Wireless Personal Communications (2022) 122:1481–1517

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08958-3

IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security

and Advancing Technologies: A Comprehensive Survey

Aparna Raj1 · Sujala D. Shetty1

Accepted: 9 August 2021 / Published online: 18 August 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Today almost every person’s life revolves around internet and Internet of Things (IoT). IoT
is a paradigm which interconnects devices, people, or networks with the ability to process
and respond to any physical or virtual communication without a glitch. It is contemplated
to be the next era of communication and made devices smarter and more efficient. IoT hits
every application area from home controllers and healthcare to agriculture. It utilizes inter-
net connectivity, sensors and numerous other technologies and protocols for data collection
and analysis and delivers user required services effectively. In this paper, a detailed review
on various architectures, technologies and protocols used in an IoT eco-system is pre-
sented. We have also discussed possible layer wise attacks and how new technologies, fog,
edge, cloud, artificial intelligence, machine learning and blockchain could be integrated to
existing IoT architecture to deliver flawless services and better security. A summary of cur-
rent research challenges and future directions in this area is also discussed.

Keywords IoT architecture · Cloud computing · Machine learning · Blockchain · Edge

computing · IoT security

1 Introduction

Science and Technology added new dimensions to human lives. With the advent of smart
devices having capability to communicate with humans as well as with other devices auto-
matically over the internet made our lives even smarter. This constitute the Internet of
Things (IoT) which ushered a new epoch where a wide variety of devices or appliances are
interconnected and shares information across the web. IoT is an umbrella term that covers
technologies, design principles and systems with the ever-growing phenomenon of Inter-
net connected devices—‘Things’, that extends internet connectivity into physical devices.
‘Things’ in the context of IoT could be any entity or physical object that has a Unique Id,
Embedded System and the ability to transfer data over a network [1]. According to recent

* Aparna Raj
[email protected]
Sujala D. Shetty
[email protected]
1
Department of Computer Science, Bits-Pilani, Dubai Campus, Dubai, UAE

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1482 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

CISCO estimation, nearly two-thirds of worldwide population will have internet access and
about 14.7 billion connected devices are expected by 2023. Figure 1 represents this esti-
mated value of connected IoT devices by 2023. More than one third of companies use vari-
ous IoT solutions to optimize processes, improve data collections, for cutting operational
costs and for building new revenue streams. IoT is currently in its golden age. Smart City,
Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), Smart Home, Smart Vehicles and Healthcare are some
of the major sectors that are likely to meet colossal transformation by 2022.
The term IoT was coined by Kevin Ashton in 1999, while working in Procter & Gamble
for developing network of objects using RFID. Then it took 10 more years for the concept
to gain some popularity. But today we are living in a world where the number of connected
devices exceeds the number of humans, and these devices range from smart wearables to
smart homes and even smart cities. In future, the devices are expected to directly com-
municate with each other over the web [2]. Apart from this there is an emerging paradigm
called SIoT, in which different IoT devices interacts and create connections among them-
selves for achieving common goals. It allows the objects to have their own social networks
and enables humans to access the outcome of these automated inter-object interactions, in
order to maintain their privacy [3].
Along with the enormous growth and popularity of IoT, there are several challenges to
be tackled during its implementation. As an IoT network consists of many heterogeneous
devices, compatibility is one of the major issues faced by these devices. Even though there
are many reference models, it lacks a single unified architecture for its implementation.
Security and Privacy of users are other major challenges faced by the IoT devices. Since
most of the devices connects and exchanges data over the internet, there is a huge risk
of leakage of personal information plus a single loophole places the entire system down.
Hence proper authentication mechanisms, security of the devices and the communication
channels should be maintained. Additionally, since IoT devices are power hungry, different
energy efficient aspects should also be incorporated during its design stage.

Fig. 1  CISCO’s estimation of connected devices from 2018 to 2023

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1483

There are several survey papers that encompasses different aspects of IoT technology.
In [2] authors have summarized various security challenges and its solution architectures.
In [4] authors have proposed various layer wise architecture, security attacks and coun-
termeasures for providing security in IoT. In [5] authors have given a detailed review on
various IoT architectures, protocols and applications used. In [6] authors have provided an
overview of existing IoT technical details, applications and latest emerging areas. In [7]
authors have provided an in-depth survey on IoT, big data analytics and key technologies
and challenges. In [8] authors have surveyed various protocols and standards used in IoT.
In [9] authors have discussed how IoT revolutionized human life and what are the future
technological enhancements required. In [10] a detailed survey on architectures and tech-
nologies used are discussed. The outline of the contribution of this paper are:

• Presented a detailed review on different layered architectures, enabling technologies

and layer wise description of protocols used.
• Listed out possible security attacks in each layer.
• Listed security solutions that can be provided using recent technologies such as Artifi-
cial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Blockchain.
• Advantages and disadvantages on integrating IoT with cloud, fog, and edge.
• An assessment on existing challenges and future research directions.

The rest of the article is organized as follows: Sect. 2 describes the basic components
of an IoT eco-system. Section 3 discusses various layered architecture of IoT depending on
the applications. In Sect. 4, 5, and 6 various technologies, hardware & software platforms
and layer wise descriptions of various protocols used are reviewed. Major advancing com-
puting platforms, i.e., Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Blockchain, Cloud Com-
puting, Fog Computing, Edge Computing, and its integration with IoT and their advan-
tages and disadvantages and various IoT applications are presented in Sect. 7, 8, and 9,
respectively. Section 10 describes current challenges and future research opportunities in
this area. Finally, Sect. 11 concludes the paper (Table 1).

2 Components of IoT

Fundamental components of an IoT eco-system are as follows:

• Sensors and Actuators: These are the devices that enables interaction with the physical
world. They collect data from the surrounding environment and deliver it to the data
processing unit. Some of the commonly used sensors are Temperature sensors, Pressure
sensors, Light sensors, Ultrasonic sensors etc. Sensors are chosen accordingly as per
the needs of various applications.
• Connectivity/Gateways: Data collected by the above devices are sent to a cloud infra-
structure for storage and processing. For this the devices make use of different technol-
ogies such as Bluetooth, Zigbee, Wi-Fi, Z-Wave, Cellular Networks, NFC, Lora WAN
etc. and different protocols such as MQTT, AMQP, DDS, CoAP etc.
• Data Processing: Once the collected data gets into the cloud, cloud analytic soft-
ware processes the data using various tools and techniques and converts it into useful
insights. Later it sends the necessary information to the users as required.

13
1484 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

Table 1  List of acronyms 3G Third generation

AI Artificial intelligence
AMQP Advanced message queuing protocol
ARPANET Advanced research projects agency network
BC Block chain
CC Cloud computing
CoAP Constrained application protocol
CPS Cyber physical systems
CPU Central processing unit
DDS Data distribution service
DNS Domain name system
DoS Denial of service
EC Edge computing
FC Fog computing
ID Identification
IDS Intrusion detection system
IEEE Institute of electrical and electronics engineers
IETF Internet engineering task force
IIoT Industrial internet of things
IoT Internet of things
IPv4 Internet protocol version 4
IPv6 Internet protocol version 6
IT Information technology
LoRa Long range
LPWAN Low power wide area network
LR-WPAN Low rate wireless personal area networks
LTE Long term evolution
MAN Metropolitan area network
ML Machine learning
MQTT Message queuing telemetry transport
NFC Near-field communication
OT Operational technology
QoS Quality of service
REST Representational state transfer
RFID Radio frequency identification
SAS System architecture specifications
SIoT Social internet of things
TSMP Time synchronized mesh protocol
VoIP Voice over internet protocol
Wi-Fi Wireless fidelity
WiMAX Worldwide interoperability for microwave access
WSN Wireless sensor networks
XML Extensible markup language

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1485

Fig. 2  Basic components of an IoT eco-system

• User Interface: This information is made available to the end user in different ways such
as triggering alarms or notification through texts or emails. Figure 2 represents these
basic elements.

