Deep dive into the IoT backend ecosystem

Saidi, Said Jawad; Matic, Srdjan; Gasser, Oliver; Smaragdakis, Georgios; Feldmann, Anja

doi:10.1145/3517745.3561431

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adapting Fingerprint Collection Methodology to IPv6: Instead of using Rapid7 [48] and Censys [22] datasets to collect the TLS and HTTP(S) scans like prior work [29], we perform our own large-scale TLS and HTTP(S) scans, both for IPv4 and IPv6. This choice is motivated by the fact that recent work has shown that Rapid7 and Censys datasets are not as reliable for IPv6 as they are in IPv4 [7,51]. We scan the entire address space for IPv4, as done in prior work, and we scan the publicly available IPv6 hitlist [26,59,70] for IPv6.…”

Section: Adapting Ipv4 Tls and Http(s) Scans To Ipv6mentioning

confidence: 99%

A First Look At IPv6 Hypergiant Infrastructure

Hilal,

Sattler,

Vermeulen

et al. 2024

Proc. ACM Netw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's Internet is dominated by a small number of companies which are responsible for a large fraction of Internet traffic. These so called "hypergiants" make use of off-nets to deploy parts of their infrastructure in ISP networks. Off-nets ensure that clients from these ISPs get lower latencies and the ISP needs to send less traffic to its upstream providers. They have been relatively well studied in the IPv4 Internet, although their footprint in IPv6 remains unclear. In this paper, we take a first look at the IPv6 hypergiant infrastructure. We perform a first-of-its-kind study of IPv6 off-nets for 14 hypergiants and compare their deployment to IPv4. We find IPv6 off-nets in 2k ASes, compared to the more than 6k off-net ASes for IPv4. Moreover, the majority of IPv6 off-nets deployments are seen in ASes which already deploy IPv4 off-nets. Interestingly, we also see some hypergiants such as Disney and Hulu not making use of any IPv6 off-nets at all. We also uncover the phenomenon of cross-hypergiant deployments, where one hypergiant deploys its infrastructure in another hypergiant's network. Finally, we use latency measurements to compare IPv6 vs. IPv4 latency to off-net prefixes within off-net ASes and find similar results for both protocol versions. We make all our code and data available to encourage replicability.

show abstract

Section: Adapting Ipv4 Tls and Http(s) Scans To Ipv6mentioning

confidence: 99%

A First Look At IPv6 Hypergiant Infrastructure

Hilal,

Sattler,

Vermeulen

et al. 2024

Proc. ACM Netw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Saidi et al [190] emphasized that the security and functionality of IoT devices often rely on the IoT backend, that is, the server on which the device downloads resources or the cloud-hosted for computing, etc. However, the public has limited knowledge about the location, strategies, and market share of these backends.…”

Section: E Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Constructing a detailed map of IoT backend servers and revealing the relationships among these backend providers [190]. 2022…”

Section: E Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying key sectors based on cascading effect along paths in the embodied CO2 emission flow network in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China

Jia

Gao

et al. 2020

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the past few years, the Consumer Internet of Things (CIoT) has entered public lives. While CIoT has improved the convenience of people's daily lives, it has also brought new security and privacy concerns. In this survey, we try to figure out what researchers can learn about the security and privacy of CIoT by traffic analysis, a popular method in the security community. From the security and privacy perspective, this survey seeks out the new characteristics in CIoT traffic analysis, the state-of-the-art progress in CIoT traffic analysis, and the challenges yet to be solved. We collected 310 papers from January 2018 to December 2023 related to CIoT traffic analysis from the security and privacy perspective and summarized the process of CIoT traffic analysis in which the new characteristics of CIoT are identified. Then, we detail existing works based on five application goals: device fingerprinting, user activity inference, malicious traffic analysis, security analysis, and measurement. At last, we discuss the new challenges and future research directions.

show abstract

“…For the billions of connected devices forming the IoT, DNS is also a necessary tool. Even the simplest IoT devices, such as thermometers or motion sensors, might need to use DNS to contact their backend servers [10]. IoT technologies could also utilize the DNS in other manners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNS for IoT: A Survey

Ayoub

Balakrichenan²,

Khawam³

et al. 2023

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Internet of Things (IoT) is paving the way to becoming necessary in numerous aspects of people’s lives. IoT is becoming integrated in many domains, such as medical, industrial, and personal. Recent years have witnessed the creation of many IoT technologies that differ not only in their applications and use cases but also in standards. The absence of universally accepted standards and the variety of technologies are only some challenges the IoT market faces. Other challenges include the constrained nature of most IoT devices, the diverse identification schemes, the inadequate security mechanisms, and the lack of interoperability between different technologies. The Domain Name System (DNS) persisted throughout the years as the Internet’s naming service and accumulated more trust from users with the introduction of its security extensions. DNS could be utilized to address some of the challenges the IoT market faces. However, using DNS for IoT applications might jeopardize DNS infrastructure. In this survey, we study the coexistence of DNS and IoT. We define IoT, present its architecture and discuss its main challenges. We then introduce DNS and its function; we discuss its security and privacy drawbacks and the extensions standardized to address them. We further discuss the uses of DNS in IoT environments to address some of IoT’s challenges and the impact these uses might have on DNS.

show abstract

Deep dive into the IoT backend ecosystem

Cited by 13 publications

References 28 publications

A First Look At IPv6 Hypergiant Infrastructure

A First Look At IPv6 Hypergiant Infrastructure

Identifying key sectors based on cascading effect along paths in the embodied CO2 emission flow network in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China

DNS for IoT: A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About