Spill the Beans: Extrospection of Internet of Things by Exploiting Denial of Service

Abstract

Internet of Things (IoT) exposes various vulnerabilities at different levels. One such exploitable vulnerability is Denial of Service (DoS). In this work, we focus on a large-scale extensive study of various forms of DoS and how it can be exploited in different protocols of IoT. We propose an attack and defense framework called OWL which is tailored for IoT and that can perform various forms of DoS on IP, Bluetooth, and Zigbee devices. We consider various DoS vulnerabilities such as illegitimate packet injection, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) scanning attack, Zigbee frame counter-attack, etc., regarding IP, Bluetooth and Zigbee devices. To understand how resilient is IoT for DoS, we propose two new metrics to measure the Resilience and the Quality of Service (QoS) degradation in IoT. We have conducted large-scale experimentation with real IoT devices in our security IoT testbed. The experiments conducted are for DoS, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) by setting up Mirai and Permanent Denial of Service (PDoS) using BrickerBot on various IoT devices. We have also compared our framework with the existing state of the art tools.IoT environment, analyzes, monitors and mutates the packets that will be accepted by the IoT device. OWL produces legitimate and illegitimate packets to perform the DoS. Not to forget, OWL also includes techniques in performing classical resource exhaustion for DoS. However, OWL stands out in performing DoS attacks through a few mutated packets by exploiting various DoS vulnerabilities of IoT devices. We have compared and evaluated OWL with two of the state-of-the-art DoS tools, LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon) [12] and hping3 [13], where LOIC and hping3 can perform DoS only on IP based IoT devices and only through resource exhaustion. Next, we introduce a DoS and DDoS defense framework for IoT. The framework is capable of analyzing the network traffic to determine if there is a DoS or a DDoS attack on a specific IoT device. Suppose there is an attack, the defense framework takes appropriate steps to mitigate the attack by changing the IP address of the IoT device and providing alerts for Bluetooth and Zigbee devices. On the other hand, if an IoT device within the network is launching a DoS attack on other devices, the defense framework will automatically disconnect the network connection of the attacking IoT device.Second, we have introduced IoT Resilience (R IoT ) metric to evaluate the resilience of an IoT device against DoS, DDoS and PDoS. IoT Resilience will be calculated based on the services running on an

Consumer, Commercial, and Industrial IoT (In)Security: Attack Taxonomy and Case Studies

“…The domain of physical attacks is comprised by attacks where the adversary can have physical access to the IoT system. Attacks under this category are tampering attacks, malicious code injections, radio frequency interference/jamming, fake node injections, sleep denial attack (or sleep deprivation), side channel attacks, and permanent DoS (PDoS) [34]. Network attacks occur when the IoT network is manipulated inhibiting the IoT system's nominal operation.…”

argXtract: Deriving IoT Security Configurations via Automated Static Analysis of Stripped ARM Binaries

“…Devices: Several security and privacy analyses have been conducted against IoT devices [15][16][17][18]. Interfacing with physical devices can reveal behavioural characteristics, particularly those where user interaction is required.…”

Understanding and Classifying Permanent Denial-of-Service Attacks

“…This survey included academic articles, whitepapers, and technical reports available from open public sources. The most widely used example is the malware BrickerBot [5], which has undergone considerable investigation, most notably in the study by Sachidananda et al [12]. Their research offers an in-depth analysis of BrickerBot's capabilities, targeting methods, and potential impact.…”