Some of the features of IoT are its seamless connectivity using different technologies
and protocols, assignation of cross-platform technologies and services using CC/BC, pro-
viding scalable infrastructure as per user requirements, ability to change the state dynami-
cally according to data usage, device intelligence, and integration of various cross-domain
platforms. Some real-world use cases of IoT devices are Amazon Echo, Nest Thermostat,
Smart Light, Security systems, Asset Monitoring, Smart Wearables etc.

3 IoT Architecture

IoT does not have a universally agreed single unified architecture. Researchers have pro-
posed various architecture based on the needs of different users and organizations.

3.1 Three Tier Architecture

This is a simplistic architecture that meets the basic demands of IoT devices [4]. It has 3
layers as shown in Fig. 3.

• Perception Layer: This is the lowest layer which recognizes the physical properties of
IoT devices. It is also known as the sensor layer. It captures data from the surround-
ing environment with the help of different sensors and actuators. Later it gathers and

13
1486 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

Fig. 3  Three, four, and five tier IoT architecture

process these data and forwards it to the network layer. In case of local and short-range
networks, it also deals with IoT node collaborations [11].
• Network Layer: It acts as a bridge between the perception layer and network layer. It
routes the data captured by previous layer to different devices, hubs or servers over
the internet using any medium for transmission i.e., wired or wireless [5]. This layer
includes routing devices, gateways, switches, different cloud computing platforms etc.
• Application Layer: This layer delivers the application specific services to the end user,
which guarantees the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of the data.

3.2 Four Tier Architecture

Due to the continuous developments in IoT, three tier architecture could not meet the grow-
ing demands of various IoT devices. Moreover, as the data is transmitted directly between
these layers, it increased the chances of security flaws in the system [12]. Hence research-
ers proposed a four-tier architecture with an added layer called support layer. The other
three layers works similarly as described in three-tier architecture. The functionality of this
new layer is as given below.

• Support Layer: It deals with the authenticity of the users and confirms whether the
intended users are sending the data using pre-shared keys or passwords. Once the user’s

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1487

identity is proved, it sends the data to the network layer. This layer is also called as data
processing layer. It acts as a software middleware layer between the hardware and IoT
applications and supports end-end secured data exchanges, authentication, synchroniza-
tion, authorization, device management etc.

3.3 Five Tier Architecture

To obtain more finer aspects of IoT and to overcome the security and storage issues that
prevailed in the previous architecture, researchers proposed a five-tier architecture. The
functionalities of perception layer and application layer remains the same as the previous
ones with an addition of 3 more layers as follows.

• Transport Layer: It transfers the sensor data to the processing layer and vice-versa.
• Processing Layer: This layer is also known as the middleware layer. It collects data
from the transport layer and stores the data. Later it analyses and processes the data and
extracts the needed information and delivers it to the application layer. Therefore, this
layer eliminates the transfer of unwanted data thereby improving the performance of
the IoT devices.
• Business Layer: This layer manages and controls the whole IoT system including appli-
cations, businesses, profit models and deals with users’ privacy.

In addition to these three models, several additional reference architectures for IoT are
available from various IoT-focused consortia and standard organizations [13]. Following
are some of the prominent approaches for providing smart and secure IoT 2021 platforms.
In [14] authors have proposed a three-tier industrial architecture having edge, plat-
form and enterprise layers connected by proximity, access, and service networks. Edge
layer makes use of proximity network to collect data from edge devices. Later it for-
wards the data to the platform layer which processes the data and delivers to the enter-
prise layer which deals with end user interactions, control commands and domain specific
applications.
Cisco [15] follows a seven-layer IoT reference architecture. Layer one consists of the
physical devices and device controllers for sending and receiving information, analog to
digital conversion, generating data and controlling devices. Layer two is the connectivity
layer which deals with reliable and timely information delivery across devices and net-
works, routing and switching, implementation of various protocols and translations, net-
work analytics and security. Layer three is the fog/edge computing layer which performs
data aggregation, filtering, and cleanup, packet analysis and works on network and data
level analytics. Layer four is the data accumulation layer which reduces data through filter-
ing and provides persistent storage of data. Next is the data abstraction layer which creates
schemas and views of data as needed by various applications by combining, filtering and
reformatting data according to the client applications. Then the application layer where
the information interpretation occurs and deals with controlling applications, reporting,
and generating business intelligence analytics. Final layer is the collaboration and process
layer which deals with people and business process that transcends multiple applications.
Recently Cisco has introduced an IoT security architecture that delivers enhanced visibility
across various IoT and operational technology platforms.
IBM IoT architecture [16] deals with middleware along with added revisions on device
handling and management which includes four key components. The connect component

13
1488 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

provides device management and ensures the security of device-network connectivity.

Information management component deals with metadata management, streaming, parsing,
storing, and archiving data. Analytic component provides analytical functionality includ-
ing text, social data and machine data analytics and can even handle big data. Lastly the
risk management component that performs auditing, data protection, risk management and
device integrity.
Intel works with its ecosystem partners SAS [17] for connecting devices across the
cloud. Intel SAS is having two versions, 1.0 and 2.0. Intel SAS version 1.0 helps the devel-
opers and system integrators to securely connect and manage legacy devices that are built
without any internet connectivity or intelligence. Intel SAS version 2.0 supports the inte-
gration of wide range of smart and connected devices with built in intelligence and con-
nectivity, thus providing them with security, manageability, and integration capabilities. It
also facilitates the convergence of OT and IT for CPS and makes it easier to handle larger
networks with disparate hardware and software resources.
Another kind is the Lambda architecture [18], which can easily handle massive volumes
of data generated by the sensor devices. It handles the real time big data by integrating
batch and stream data processing and makes it available for downstream analysis. It con-
sists of three layers batch layer, speed layer and the serving layer. Batch layer consists of
immutable, append only data set of records. When a new data arrives, it gets appended to
the master data set and the results of batch layer, called batch views are stored persistently.
Secondly the speed layer that generates up-to-date real-time views and process the data
that are overlooked by the batch layer. Finally, the speed layer combines and stores the data
from both batch and speed layers and builds views from the processed data.

4 IoT Technologies

Several long-range and short-range communication technologies are used for enabling the
networking functionalities as required by the IoT eco-system [6]. Some of the commonly
used as well as some of the emerging IoT technologies are described below.

4.1 RFID

RFID belongs to a group of technologies called Automatic Identification and Data Cap-
ture (AIDC) which automatically identifies and collects data from objects and enters it into
pcs without human intervention. It is the most popular technology used for numerous IoT
applications. RFID stores and retrieves data using radio waves and consists of an RFID tag
with a microchip and an antenna for storing ids and exchange data with readers, antenna
for detecting tags, reader for exchanging data with the tags in its proximity, and a back-end
database server for storing and analyzing the mapping between the tag and the object [19].
There are three types of RFID tags based on the power supply provisioning. Active tags are
battery operated and periodically transmit signals and supports longer range transmissions
and hence used in asset tracking. Semi-Passive tags contain a battery, but they do not peri-
odically transmit signals as active tags. Battery is used merely to turn the tag on whenever
it receives a signal and to reflect the reader’s signal back and suited for environmental mon-
itoring applications. Passive tags remain dormant until it receives a signal from the reader
ad the electromagnetic energy from the reader powers up the tags. These are used in supply
chain management, access control, IoT devices etc. Some use cases of RFID are in ambient

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1489

assisted environments to detect elderly people interactions to keep them active longer and
to help impaired shoppers to gain assistance about products through headsets [20].

4.2 WSN

These are the key enablers of IoT paradigm, and they comprise large number of self-con-
figured sensor nodes with varying topologies. They consume very little power and mostly
are battery or solar power operated. These nodes communicate with each other using radio
frequencies and are used to monitor different environmental conditions such as tempera-
ture, pressure, motions, pollutants etc. and transmits these data to a base station where the
data is collected and analyzed [21]. Nodes in a WSN have limited storage capacity, pro-
cessing speed, bandwidth and they can be equipped with actuators. Some applications of
WSN are Military applications, Environmental monitoring, Healthcare applications, Trans-
portation etc.

