Security Weaknesses in IoT Management Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A diverse set of Internet of Things (IoT) devices are becoming an integrated part of daily lives, and playing an increasingly vital role in various industry, enterprise and agricultural settings. The current IoT ecosystem relies on several IoT management platforms to manage and operate a large number of IoT devices, their data, and their connectivity. Considering their key role, these platforms must be properly secured against cyber attacks. In this work, we first explore the core operations/features of leading platforms to design a framework to perform a systematic security evaluation of these platforms. Subsequently, we use our framework to analyze a representative set of 52 IoT management platforms, including 42 web-hosted and 10 locally-deployable platforms. We discover a number of high severity unauthorized access vulnerabilities in 9/52 evaluated IoT management platforms, which could be abused to perform attacks such as remote IoT SIM deactivation, IoT SIM overcharging and IoT device data forgery. More seriously, we also uncover instances of broken authentication in 13/52 platforms, including complete account takeover on 8/52 platforms along with remote code execution on 2/52 platforms. In effect, 17/52 platforms were affected by vulnerabilities that could lead to platform-wide attacks. Overall, vulnerabilities were uncovered in 33 platforms, out of which 28 platforms responded to our responsible disclosure. We were also assigned 11 CVEs and awarded bounty for our findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".