Test environment running 7.6.6

Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

A Comparative Analysis of IoT Device Fingerprinting Methods

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

In the Internet of Things (IoT) era where billions of connected devices interact within smart environments, ensuring secure and accurate identification of these devices is paramount. Device fingerprinting has emerged as a crucial technique to uniquely identify and monitor devices without relying on traditional authentication methods. Given the proliferation of resource-constrained IoT devices, non-intrusive and scalable security solutions are essential. Unlike conventional identification mechanisms, device fingerprinting leverages unique device characteristics to provide a robust security layer. Over the past few years, machine learning (ML) techniques have increasingly been integrated into device fingerprinting methods. These approaches can detect subtle variations in device behaviour and attributes, making them indispensable for device recognition in dynamic IoT environments. In this paper, we conduct a comparative analysis of six representative ML-based device fingerprinting methods using publicly available benchmark datasets. The performance of these methods is evaluated using several metrics, including identification accuracy, time overhead, CPU consumption, and memory usage. Our analysis shows that IoTPROFILE outperforms other methods in performance effectiveness, while IoTDevID and IoT SENTINEL excel in computational efficiency. This provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each method, offering a clear understanding of their applicability in different contexts and environments.

Description

Citation

Source

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until