4.3 Zigbee

It is a wireless networking protocol used for devices requiring longer battery life and lower
data rates like Bluetooth technology. It is commonly used for industrial settings, auto-
mation systems, medical devices, and remote-control applications. It operates on IEEE
802.15.4 specification and provides higher security, robustness and is of lower cost. It uses
the same wireless band as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi i.e. 2.4 GHz and built as a mesh network
which allows the devices to communicate with each other and repeat commands [22].

4.4 Z‑Wave

It is a wireless technology used by smart devices to communicate with each other and uses
low energy radio waves for device interactions. Most of the home automation and secu-
rity manufactures offer Z-wave compatible products. It is held and maintained by a private
organization. Some of the advantages are, it provides better signal strength than Bluetooth
as it has its own dedicated frequency, lower network interference compared to Wi-Fi, also
interoperable and higher security [23].

4.5 Bluetooth

It is a short-range wireless communication technology for exchanging data between fixed

and mobile devices. It provides lower cost solutions for communication by creating an ad-
hoc mobile personal area network supporting continuous streaming data applications. It is
best suited for computing and consumer products. In contrast to classic Bluetooth, Blue-
tooth 4.0 called Bluetooth Low Energy was introduced in 2010 with an add on feature of
ultra-low power consumption compared to the former making it suitable for IoT devices
and supports multi stream audios [24].

4.6 Wi‑Fi

It is one of the most popular wireless communication technologies that uses radio waves
for delivering wireless high-speed internet and network connections. Wi-Fi devices are

13
1490 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

present everywhere and any products with smart functions depends on it for a steady and
smart internet connection. Many generations of Wi-Fi connectivity have been released over
the past two decades and the latest upgradation is Wi-Fi 6 with added features as lower
latency, higher speed with better household Wi-Fi and improved battery life [25].

4.7 Cellular

IoT applications that require longer distance communications can make use of this technol-
ogy. They support multiple data or voice connections over a single radio channel and is the
technology used by the mobile phone networks. The evolution of different cellular network
technologies are: 1G (First Generation) was the first wireless network technology estab-
lished in 1980’s based on analog technology, 2G (Second Generation) networks replaced
1G in 1991 and used digital technology and encryption, 2.5G (Second and a half Genera-
tion) networks were later created as an intermediate technology which introduced the first
data services, 3G (Third Generation) networks provided the users with a complete data
capable service and improved data rates for voice and audio–video streaming, 4G (Fourth
Generation) Networks also called as 4G LTE offers better data rates and voice quality and
supported high definition calling VoLTE (Voice over LTE) but its coverage area still needs
to be expanded, 5G (Fifth Generation) networks which is the latest emerging technology
provides lower latency, higher capacity and increased bandwidths compared to 4G [26].

4.8 NFC

It is also a short-range wireless technology that allows two electronic devices to commu-
nicate within 4 cm and mostly used for contactless payments. It can also transfer videos,
photos, and contacts information between two NFC enabled gadgets. Some advantages of
NFC over Bluetooth are: connection between two NFC devices are automatically created
when the devices are in close proximity, hence no manual configuration is needed among
devices and it is more secured since it have a shorter range and is faster [27]. It is a subset
of RFID technology. Some other applications of this technology are medical applications,
smart ticketing, logistics and shipping, IoT and 5G etc.

4.9 LoRa

It is a LPWAN protocol based on spread spectrum modulation techniques specially

designed for IoT and machine to machine applications. It provides a dedicated connectivity
for IoT use cases including smart city and industrial applications with reduced cost. Some
of the benefits of this technology are, it provides a robust long-range communication, low
power consumption and extended battery life for sensors, supports fully bidirectional com-
munication, use of free unlicensed band, deep indoor penetration, higher scalability and
security [28].

4.10 WiMAX

It is a long-range wireless MAN technology that supports both fixed and mobile connec-
tions. It provides higher bandwidth supporting longer distance communication with greater

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1491

speed together with multiple users [29]. Its commonly used for industrial applications,
smart grids, smart meters etc.

4.11 Sigfox

It is the first dedicated LPWAN network for IoT and machine to machine communications.
It is a reliable, low power inexpensive mechanism for interconnecting devices and sensors
where object sharing is not attached to the networks. It is a software-based solution that
reduces the energy consumption of devices. Here the computing and networking is done at
a distant cloud rather than on the device itself, delivering high capacity and longer battery
life. It is a lightweight protocol for handling small messages and uses ultra-narrow band
modulation making it robust to noises throughout long distant communications [30]. Some
of the applications that uses this technology are smart parking, risk management, gas tank
remote monitoring etc.

4.12 Wi‑Fi HaLow

It is a low powered and long-range Wi-Fi technology for IoT devices. It operates on spec-
trum below 1 GHz and has twice the range as that of other Wi-Fi technologies. It does not
require any proprietary hardware or gateways setup and is appropriate for short burst data
transactions. It can penetrate through walls and obstructions which make it suitable for
indoor localization [31]. Its suitable for applications such as smart city, smart home, con-
nected vehicles, smart healthcare etc.

5 IoT Hardware & Software

There are immense possibilities for IoT development in hardware and software. IoT hard-
ware platforms are chosen accordingly as per the needs of IoT developers for product
development or depending on the chosen applications and services. Some of the popular
and commonly used hardware platforms are Raspberry Pi, Arduino, Beagle Board, Ada-
fruit, Cloudbit, Samsung Artik, Pinoccio, Particle Photon etc. Table 2 provides some of the
basic features, advantages, and disadvantages of some of these platforms. Once the hard-
ware platform is chosen, next step is to choose the software. Many IoT software platforms
are available in the market which provides various services such as machine-to-machine
integration, device management, data management, protocol translation, security, and stor-
age etc. These software platforms speed up and aids the entire procedure involved in the
development of a product. It also eases the data management with the help of inbuilt data
analysis tools which is a crucial task regarding IoT. They also offer better cloud storage.
Table 3 provides a comparison on some of the commonly used software platforms for IoT.

6 IoT Protocols

An IoT eco-system comprises of huge number of interconnected devices which are power
constrained, and it require protocols for efficient communication. These protocols should
be chosen in such a manner that they consume a lesser amount of power and should be

13
 1492

13
Table 2  IoT hardware platforms
Parameters Raspberry Pi Arduino Beagle board

Features Acts as a fully-fledged minicomputer with Rasp- Acts as a micro controller Open-source single board computer
bian operating system Handles single program at a time Handles multiple programs
Handles multiple programs at a time E.g., Opening/closing garage doors E.g., Commanding actuators, reading external sen-
E.g., Audio and video streaming sors data
Storage Requires SD-card On-board storage On-board storage
Battery Difficult to power up using battery Easily powered using battery Can be powered using battery
Complexity Installation of libraries and software’s required Simple to interface sensors and other components Networking is efficient and easy
Cost Expensive Lower cost Very expensive
Connectivity Easily connected to internet using Ethernet or USB Requires external hardware integration for inter- Easily connected to internet using Ethernet or USB
interfaces net connectivity interfaces
Languages Supports Python, C, C +  + , Ruby etc Arduino language, C, C +  + etc C, C +  + , Python, Perl, Ruby etc
Advantages Supports variety of programming languages Deep programming knowledge not required Works with open-source cloud 9 platforms
Complete support from Linux family Extensibility and huge library support Networking simpler and efficient
Suitable for software projects Suitable for hardware-oriented projects Suitable for both hardware and software
Easy setup and continuous task performance Simple and easy to use Extendable hardware
Disadvantages Not open-source hardware Less powerful compared to others No video encoding
Cannot handle inductive loads Difficult to code Limited USB ports to add external devices
No graphic interface
A. Raj, S. D. Shetty
 Table 3  IoT software platforms
Software platforms Supported hardware platforms Protocols Estimated Visualization
used cost

