MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Detecting IoT Event Spoofing Attacks Using Time-Series Classification

2024· article· en· W4402352585 on OpenAlexaff
Uzma Maroof, Gustavo Batista, Arash Shaghaghi, Sanjay Jha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsSpoofing attackComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)Series (stratigraphy)Computer securityInternet of ThingsTime seriesArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Data miningMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) devices have grown in popularity since they can directly interact with the real world. Home automation systems automate these interactions. IoT events are crucial to these systems’ decision-making but are often unreliable. Security vulnerabilities allow attackers to impersonate events. Using statistical machine learning, IoT event fingerprints from deployed sensors have been used to detect spoofed events. Multivariate temporal data from these sensors has structural and temporal properties that statistical machine learning cannot learn. These schemes’ accuracy depends on the knowledge base; the larger, the more accurate. However, the lack of huge datasets with enough samples of each IoT event in the nascent field of IoT can be a bottleneck. In this work, we deployed advanced machine learning to detect event-spoofing assaults. The temporal nature of sensor data lets us discover important patterns with fewer events. Our rigorous investigation of a publicly available real-world dataset indicates that our time-series-based solution technique learns temporal features from sensor data faster than earlier work, even with a 100- or 500-fold smaller training sample, making it a realistic IoT solution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207