2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.csi.2018.08.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk-based automated assessment and testing for the cybersecurity certification and labelling of IoT devices

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
58
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, risk quantification was only indicative and of qualitative nature. Further work is needed in the direction of systematic risk quantification, including approaches for data- and evidence-driven risk quantification [91]. While this is highly important for IoT endpoint devices, overall IoT network security is only as good as its weakest link and a weak node may have scalable negative impacts to the whole IoT network.…”
Section: Discussion and Related Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, risk quantification was only indicative and of qualitative nature. Further work is needed in the direction of systematic risk quantification, including approaches for data- and evidence-driven risk quantification [91]. While this is highly important for IoT endpoint devices, overall IoT network security is only as good as its weakest link and a weak node may have scalable negative impacts to the whole IoT network.…”
Section: Discussion and Related Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, this information could include results of testing processes carried out during the manufacturing process, as well as a model-based representation and description of the ICT artifact itself. 10 Furthermore, as described in the Section "Increasing Cybersecurity Awareness," the Cybersecurity Act mentions the need to provide additional information about an ICT artifact, including security guidelines and recommendations to help end users with configuration, installation, deployment, operation, and maintenance. For example, in the case of specific-purpose artifacts (i.e., IoT devices), the recent Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) standard 14 could be used to foster a secure and automated deployment of a certain IoT device, as proposed by Neisse et al 11 An additional aspect is related to the software libraries that are part of the artifact.…”
Section: Use Case Scenariomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To cope with these aspects, we propose to partition our platform in multiple interconnected (block)chains deployed across MS following a hierarchical approach based on interledger mechanisms. 9 In our proposed platform, an EU Cybersecurity Chain is maintained at EU level by a consortium of all MS to support the coordination and interconnection of different chains at MS level to manage manufacturer/provider information and the ICT artifact lifecyle (e.g., updates, and patches), cybersecurity certification information, 10 and responsible vulnerability disclosure. Unlike a simple network of national servers, the advantage of our blockchain-based approach is that it enables collaboration, cooperation, and ensures transparency and immutability of the cybersecurity information to be shared among stakeholders across sectors/ countries.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Towards this end, the creator proposes a security certification the methodology implemented for IoT to empower different stakeholders with the power to realize security solutions for large-scale IoT services in an automatic system.. It also supports transparency on the IoT security level system to the consumers because the methodology able to provides a label together with the main results of the certification procedures [18].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%