ArtikCloud Raspberry Pi, Arduino, WebSocket, HTTP, COAP, Free & paid accounts Mobile apps.,
Samsung ARTIK MQTT Third party apps.,
Dashboard
Axeda Raspberry Pi, Arduino MQTT, AMMP, REST, SOAP Free & paid accounts Home automation
Bugswarm Arduino HTTP Free & paid accounts Smart irrigation
Carriots Raspberry Pi, Arduino MQTT, HTTP Free & paid accounts Dashboard,
Mobile apps
Cayenne Raspberry Pi COAP, MQTT Free & paid accounts Dashboard,
Mobile apps
Kaa Raspberry Pi, XMPP, HTTP, Open source Dashboard,
Intel Edison, COAP, MQTT Mobile apps
Econais, LeafLabs,
BeagleBone,
Texas Instruments
Leylan Arduino Yun, Netduino, OAuth 2.0, MQTT, HTTP Open source Web apps.,
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing…

Raspberry Pi, Third party apps

Spark Core,
Texas Instruments
Sensorcloud Arduino HTTP Paid accounts Home automation
Smartliving Raspberry Pi, Stomp, MQTT, HTTP Open source Mobile apps
Arduino,
Intel Edison,
Temboo Arduino, HTTP, COAP, MQTT Free & paid accounts Dashboard,
Samsung Artik, Mobile apps
Texas Instruments
ThingBox Raspberry Pi MQTT, HTTP Open source Emoncms
ThingSpeak Raspberry Pi, Arduino HTTP, MQTT Open source Dashboard,
Mobile apps
ThingSquare Raspberry Pi, Arduino HTTP Open source Home automation, Social IoT
1493

13
 Table 3  (continued)
1494

Software platforms Supported hardware platforms Protocols Estimated Visualization

used cost

13
Ubidots Raspberry Pi, Arduino Spark Core, UDP, HTTP, COAP, MQTT Free & paid accounts Dashboard
Adafruit FONA
Wyliodrin Raspberry Pi, Arduino, Intel HTTP, MQTT Free & paid accounts Dashboard,
Galileo & Edison, Mobile apps
BeagleBone
A. Raj, S. D. Shetty
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1495

able to reliably connect these devices over the internet. Some of the key protocols used in
different layers of IoT are described below. (Here the four-tier IoT architecture is taken as a
reference).

6.1 Perception Layer

• IEEE 802.15.4

It is designed for enabling communication between power constrained IoT devices with
less complexity and minimal hardware. It defines the physical and mac layer for the work-
ing of LR-WPAN and supports short range communications at lower cost and utilizes less
power. This low-cost wireless link supports industrial/commercial sensor and actuator
devices. To support long range transmissions, all devices must work in unification adopting
multi-hop routing [7].

• TSMP

It is a reliable, secure, and low power communication protocol for self-organizing net-
works of mobile devices called motes. It is a managed network supporting scalable, flexi-
ble, self-healing and low maintenance required communication. It supports fully redundant
mesh routing and can operate in a noise environment [32]. Some of its applications are in
industrial process automation, climate control etc.

• ZigBee, WSN, RFID, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, Cellular technologies are also used by various
devices for communication depending on its uses and applications.

6.2 Network Layer

• 6LoWPAN

It is the abbreviation for IPv6 Over Low Power Wireless Personal Networks specifically
designed to handle the IPv6 packets transactions over IEEE 802.15.4 links. It make use
of fragmentation and header compression mechanisms to efficiently transmit packets over
IEEE 802.15.4 networks with reduced transmission overhead and lesser energy consump-
tion which make it apt for multi-hop packet transmission in a mesh network [33]. It pro-
vides wireless internet connectivity with low data rates suitable for uncomplicated embed-
ded devices. It is commonly used for smart home, smart agriculture, IIoT etc.

• RPL

It stands for Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Network, designed by IETF.
It is a distance-vector routing protocol for IoT systems. It creates a DODAG (Destination
Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph) where only a single route exists from each leaf node to
the root through which the traffic is sent and the root node only have the knowledge about
the entire DODAG [34].

• CORPL

13
1496 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

It is an extension of previous RPL protocol and stands for cognitive RPL. It also makes
use of DODAG topology but with little added modifications. It uses opportunistic forward-
ing for packet routing between nodes. Here rather than the root keeping entire information
about the network, any changes to the nodes are immediately updated to its neighbors using
periodic update messages through which every nodes have knowledge about the entire traf-
fic [35].

• CARP and E-CARP

Channel-Aware Routing Protocol is designed for under water communication based

on distributed networks with light weight packets. It supports gateway redundancy, which
ensures the network availability and reliability while providing services. It offers a failover
mechanism where in case if the master router fails, then all its tasks and functions are
transferred onto the slave router. One disadvantage is that it does not support the reusability
of previously collected data and cannot be used for IoT applications that requires excessive
data exchanges. E-CARP is the enhanced version of CARP with added feature of saving
the previously collected sensory data thereby reducing the communication overhead [36].

• 6TiSCH

It was developed by IETF and is an IPv6 standard for 802.15.4 MAC layer protocols to
enable low power industrial grade networks fitting for time-critical applications. It allows
Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) to reduce the channel fading and interference and
make use of IPv6 adaption layer. This property makes it suitable for Low Power Lossy Net-
works (LLN) and industrial mechanizations [37].

• 6lo

It is the acronym for IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes and provides
IPv6 connectivity for constricted node networks with limited resources, memory, and pro-
cessing power. It was developed by IETF to provide IPv6 connectivity to the data links
that are not included by 6TiSCH and 6LoWPAN. It makes use of 6LoWPAN stack for
low power adaption, stateless header compression and for reduced multicast and reliable
communications. It focuses on smaller works without considering larger cross-layer efforts
[38]. Two of its specifications are IPv6 over Bluetooth Low Energy which is an adap-
tion layer standard for Bluetooth 4.0 Media Access Control layer protocol and IPv6 over
G.9959 which provides a basic level of security [39].

• IPv4 and IPv6

Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) is one of the core network layer protocols developed
by ARPANET in 1983 for identifying devices on a network based on 32 bit addressing
scheme. It is a connectionless protocol and requires less memory. But the addressing space
is quickly depleting as the number of devices connected to the internet is increased expo-
nentially. Some other disadvantages are lack of quality of services, security, and insuffi-
cient protocol extensibility. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is the successor of IPv4 initi-
ated by IETF in early 1994 and can accommodate more IP addresses. It follows 128-bit,
hierarchical addressing scheme and is a connectionless protocol used by huge number of
devices. It is suitable for neighboring node interactions and provided with built in security.

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1497

Even though both protocols can co-exist in a network, but they cannot communicate with
each other (dual Stack).

6.3 Support Layer

• UDP

User Datagram Protocol is a connectionless protocol widely used for time-sensitive

transactions such as DNS lookup, video play backing and WSN. Even though it does not
guarantee any reliable data transmission, they can be used for applications which are flex-
ible to data packet losses during the transit. It does not require any handshake mechanism
as that of TCP. Hence it is faster having minimum overhead and minimum CPU usage pro-
viding consistent performance but it is unreliable and lacks ordering functionality and error
checking [40]. So, it is best fit for delay tolerant applications such as gaming, audio–video
transmissions, etc.

• DCCP

Datagram Congestion Control Protocol is a message-oriented protocol which is more

secure than TCP. It uses a six-byte long packet ID which makes it difficult to hack the pack-
ets and hence used for time sensitive applications as VoIP, media streaming etc. DCCP pro-
vides unreliable flow of datagrams with acknowledgments, reliable handshake mechanism,
and congestion control [41].

• SCTP

Stream Control Transmission Protocol is a reliable message-oriented protocol which

make use of congestion control and four-way handshaking for securing communications.
It also supports multi homing connections where the endpoints can have multiple IP
addresses and redundant paths to improve resilience and reliability [42]. Some of its appli-
cations are in 3G/LTE networks etc.

• RSVP

Resource Reservation Protocol is a signaling protocol that allows the receivers to stock-
pile resources to ensure the needed QoS during the traffic flow. It operates on the top of
both IPv4 and IPv6 allowing simplex data flows. RSVP is designed for senders, receivers,
and routers to communicate with each other [43]. They are commonly used for multimedia
and real time applications such as teleconferencing, videoconferencing etc.

