IoT ecosystem relies on several IoT management platforms. Given the security-sensitive nature of the operations performed by these platforms, analyzing them for security vulnerabilities is critical to protect the ecosystem from potential cyber threats. In this work, by exploring the core functionalities offered by leading platforms, we first design a security evaluation framework. Subsequently, we use our framework to analyze 42 IoT management platforms. Our analysis uncovers a number of high severity unauthorized access vulnerabilities in 9/42 platforms, which could lead to attacks such as remote SIM deactivation, IoT SIM overcharging and device data forgery. Furthermore, we find broken authentication in 11/42 platforms, including complete account takeover on 7/42 platforms, along with remote code execution on one of the platforms. Overall, on 11/42 platforms, we find vulnerabilities that could lead to platform-wide attacks, that affect all users and all devices connected to those platforms.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".