MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416208909 · doi:10.3390/s25226967

A Survey on Privacy Preservation Techniques in IoT Systems

2025· article· en· W4416208909 on OpenAlexaff
Rupinder Kaur, Tiago Rodrigues, Nourin Kadir, Rasha Kashef

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet of ThingsDifferential privacyHomomorphic encryptionEncryptionCryptographyData exchangeInformation privacyBlockchain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet of Things (IoT) has become deeply embedded in modern society, enabling applications across smart homes, healthcare, industrial automation, and environmental monitoring. However, as billions of interconnected devices continuously collect and exchange sensitive data, privacy and security concerns have escalated. This survey systematically reviews the state-of-the-art privacy-preserving techniques in IoT systems, emphasizing approaches that protect user data during collection, transmission, and storage. Peer-reviewed studies from 2016 to 2025 and technical reports were analyzed to examine applied mechanisms, datasets, and analytical models. Our analysis shows that blockchain and federated learning are the most prevalent decentralized privacy-preserving methods, while homomorphic encryption and differential privacy have recently gained traction for lightweight and edge-based IoT implementations. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, including computational overhead, limited scalability, and real-time performance constraints in resource-constrained devices. Furthermore, gaps remain in cross-domain interoperability, energy-efficient cryptographic designs, and privacy solutions for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and vehicular IoT systems. This survey offers a comprehensive overview of current research trends, identifies critical limitations, and outlines promising future directions to guide the design of secure and privacy-aware IoT architectures.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.288
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207