• QUIC

Quick UDP Internet Connections works over UDP using an encrypted protocol designed
to secure and accelerate HTTP traffic, eventually replacing TCP and TLS over the web.
Some of its features are its built-in security, ability to multiplex different HTTP requests
over the same TCP connection, migration of connections between cellular data and Wi-Fi,
header compressions to lessen redundancies, and the ability to overcome reflection attacks
[44]. Chrome web browser connections uses this protocol to connect with google servers.

13
1498 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

• RPL

Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks is a distance vector routing pro-
tocol developed for 6LoWPAN constrained networks, to route the packet with minimum
latency over the network. It consumes minimal power and efficiently handle the packet
losses by delivering the packets to the endpoints whenever it is available and based on IPv6
standards making it suitable for IoT applications [45].

• DTLS

Datagram Transport Layer Security supports the communication of datagram-based

applications which protects them from eavesdropping, message tampering and forgery. It
consumes less power, lower overhead, reduced latency, and provides end-end encryption
[46]. It can be used in online gaming, video conferencing, VoIP etc.

6.4 Application Layer

• CoAP

It stands for Constrained Application Protocol which allows IoT devices with limited
hardware to join a network with less bandwidth and power. It works like HTTP (Hypertext
Transfer Protocol) which is a client/server protocol and hence called as a request/response
protocol, but with some modified functionalities from HTTP to support constrained device
interactions following a RESTful architecture. It was originally designed for machine-to-
machine communications and is a light-weight protocol. It consumes fewer resources com-
pared to HTTP and runs over UDP supporting both unicasting and multicasting [47]. It
has two layers: the messaging sublayer for detection of duplicate messages and to provide
reliable communication since UDP lacks built-in error recovery mechanism, the request-
response sublayer for handling REST communications to ensure security and scalability of
the system. It has four messaging types: confirmable and non-confirmable messages which
are used to achieve the reliability of CoAP, reset message when communication failure
or missing messages occurs and acknowledgement message. Some of its features are it
supports on-demand subscriptions utilizing publish/subscribe mechanism, client resource
discovery, flexible communications with different devices and maintains the integrity and
confidentiality of the data transmissions [48].

• MQTT

Message Queue Telemetry Transport is a publish/subscribe protocol supporting light-

weight machine to machine communications. Here devices can publish messages to other
devices or subscribe a topic of interest from other devices. MQTT consists of three com-
ponents publisher, subscriber, and a broker. Client can act as a publisher/subscriber and
server acts as a broker who coordinates the subscription messages, filter the messages,
and authenticate the client, provides quality of services and allows long term storage of
messages on request. It is a many-many communication protocol and runs over TCP [49].
Some of the real-world applications using MQTT are for energy meters, healthcare, Face-
book notifications etc.

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1499

• AMQP

Advanced Messaging Queuing Protocol is like MQTT but with an additional feature of
storing and forwarding data. It was designed for financial applications and provides reliable
transactions (net banking). It supports both request/response and publish/subscribe models
and runs over TCP. Here the broker is divided into two components: the exchange com-
ponent that receives messages from publishers and forwards to message queues based on
priorities and the message queue stores these messages until the client software processing
is done and later on forwards it to corresponding clients based on some primacies. Micro-
soft, Bank of America, JP Morgan etc. are some of the applications that make use of this
protocol [50].

• DDS

Data Distribution Service is a broker less publish/subscribe protocol designed for real
time machine to machine communications. It uses multicasting and provides high QoS,
reliable communications and quick data integration for its applications. DDS has two
sublayers data-centric publish-subscribe (DCPS) and Data-Local Reconstruction Layer
(DLRL). DCPS delivers information to the subscribers and DLRL is an optional layer
which allows the integration of DDS into the application layer [51]. Some of its applica-
tions are in IIoT, smart grid, robotics, air-traffic control etc.

• XMPP

Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol is an instant messaging protocol for pro-
viding chatting, audio, and video calls over the internet. Since it uses XML, it supports
low-latency messaging, and hence its applicability is extended into IoT devices. Even
though it provides higher flexibility, it requires higher bandwidth, CPU usage and does not
guarantee QoS but can be used for object to object communication based on XML messag-
ing [52].

• SMQTT

It stands for Secure MQTT which adds security to the existing MQTT protocol based
on lightweight attribute-based encryption. It supports broadcast encryption where a single
encrypted message is delivered to multiple nodes making it apt for IoT applications. This
protocol is also based on publish/subscribe model and enables communication security and
is resistant to variety of attacks. But its key generation and encryption algorithms depends
on the developers [53].

7 Advanced Computing Paradigms

7.1 Cloud Computing and IoT

IoT devices generates huge amounts of data and CC paves way for these data to reach their
destinations and enables these devices to function more efficiently. CC is a paradigm born
from the need of utilizing computation as a utility [54]. It is defined as the on-demand

13
1500 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

delivery of computing services including storage, servers, networking, databases, and pro-
cessing power over the web on a pay as you go basis. Instead of owning the entire comput-
ing infrastructure by themselves, companies can rent access to any of these services from
cloud service providers where big data analytics, decision making, and computation takes
place centrally at distinct cloud data centers. CC provides 3 generic services as follows:

• Platform as a Service (PaaS): It provide platforms and environments required for the
developers to build different applications and services. It offers clients, the flexibility
of developing, running, and managing web-based applications and supports the overall
management of different applications. e.g., Microsoft Azure etc.
• Infrastructure as a service (IaaS): It provides users with a virtualized environment for
accessing various computing resources such as bandwidth, servers, storage etc. Hence
for small scale industries rather than having the entire infrastructure, they can rent the
necessary services on a paid manner. e.g., Amazon Web Services, Cisco Meta Cloud,
Google Compute Engine etc.
• Software as a Service (SaaS): It is a software distributed model which allows clients
to have access to various applications hosted by third party service providers over the
internet. e.g., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Dropbox, Cisco WebEx etc.

IoT deployments generally consists of a huge number of sensor nodes to collect and
deliver data to a centralized location where the analysis and processing is done. Mostly
cloud acts as this centralized area for storing these big data and extracting the required
information. It enables the users to access information from anywhere with an internet
connectivity [55]. Some advantages of using CC for IoT devices are privacy and security,
accessibility to remote computing services, robust data integration and provides various
services for small scale businesses, seamless inter-device communications with better con-
nectivity, reliability, and computing power.
Some drawbacks of Cloud Computing are, the difficulty in managing the traffic and
congestion of massive data flows within a network, delay sensitive applications experi-
ences greater latency and market monopoly, where top multinational enterprises could only
afford to set up a cloud infrastructure and to define and deploy proprietary protocols. Since
it is a centralized architecture, it requires more down time i.e., a single node failure affects
the working of all other nodes in the network. These factors let the beginning of a post-
cloud era and the development of Edge and Fog Computing [56].

7.2 Edge Computing and IoT

The increased interest in decentralized paradigms opened the way for EC, where the data is
stored and processed at network edge rather than on a distant cloud data center. It overpow-
ered certain challenges that CC cannot address such as bandwidth, connectivity, infrastruc-
ture needs and latency. EC focuses more on the things side where the storage happens in the
device, and the data is analyzed and applied in real time closer to the intended users. Here
the data is not required to travel to a centralized server for the device to determine what func-
tion to be executed, thereby reducing the latency, and enhancing the performance of the
devices. EC is commonly used by telecoms and middleware companies and some examples
for EC devices are Smart Phones, Micro Data Centers and Cloudlets. Edge devices not only
consumes data but also generates data and performs computing tasks on the data sent to and
fro the cloud and can act as a standalone node [57]. EC services prevents DDoS attacks and

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1501

provide uninterrupted services to the users, reduces network bottleneck, less energy consump-
tion and network problems at distant location rarely affects the local edge customers. Some
disadvantages are, it lacks programmability, no standardized security protocol, requires more
hardware for storage and provides incomplete data [58].

