MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402215615 · doi:10.1145/3691628

A Large-Scale Study of IoT Security Weaknesses and Vulnerabilities in the Wild

2024· article· en· W4402215615 on OpenAlexaff
Madhu Selvaraj, Gias Uddin

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet of ThingsScale (ratio)Strengths and weaknessesComputer securityData scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) is defined as the connection between places and physical objects (i.e., things) over the internet/network via smart computing devices. IoT is a rapidly emerging paradigm that now encompasses almost every aspect of our modern life. As these devices differ from traditional computing, it is important to understand the challenges IoT developers face while implementing proper security measures in their IoT devices. We observed that IoT software developers share solutions to programming questions as code examples on three Stack Exchange Q & A sites: Stack Overflow (SO), Arduino, and Raspberry Pi. Previous research studies found vulnerabilities/weaknesses in C/C++ code examples shared in SO. However, the studies did not investigate C/C++ code examples related to IoT. The studies investigated SO code examples only. In this article, we conduct a large-scale empirical study of all IoT C/C++ code examples shared in the three Stack Exchange sites, i.e., SO, Arduino, and Raspberry Pi. From the 11,329 obtained code snippets from the three sites, we identify 29 distinct Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types in 609 snippets. These CWE types can be categorized into eight general weakness categories, and we observe that evaluation, memory, and initialization-related weaknesses are the most common to be introduced by users when posting programming solutions. Furthermore, we find that 39.58% of the vulnerable code snippets contain instances of CWE types that can be mapped to real-world occurrences of those CWE types (i.e., CVE instances). The most number vulnerable IoT code examples was found in Arduino, followed by SO, and Raspberry Pi. Memory type vulnerabilities are on the rise in the sites. For example, from the 3,595 mapped CVE instances, we find that 28.99% result in Denial of Service (DoS) errors, which is particularly harmful for network reliant IoT devices such as smart cars. Our study results can guide various IoT stakeholders to be aware of such vulnerable IoT code examples and to inform IoT researchers during their development of tools that can help prevent developers the sharing of such vulnerable code examples in the sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207