Security Analysis of the MQTT-SN Protocol for the Internet of Things
Source abstract
Abstract
The expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm has brought with it the challenge of promptly detecting and evaluating attacks against the systems coexisting in it. One of the most recurrent methods used by cybercriminals is to exploit the vulnerabilities found in communication protocols, which can lead to them accessing, altering, and making data inaccessible and even bringing down a device or whole infrastructure. In the case of the IoT, the Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) protocol is one of the most-used ones due to its lightness, allowing resource-constrained devices to communicate with each other. Improving its effectiveness, a lighter version of this protocol, namely MQTT for Sensor Networks (MQTT-SN), was especially designed for embedded devices on non-TCP/IP networks. Taking into account the importance of these protocols, together with the significance that security has when it comes to protecting the high-sensitivity data exchanged in IoT networks, this paper presents an exhaustive assessment of the MQTT-SN protocol and describes its shortcomings. In order to do so, seven different highly heterogeneous attacks were designed and tested, evaluating the different security impacts that they can have on a real MQTT-SN network and its performance. Each one of them was compared with a non-attacked implemented reference scenario, which allowed the comparison of an attacked system with that of a system without attacks. Finally, using the knowledge extracted from this evaluation, a threat detector is proposed that can be deployed in an IoT environment and detect previously unmodeled attacks.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Security in Wireless Sensor Networks · IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer Science, University of Oviedo, 33003 Oviedo, Spain
Institute of Informatics (I3A), University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain
Funding
Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and the European Union FEDER · Spanish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation · Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation · University of Castilla La Mancha · JCCM
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Projecting the growth and economic impact of the internet of things
2. A review and state of art of Internet of Things (IoT)10.1007/s11831-021-09622-6 ↗
3. (2022, August 25). State of the IoT 2020: 12 Billion IoT Connections, Surpassing Non-IoT for the First Time. Available online: https://iot-analytics.com/state-of-the-iot-2020-12-billion-iot-connections-surpassing-non-iot-for-the-first-time/.
4. (2022, August 25). State of IoT 2022: Number of Connected IoT Devices Growing 18% to 14.4 Billion Globally. Available online: https://iot-analytics.com/number-connected-iot-devices/.
5. Hunkeler, U., Truong, H.L., and Stanford-Clark, A. (2008, January 6–10). MQTT-S—A publish/subscribe protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the 2008 3rd International Conference on Communication Systems Software and Middleware and Workshops (COMSWARE’08), Bangalore, India.10.1109/COMSWA.2008.4554519 ↗
6. Ghori, M.R., Wan, T.C., and Sodhy, G.C. (2020). Bluetooth Low Energy Mesh Networks: Survey of Communication and Security Protocols. Sensors, 20.10.3390/s20123590 ↗
7. Prakash, S. (2020, January 20–22). ZigBee based wireless sensor network architecture for agriculture applications. Proceedings of the 2020 Third International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT), Tirunelveli, India.10.1109/ICSSIT48917.2020.9214086 ↗
8. Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann and, C., and Frank, B. (2014). The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), Universitaet Bremen.10.17487/rfc7252 ↗
9. Gupta, P. (2021, January 25–27). A Survey of Application Layer Protocols for Internet of Things. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Communication information and Computing Technology (ICCICT), Mumbai, India.10.1109/ICCICT50803.2021.9510140 ↗
10. Mohanty, J., Mishra, S., Patra, S., Pati, B., and Panigrahi, C.R. (2021). IoT Security, Challenges, and Solutions: A Review. Progress in Advanced Computing and Intelligent Engineering, Springer.10.1007/978-981-15-6353-9_46 ↗
11. Security Challenges in the IP-based Internet of Things10.1007/s11277-011-0385-5 ↗
12. Zhang, Z., Cho, M.C.Y., Wang, C., Hsu, C., Chen, C., and Shieh, S. (2014, January 17–19). IoT Security: Ongoing Challenges and Research Opportunities. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 7th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications, Matsue, Japan.10.1109/SOCA.2014.58 ↗
13. An overview of security and privacy in smart cities’ IoT communications10.1002/ett.3677 ↗
14. Future smart cities: Requirements, emerging technologies, applications, challenges, and future aspects10.1016/j.cities.2022.103794 ↗
15. Dutta, P., Chakrabarti, S., Bhattacharya, A., Dutta, S., and Shahnaz, C. (2023). IOT Security: Recent Trends and Challenges. Emerging Technologies in Data Mining and Information Security, Springer Nature. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems.10.1007/978-981-19-4052-1 ↗
16. Tiwari, M., Ismail, Y., Verma, K., and Garg, A.K. (2023). The IoT in Security Architecture, Challenges, and Solutions. Optical and Wireless Technologies, Springer Nature. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering.10.1007/978-981-19-1645-8 ↗
17. Mqtt for sensor networks (mqtt-sn) protocol specification
18. Shakya, S.R., and Jha, S. (2022). Challenges in Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). Industrial Internet of Things, CRC Press.10.1201/9781003102267-2 ↗
19. Security Assessment of the MQTT-SN Protocol for the Internet of Things10.1088/1742-6596/2224/1/012079 ↗
20. Postel, J. (1980). User Datagram Protocol, RFC. Technical Report.10.17487/rfc0768 ↗
21. Mulligan, G. (2007, January 25–26). The 6LoWPAN architecture. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors, EmNets ’07, Cork, Ireland.10.1145/1278972.1278992 ↗
22. Pongle, P., and Chavan, G. (2015, January 8–10). A survey: Attacks on RPL and 6LoWPAN in IoT. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Pervasive Computing (ICPC), Pune, India.10.1109/PERVASIVE.2015.7087034 ↗
23. RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
24. Paszkowska, A., and Iwanicki, K. (2018, January 14–16). The IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) under Network Partitions. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks, EWSN‘18, Madrid, Spain.
