MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing MQTT Fault Tolerance and Resilience Against Broker Failures and DoS Attacks with Decentralized Blockchain Architecture

2024· article· en· W4407938264 on OpenAlexaff
Elisée Toé, Fehmi Jaafar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainResilience (materials science)Computer scienceArchitectureFault toleranceMQTTDistributed computingComputer securityComputer networkInternet of ThingsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) protocol has become the standard for IoT (Internet of Things) communication due to its lightweight nature and efficiency. However, its centralized architecture, with a single broker managing message flow, introduces vulnerabilities to failures and Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. This paper proposes a novel decentralized architecture for MQTT systems that leverages blockchain technology and smartcontracts to enhance resilience against broker failures and DoS attacks. Our approach utilizes a three-layer architecture comprising clients, cluster brokers, and a blockchain-based system to securely manage broker transitions and ensure continuous service. Key contributions of this work include a decentralized failover mechanism, secure recording and access control via blockchain, and a robust algorithm for improving system resilience. The use of blockchain and smartcontracts provides a tamper-proof and transparent method for managing broker transitions and access control, enhancing the security and trustworthiness of the system. These findings suggest that integrating blockchain technology with MQTT can mitigate some of the inherent vulnerabilities of traditional centralized architectures, paving the way for more resilient IoT communications.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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 topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207