7.3 Fog Computing and IoT

IoT devices requires latency aware computation for real time application processing. Data pro-
duced by these devices are generally stored in a cloud infrastructure which is not suitable for
time sensitive applications. To address this issue, FC, which resides between cloud and end
devices is proposed [59]. Main aim of FC is to extend the services and functionalities offered
by cloud near to the users for optimizing device performance [60]. Major difference between
EC and FC is that EC leverages the computing capabilities on the devices or on a gateway
device whereas, in FC this happens in the processors connected to the LAN or in the LAN
hardware itself and has more processing capabilities than EC. Hence in this case data analytics
and intelligence occurs far away from the users compared to EC but closer than that of CC.
IoT Devices are connected to fog devices which resides near users and are responsible for
intermediate computation and storage which results in effective distribution of computing,
storage, networking, and management services along cloud to things continuum. It provides
a transient storage and sends the periodic data updates to the cloud. This is mostly chosen by
service providers and data processing companies. FC meets todays application requirements
for local content storage, resource pooling, real-time processing and focuses more on the infra-
structure side. Any devices having storage, processing, and networking capability can act as
a fog node. Main characteristics of FC are low latency and location awareness, geographic
distribution and end device mobility, capacity of processing high number of nodes, provides
wireless access, faster processing and fewer resource consumption, supports real-time applica-
tions and heterogeneity [61]. Some disadvantages are it requires more infrastructure, mainte-
nance cost, complexity and power consumption as larger number of nodes get connected to
the network.
Opportunistic FC is an upcoming concept in FC where, traditional FC with fixed resources
fails to fully meet the demands of high-velocity, mobile and real time IoT services in hazard-
ous or resource-poor environments. In such scenarios opportunistic fog can co-exist with fog
nodes giving them the capability to dynamically adapt to the changing framework as required
[62]. Some real-world use cases of FC are in smart fog based video surveillance for crime
assistance in smart transportation [63], monitoring elderly people, home automation systems,
IIoT etc. Figure 4 represents the features of CC, EC, FC and their applications and middleware.
FC and EC cannot replace CC nor superior to each other, but they fulfill the requirements
of each applications in a separate manner and are ultimately chosen by the user who deter-
mines which paradigm is required and matches the needs of their applications.

8 IoT Security

IoT security is a very challenging area that deals with safeguarding the connected devices
and the networks involved by means of appropriate security measures. Since all the devices
are connected over the internet there are higher chances of attacks if the devices are not
properly protected. One of the major challenges is that most of the manufactures focus on
getting their products to the market quickly rather than concentrating on providing end-end

13
1502 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

Fig. 4  CC, EC, and FC features

security from the beginning. As the IoT devices are resource constrained it is difficult to
implement security features as it requires more hardware and cost, lack of standardized
architecture, and the use of default passwords also leads to security infringements. Some
factors to be considered for ensuring security are: firewalls should be provided in IoT net-
works to filter the incoming packets to the devices, IoT devices software should be author-
ized, updates and patches on these devices should be done without expending additional
bandwidth, all the devices should be authenticated before connecting to the network [64].
Figure 5 represents four-tier architecture and possible security measures.

8.1 Security Attacks in each Layer of IoT

8.1.1 Perception Layer

• Node Capturing: Here an attacker gain access or replace a gateway node and leaks the
communication between the sender and the receiver. The attacker may even capture the
cryptographic keys and shares it with a malicious node, who can thereby pretend as a
legitimate node and join the network [65].

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1503

Fig. 5  IoT four-tier architecture with possible security measures

• Eavesdropping: Here an attacker can easily get access over a communication happening
amid unsecured devices or networks and steals the information being sent or received
for malicious works [66].
• Malicious Code Injection: Once an attacker captures a node, he can inject malicious
codes into the memory of the node through which he can gain control over the entire
system or make the system behave abnormally. This usually happens when the devices
are updated through air without much security [67].
• False Data Injection: Here the attacker can inject false data onto the captured node and
transmit it onto different applications. Later on, the applications provides wrong ser-
vices receiving this faulty data which affects the efficiency of the IoT system [68].
• Booting Attacks: Since the inbuilt security features of a device are not enabled during
the booting process, attacker tries to gain access over a node while it is rebooting [69].
• Side Channel Attacks and Cryptanalysis: In cryptanalysis the attacker tries to procure
algorithm vulnerabilities applying various mathematical formulas and break into the
system. Side Channel Attacks deals with snooping on the power consumption of a
device or the keystrokes to steal the encryption key [70].
• Sleep Deprivation Attacks: Here the attacker tries to drain the power of IoT devices
through infinite loops or falsely maximizes the power consumption which minimizes
their lifetime. This results in denial of services by these devices [71].

8.1.2 Network Layer

• Dos Attack: Here an attacker floods the target nodes or network with unwanted traffic
either making the node fail to respond to legitimate user requests or crashing the node.
There are multiple ways to launch DoS attacks such as buffer overflow, ping of death,
teardrop etc. A variant of DoS is Distributed DoS in which multiple systems targets a
single node with DoS attack and makes it difficult to recover from the failure. Due to
the heterogeneity and lack of strong configurations, many of the IoT devices are prone
to these attacks [72].
• Man-in-the-Middle Attack: Here an attacker secretly eavesdrops the communication
between two parties and gain access over the real time traffic. Later on, the adversary

13
1504 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

can inject false information’s between the transmission and make the node perform
some inadvertent actions [73].
• Phishing Site Attack: Here the opponent sends fraudulent communications to different
users, which appears as legitimate messages and somehow compromises the user id and
password with minimum effort. Once acquiring the user’s sensitive information, they
can launch various attacks onto the hacked IoT devices [74].
• Routing Attack: Here the adversary tries to change the route of the data transit. Sink-
hole attack is a kind of routing attack in which the attacker advertises a fake shortest
route to the nodes to re-route their traffic through it and later can even launch DoS
attacks on the compromised nodes. Wormhole attack is another kind in which the
attacker nodes tries to strategically position themselves in the network creating a virtual
tunnel and advertises their shortest routes. Once any legitimate nodes chose the given
route and starts communication, the malicious nodes record the packet transactions and
tunnels it to other locations. Another type is out of band attack which provides alternate
out of band channels for communication [75].
• Storage Attack: With the help of weak protocols, the attacker somehow gain access
over storage devices or cloud which stores user’s sensitive information. Once they gain
access into the cloud they may alter the data and provides wrong details [76].

8.1.3 Support Layer

• Malware Injection and Flooding in Cloud: Here the adversary injects malicious code or
even a virtual machine onto the cloud and gains access over user’s sensitive informa-
tion. Later on, they launch Dos and floods the cloud which depletes its quality [77].
• Signature Wrapping attack: Here the signature algorithm is manipulated by the attacker
to gain access over protected resources and modify its contents [78].
• SQL Injection Attack: In such attacks the adversary tries to inject malicious codes into
the system or execute malicious commands and can even get complete information
about the system and gain control over it [79].

8.1.4 Application Layer

• Data Thefts: IoT applications usually contain user’s personal data and since the data is
sent over the network there are greater chances of data theft. A single loophole in the
system may even fail the entire system [80].
• Malicious Code Attack: Here the attacker utilizes cross-site scripting to break into the
system which results in seizing and paralyzing the entire IoT system [81].
• Secure on-boarding: When a new sensor node is added to the network it passes the
encryption key to the corresponding services through the gateways which are prone to
eavesdropping or other forms of attack. Then the attacker can gain access to the encryp-
tion keys [82].
• Reprogram Attacks: Here the attacker can alter the device parameters if it is not pro-
tected well and can induce dangerous actions [83].