25. Arvind, S., and Narayanan, V.A. (2019, January 15–16). An overview of security in CoAP: Attack and analysis. Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India.10.1109/ICACCS.2019.8728533 ↗
26. Andy, S., Rahardjo, B., and Hanindhito, B. (2017, January 19–21). Attack scenarios and security analysis of MQTT communication protocol in IoT system. Proceedings of the 2017 4th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Informatics (EECSI), Yogyakarta, Indonesia.10.1109/EECSI.2017.8239179 ↗
27. ZigBee wireless networks and transceivers
28. Exploiting MQTT-SN for Distributed Reflection Denial-of-Service Attacks
29. Gündoğan, C., Amsüss, C., Schmidt, T.C., and Wählisch, M. (2020, January 22–26). IoT Content Object Security with OSCORE and NDN: A First Experimental Comparison. Proceedings of the 2020 IFIP Networking Conference (Networking), Paris, France.
30. Sadio, O., Ngom, I., and Lishou, C. (2019, January 22–25). Lightweight Security Scheme for MQTT/MQTT-SN Protocol. Proceedings of the 2019 Sixth International Conference on Internet of Things: Systems, Management and Security (IOTSMS), Granada, Spain.10.1109/IOTSMS48152.2019.8939177 ↗
31. Design and evaluation of a novel White-box encryption scheme for resource-constrained IoT devices10.1007/s11227-022-04322-9 ↗
32. Safe MQTT-SN: A lightweight secure encrypted communication in IoT10.1088/1742-6596/2020/1/012044 ↗
33. Kumar, N.V.R., and Kumar, P.M. (2020, January 29–31). Survey on State of Art IoT Protocols and Applications. Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Smart Power System and Sustainable Energy (CISPSSE), Keonjhar, India.10.1109/CISPSSE49931.2020.9212227 ↗
34. A Large-Scale Empirical Study on the Vulnerability of Deployed IoT Devices10.1109/TDSC.2020.3037908 ↗
35. Dunkels, A., Gronvall, B., and Voigt, T. (2004, January 16–18). Contiki—A lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks, Tampa, FL, USA.
36. Orebaugh, A., Ramirez, G., and Beale, J. (2006). Wireshark & Ethereal Network Protocol Analyzer Toolkit, Elsevier.
37. Security Against Rank Attack in RPL Protocol10.1109/MNET.011.1900651 ↗
38. Singh, M., Rajan, M.A., Shivraj, V.L., and Balamuralidhar, P. (2015, January 4–6). Secure MQTT for Internet of Things (IoT). Proceedings of the 2015 Fifth International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies, Gwalior, India.10.1109/CSNT.2015.16 ↗
39. Roldán-Gómez, J., Boubeta-Puig, J., Castelo Gómez, J.M., Carrillo-Mondéjar, J., and Martínez Martínez, J.L. (2021, January 17–20). Attack Pattern Recognition in the Internet of Things using Complex Event Processing and Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Melbourne, Australia.10.1109/SMC52423.2021.9658711 ↗
40. A stream processing architecture for heterogeneous data sources in the Internet of Things10.1016/j.csi.2020.103426 ↗
41. A microservice architecture for real-time IoT data processing: A reusable Web of things approach for smart ports10.1016/j.csi.2021.103604 ↗
42. Detecting security attacks in cyber-physical systems: A comparison of Mule and WSO2 intelligent IoT architectures10.7717/peerj-cs.787 ↗
43. PCA versus LDA10.1109/34.908974 ↗