Security Management of Horizontal IoT Platforms: A Survey and Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rise of Industry 4.0, horizontal Internet of Things (IoT) platforms are becoming a standardized approach for managing interoperability within complex and heterogeneous IoT systems. Horizontal IoT platforms are software solutions that provide overall IoT system orchestration and management. They work to facilitate IoT services and resources, where security management remains one of the main challenges. This article provides a survey and comparison of security management in IoT systems using horizontal IoT platforms. For this purpose, we first define and compare vertical and horizontal IoT platforms. Although vertical IoT platforms provide solutions to many industries, horizontal IoT platforms improve system connectivity by interconnecting multiple vertical domains. We then describe the security management functionalities of horizontal IoT platforms. With these in mind, we perform a comparative study on the current state of security management approaches of existing horizontal IoT platforms. Particularly, we survey and compare the security management features of the selected standard-based reference implementations. Through discussions, we cover concerns that researchers and developers should be aware of when selecting specific reference implementations for their works. Finally, we identify open issues in the existing security management principles of these reference implementations to be addressed in future studies and practical implementations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".