8.2 IoT Security Using Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

AI is a technology that targets computers do human-like reasoning [84]. Some advan-

tages of AI powered IoT are, it provides predictive maintenance to avoid unforeseen

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1505

device failures, can improve operational efficiency and risk management, developing
fully automated devices, enables improved services and customer satisfaction etc. ML
techniques are adopted to enhance the security of IoT devices, to achieve automation,
detecting anomalies, malwares, or misuses in a system. Different ML algorithms can be
used in network-based solutions for identifying authenticated devices to join a network,
monitoring incoming and outgoing traffic and creating profiles for detecting normal and
abnormal behaviors [85]. Even though there are many algorithms, few of the AI and ML
solutions to overcome the threats discussed in previous section are described below.

• Dos/DDoS Attack: This is one of the most malicious attack that floods a system and
obstructs the legitimate traffic and may even collapse the system. In [86] authors have
proposed an online approach using ML to detect Dos/DDos attacks based on Random
Forest (RF) algorithm. The proposed approach can act as a sensor that can be installed
in a network and crosschecks the network traffic with signatures of previous traffic to
identify the attack. Another approach for detecting this type of attack is by using a Con-
volutional Neural Network (CNN) [87]. In [88] authors have proposed a light weight
intrusion detection scheme called secure-MQTT using fuzzy rule interpolation for
identifying such attacks.
• Spoofing Attacks: It can be prevented using different ML algorithms [2] such as
Q-Learning, Dyna-Q, Deep Neural Network (DNN), Support Vector Machines (SVM)
etc. In [89] authors have proposed a two stage DNN for identifying spoofing attack
with a small false alarm rate.
• Malware Detection: In [90] authors have proposed a framework using Deep Learning
(DL) with feature extraction to detect malwares in IoT devices. In [91] authors pro-
posed a framework using K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithm in a map reduce envi-
ronment for malware detection.
• Eavesdropping: Some of the ML techniques that can detect and prevent this attack are
SVM [92], Q-Learning [93], Non-parametric Bayesian technique [94].
• Jamming attack: Kernelized SVM [95], Deep Q-network (DQN) [96] are some of the
ML techniques that can be used for preventing jamming attacks. Table 4. Represents
different security attacks and its countermeasures using AI an ML.

Still there exists some limitations in applying more of AI and ML techniques in IoT
due to the power constrained nature and energy consumption of these devices. ML and
DL algorithms uses labelled data in learning processes and these data sets requires more
storage space [97]. Hence utilizing minimum learning data and its deployment on these
resource constrained devices are challenging. Also, lack of interoperable tools suiting

Table 4  AI & ML based security Security attacks AI & ML techniques

techniques
Dos/DDoS Random forest, CNN, fuzzy logic
Spoofing Q-learning, Dyna-Q, SVM, DNN
Malware detection DL, K-NN, random forest
Eavesdropping SVM, Q-learning, non-parametric Bayesian
Jamming SVM, DQN, Q-learning

13
1506 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

different architecture and rapidly changing environment where new training data is con-
tinuously engendered restricts in developing a fully secured IoT framework.

8.3 IoT Security Using Blockchain

BC is another breakthrough technology which provides a trustworthy information sharing

service, with the capability to address certain IoT security issues utilizing a distributed,
transparent, immutable, and secure model. It is a decentralized ledger of transactions based
on cryptography comprising of a block header, list of transactions and previous block hash.
All this information is stored in a Merkle tree which is a hash-based data structure con-
taining each individual transaction and the root of hash tree [98]. Figure 6 represents the
working of the BC architecture. Initially user requests a transaction, and it is represented as
a block. Then it is verified by different computers or nodes present in the network and once
the transaction is approved by the majority of the participants, the block is added onto the
BC along with other blocks which further cannot be modified [99].
Some of the benefits of using BC in IoT are, data generated by IoT devices can be stored
using BC which makes it difficult for the hackers to break the hash and access or modify
its contents. Hence it delivers a robust and tamper-proof mechanism to store user sensi-
tive data and hence thwarts data loss and spoofing attacks. Also, BC being a decentralized
ledger, no organizations can take control over the data and only the authorized users have
the authority to verify the past transactions. It also supports IoT companies to reduce the
overall infrastructure cost in processing and the use of smart contracts which are set of
rules automatically triggered when certain conditions are met, also eases fully automated
tasks and can thus eliminate the need of any centralized architecture [100].
Some of the use cases of BC and IoT are Chain of Things (CoT) [101] which is a
research lab for developing applications merging these technologies such as chain of secu-
rity, chain of solar, chain of shipping etc., IOTA [102] an open and scalable distributed
ledger supporting frictionless data transfer, in supply chain management combining IoT
sensors data with BC, smart logistics etc. There are also certain challenges in combining

Fig. 6  Blockchain architecture

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1507

these two technologies: The block generation time required by BC is slow compared to
data generated by IoT devices creating latencies in the transaction processing, power hun-
gry nature of both technologies and the varied processing time of sensors in the connected
devices. BC also requires wider storage capability which is limited for the constrained IoT
devices. The difficulty in integration of various IoT platforms and its legal issues are also
some of the drawbacks.

9 IoT Applications

IoT has a very vast number of applications and it is almost used in everyday life. Even
though there are many, some of the major examples are as follows:

• Smart City

It is an urban area that involves the use of various technologies for providing services
and enhancing the quality of life of citizens. It spans a variety of applications including
traffic management, environmental monitoring, security, smart parking, smart governance
etc.

• Smart Home

It involves remote monitoring and accessing the appliances at home using a smart phone
or laptop. It provides security, energy management, maintenance and some of the applica-
tions includes temperature controller, door lock management etc.

• Smart Health:

Healthcare is a fundamental area and its integration with IoT provides more smarter
services to people such as monitoring elderly people, helping them to stay active longer,
growing the independence of impaired people, smart pills for monitoring patches, weara-
bles such as smart watches, smart bands for detecting various diseases symptoms, remotely
monitoring health conditions of patients by doctors, emergency services and provides
ambient assisted living [103]. Figure 7 represents various IoT Applications.

• Smart Grid

It delivers a variety of operations such as smart meters for monitoring and identifying
energy fraudulence, identifying the behavior of customers and electricity suppliers, use of
renewable energy sources etc.

• Smart Transportation

It aims at delivering more efficient and accessible transportation services to people, pro-
viding better traffic management, route optimization [104], smart parking, road anomaly
detection and accident prevention, connecting vehicles etc.

13
1508 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

Fig. 7  IoT applications

• Supply Chain Management

It helps in tracking and managing the flow of goods from raw materials to service deliv-
ery, inventory information management for suppliers, tracking commodities in transit, pre-
venting unplanned downtime, facility and inventory management, quality control, smart
retail, chain optimizations, ensuring industrial safety, connecting factories etc.

• Smart Farming

It helps the farmers in monitoring their fields with the help of drones, to improve the
quality of farming through automated soil monitoring sensors, water management, provid-
ing smart green house, livestock monitoring etc.

10 IoT Challenges and Future Research Directions

IoT deployments are varying accordingly with each application from smart homes to con-
nected vehicles and to tackle the current IoT adoption barriers, one need to address the
challenges early from the design stage to the implementation outcomes. Some of the open
issues needed to be addressed are data privacy and protection, high implementation cost,
uncertainty in accomplishing goals, insufficient solution architecture etc.

