skip to main content
10.1145/3569902.3569915acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesladcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Compliance Evaluation of Cryptographic Security Requirements on IoT Gateways

Published:17 January 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Internet of Things is one of the new trends that has been drawing attention due to its rapid dissemination and acceptance. However, not knowing whether personal data and information are secure can hamper a more widespread acceptance of this technology by users. In this context, the security of one of the main components of the IoT system, the gateway, becomes even more relevant, as it is essential in connecting heterogeneous IoT devices. The IoT gateway ends up centralizing communication and system management, thus becoming a high-value target in terms of security. To improve confidentiality, IoT gateways should use cryptographic services implemented with appropriate configurations based on organizations or technical standards accepted by the scientific community. In this context, the main objective of this paper is to evaluate the security level of IoT gateways considering encryption requirements. For this, a subset of encryption requirements suggested by international technical organizations, such as IoTSF and OWASP, is selected. This evaluation was carried out in the security assessment of four IoT gateways considering cryptographic requirements. None of the gateways achieved more than 80% compliance with the selected requirements, which raises concerns regarding the security of their users’ data.

References

  1. FIPS PUB 46. 1977. Data Encryption Standard (DES). NIST, Springfield VA, USA(1977).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Elaine Barker and Quynh Dang. 2016. NIST Special Publication 800-57 part 1, revision 4. NIST, Tech. Rep 16(2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Elaine Barker and Allen Roginsky. 2011. NIST Special Publication 800-131A. Transitions: Recommendation for Transitioning the Use of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Lengths (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Eclipse Kura 2015. Eclipse Kura Documentation. Retrieved Mar 27, 2021 from http://eclipse.github.io/kura/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Donald L Evans 2002. FIPS PUB 140-2 Change Notices (Dec. 3, 2002) Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules Category: Computer Security Subcategory: Cryptography. Mar 12 (November 2002), 1–2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. G. Hansch, P. Schneider, K. Fischer and K. Böttinger. 2019. A Unified Architecture for Industrial IoT Security Requirements in Open Platform Communications. 2019 24th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (2019), 325–332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. IoTSF 2009. NIST - IoT Security Foundation – make it safe to connect. Retrieved Fev 02, 2022 from https://www.nist.gov/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. IoTSF 2015. IoTSF - IoT Security Foundation – make it safe to connect. Retrieved Fev 19, 2019 from https://www.iotsecurityfoundation.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. IoTSF 2021. IoT Security Foundation – The Global Home of IoT Cybersecurity. Retrieved June 20, 2022 from https://www.iotsecurityfoundation.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. ISAIEC [n. d.]. ISA/IEC 62443 Cybersecurity | ISA São Paulo Section. Retrieved March 3, 2022 from http://isasp.org.br/isa-iec-62443-cybersecurity/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J.-I. Choi, Y.-S. Oh, D. Kim, EY Choi and S.-H. Seo. 2018. Analysis of IoT Open-Platform Cryptographic Technology and Security Requirements. KIPS Tr. Comp. and Comm. Sys 7, 7 (2018), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.3745/KTCCS.2018.7.7.183Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. JD Parra Rodriguez, D. Schreckling and J. Posegga. 2016. Addressing Data-Centric Security Requirements for IoT-Based Systems. 2016 International Workshop on Secure Internet of Things (SIoT) (2016), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIoT.2016.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Fernando A Aires Lins and Marco Vieira. 2020. Security Requirements and Solutions for IoT Gateways: a Comprehensive Study. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8, 11 (2020), 8667–8679. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.3041049Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. M. Imdad, D. Jacob, H. Mahdin, Z. Baharum, S. Shaharudin and M. Azmi. 2020. Internet of Things: Security Requirements, Attacks and Counter Measures. IEEE Access 18(2020), 1520.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Kamalrudin, AA Ibrahim and S. Sidek. 2018. A Security Requirements Library for the Development of Internet of Things (IoT) Applications. Requirements Engineering for Internet of Things (2018), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7796-8_7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Li Ning, Yasir Ali, Hu Ke, Shah Nazir, and Zhao Huanli. 2020. A Hybrid MCDM Approach of Selecting Lightweight Cryptographic Cipher Based on ISO and NIST Lightweight Cryptography Security Requirements for Internet of Health Things. IEEE Access 8(2020), 220165–220187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. DES NIST. 1980. Modes of Operation FIPS PUB 81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. OPC 2008. Unified Architecture. Retrieved March 3, 2022 from https://opcfoundation.org/about/opc-technologies/opc-ua/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. OWASP Foundation 2001. OWASP Foundation | Open Source Foundation for Application Security. Retrieved Fev 19, 2022 from https://owasp.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. Papcun, E. Kajati, D. Cupkova, J. Mocnej, M. Miskuf and I. Zolotova. 2020. Edge-enabled IoT gateway criteria selection and evaluation. Concurr. Computer Practice Exp 32, 13 (2020), e5219. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.5219Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. FIPS Pub. 2001. 186-2, Digital Signature Standard (DSS), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 186-2. US Department of Commerce/National Institute of Standard and Technology 15 (January 2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. R. Ankele, S. Marksteiner, K. Nahrgang, and H. Vallant. 2019. Requirements and Recommendations for IoT/IIoT Models to Automate Security Assurance Through Threat Modeling, Security Analysis and Penetration Testing. ACM Digital Library 18(2019), 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Secure Hash Standard. 1995. FIPS Pub 180-1. National Institute of Standards and Technology 17, 180(1995), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. ThingsBoard 2019. ThingsBoard IoT Gateway Documentation. Retrieved Mar 21, 2021 from https://thingsboard.io/docs/iot-gateway/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. WebIOPi 2015. WebIOPi Gateway Documentation. Retrieved Mar 21, 2021 from http://webiopi.trouch.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. WebThings 2017. WebThings Documentation. Retrieved Mar 21, 2021 from https://webthings.io/docs/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Compliance Evaluation of Cryptographic Security Requirements on IoT Gateways

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        LADC '22: Proceedings of the 11th Latin-American Symposium on Dependable Computing
        November 2022
        167 pages
        ISBN:9781450397377
        DOI:10.1145/3569902

        Copyright © 2022 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 January 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format