• Big Data and Connectivity: Since IoT devices produces huge amounts of data, the flow
of these data to and fro from devices, infrastructure, cloud, and applications provid-
ing a smooth connectivity is really a challenging issue [105]. Also the number of new
devices connected to the network is increasing day by day raises the challenge even
more as each device will be utilizing different technologies [106]. Also power con-
strained nature of these devices limits the applicability of new technologies such as BC,
ML etc. to a full extend [107]. Hence new technologies that consumes less power such
as Sigfox, LoRa etc. need to be considered widely.
• Security and Privacy: To provide more security and privacy, companies are in the
wake of continuous fragmentation in IoT implementation resulting in higher costs
and less customer satisfaction [108]. Still many IoT devices transmit data openly dur-

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1509

ing transit or at rest due to the inability of connected devices in adopting advanced
cryptographic standards which leads to data harvesting and selling [109]. And so,
before storing user sensitive data organizations should model privacy and compli-
ance rules to protect the identity of users. Security algorithms should be designed in
such a manner that it lowers the number of message handovers to utilize minimum
bandwidth and efficiency. Most of the security factors are focusing on enhancing
network and cloud protection rather than focusing on endpoints and also air update
vulnerabilities act as an entry point for hackers into the network and access private
data. Hence these loopholes must be identified, and devices should be given periodic
database upgradations of known anomalies [110].
• Standards, Interoperability and Coexistence: Biggest barrier in businesses from
adopting this technology are the interoperability issues including syntactic, seman-
tic, and cross-domain interoperability [111]. To fully deploy these factors without
any failure and to ensure service quality companies must include multiple strate-
gies from operational, tactical, strategical to technological trials requiring more
time which hinders the products early market entry. Lack of a unified architecture
forces each device to choose one based on their needs and this even more increases
the algorithm and device complexity. Providing intelligence to devices by adopt-
ing various advancing technologies and smart algorithms helps them to automati-
cally discover devices and services without human intervention and react accord-
ingly. Cross-domain interoperability should be considered more utilizing semantic
web technologies and interworking application programming interfaces [112]. Con-
gestion in radio channel is another challenging issue faced by IoT devices which
increases the chance of lossy connection while working in a crowded area due to the
bordering interference [113]. Hence coexistence signaling should be carried out to
find the device operability in a mixed signal environment [114].
• Scalability, Availability and Reliability: Adding new devices or services into an IoT
network should not degrade the performance of existing devices with varying pro-
cessing, storage, and memory capabilities [115]. Since it involves heterogeneity, it
must be designed to handle extendible processes and services. Software and hard-
ware compatibility should be provided to the customers even when failure transpires
[9]. In case of mission critical applications, the system should be reliable and fast
in data collection, communication and decision making where an erroneous deci-
sion can lead the entire system to fail and provide wrong services. Hence proper
automated bootstrapping, IoT data pipelining and multi-dimensional scaling can be
combined to enhance system capabilities [116].
• QoS and Energy Efficiency: From user perspective, Quality of Service refers to the
communication quality of the services provided from connection establishment to
service delivery [117]. It involves four main parameters as packet loss, latency, jit-
ter, and mean opinion score. Certain factors such as hardware/software failure, over-
loaded networks etc. may lead to packet loss, unordered packet delivery, delay in
packet transmission time between sender and receiver, which reduces the overall
service quality [118]. Such communication errors should be rapidly recognized and
rectified using efficient software, programs, or models. Since IoT devices are power
constrained and in case of remote applications where battery power is the only reso-
lution more advancing techniques like energy harvesting needs to be utilized [119].
Solar energy, wind energy, thermoelectrical energy, mechanical energy from piezo-
electric materials etc. can be considered for powering up IoT devices [120]. Also,

13
1510 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

Table 5  A summary of studies with respect to architectures and challenges

IoT parameters References Concepts covered

Architecture [4–13] Includes different layered architectures and functions of each layer
Technologies [14–27] Long-range and short-range technologies, emerging technologies
Protocols [28–50] Layer wise description of protocols used and its functions
IoT & cloud [51–53] Features of cloud, its integration with IoT and its advantages and
disadvantages
IoT & edge [54, 55] Edge features and advantages in integration with IoT, its applications
IoT & fog [56–60] Integration of fog with IoT and its features, added security provided
Security attacks [62–80] Layer wise attacks
AI & ML in IoT [81–93] AI and ML adoption for preventing security attacks, advantages, and
disadvantages
BC in IoT [95–98] Integration of BC with IoT, added security features
Security & privacy [105–107] Existing challenges in adopting security and privacy
Interoperability [108–111] General issues, parameters to be adapted
QoS [115–118] Issues that prevent QoS

energy efficient protocols must be designed adding deep sleep–wake up cycles, dis-
continuous reception, AI edge processing, fog edge processing etc.
• Regulatory Issues: Due to the unregulated network data flow IoT is facing many social
and legal problems. It includes privacy preservation, data security, safety, data usability,
trust etc. and legal regulations on private data collected needs to be strictly executed
without infringing people’s privacy. Difficulty in accurately identifying owners for data
collection and the absence of users public and private data border lines are some of the
challenging issues in applying ethics into IoT environment [121] (Table 5).

11 Conclusion

IoT is all prepared to amalgamate with different technologies to re-shape the whole world
making lives even smarter, effortless, and prosperous. Modern IoT eco-systems are com-
plex and since user’s private data are being transferred, any breach directly affects the peo-
ple’s lives adversely. To provide better security and privacy there is a need of unified archi-
tecture, protocols, and technologies. The objective of this paper is to provide a through
summary on IoT eco-system to help the researchers to understand the basics and in-depth
knowledge of various technologies and protocols used. We have also discussed various
security threats and the assimilation of advancing technologies in IoT which benefit the
future researchers.

Funding Not Applicable.

Data Availability Not Applicable.

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1511

Code Availability Not Applicable.

Declarations

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Alli, A. A., & Alam, M. M. (2020). The fog cloud of things: A survey on concepts, architecture,
standards, tools, and applications. Internet of Things, 9, 100177. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iot.​2020.​
100177
2. Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Saxena, V., Jain, D., Goyal, P., & Sikdar, B. (2019). A survey on IoT secu-
rity: Application areas, security threats, and solution architectures. IEEE Access, 7, 82721–82743.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2019.​29240​45
3. Afzal, B., Umair, M., Asadullah Shah, G., & Ahmed, E. (2019). Enabling IoT platforms for social
IoT applications: Vision, feature mapping, and challenges. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92,
718–731. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​future.​2017.​12.​002
4. Burhan, M., Rehman, R. A., Khan, B., & Kim, B. S. (2018). IoT elements, layered architectures and
security issues: A comprehensive survey. Sensors (Switzerland), 18(9), 2796. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
s1809​2796
5. Sethi, P., & Sarangi, S. R. (2017). Internet of things: Architectures, protocols, and applications. Jour-
nal of Electrical and Computer Engineering. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2017/​93240​35
6. Perwej, Y., Ahmed, M., Kerim, B., & Ali, H. (2019). An extended review on internet of things (IoT)
and its promising applications. Communications on Applied Electronics, 7(26), 8–22. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​5120/​cae20​19652​812
7. Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., & Ayyash, M. (2015). Internet of things:
A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, 17(4), 2347–2376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​COMST.​2015.​24440​95
8. Salman, T., & Jain, R. (2017). Advanced computing and communications, vol. 1, no. 1.
9. Kumar, S., Tiwari, P., & Zymbler, M. (2019). Internet of things is a revolutionary approach for future
technology enhancement: A review. Journal of Big Data. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40537-​019-​0268-2
10. Lin, J., Yu, W., Zhang, N., Yang, X., Zhang, H., & Zhao, W. (2017). A survey on internet of things:
Architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications. IEEE Internet of Things
Journal, 4(5), 1125–1142. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​JIOT.​2017.​26832​00
11. Mahmoud, R., Yousuf, T., Aloul, F., & Zualkernan, I. (2016). Internet of things (IoT) security: Cur-
rent status, challenges and prospective measures. In 2015 10th Int. Conf. Internet Technol. Secur.
Trans. ICITST 2015, pp. 336–341. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICITST.​2015.​74121​16.
12. Bairagi, V. K., Joshi, S. L., & Barshikar, S. H. (2018). A survey on internet of things. International
Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, 6(12), 492–496. https://​doi.​org/​10.​26438/​ijcse/​v6i12.​
492496
13. Bouras, M. A., Lu, Q., Dhelim, S., & Ning, H. (2021). A lightweight blockchain-based IoT identity
management approach. Future Internet, 13(2), 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​fi130​20024
14. Shi-Wan, L., et al. (2019). The industrial internet of things volume G1 : Reference architecture. Ind.
Internet Consort. White Pap, vol. Version 1, p. 58 Seiten.
15. Islam, R., Rahman, M. W., Rubaiat, R., Hasan, M. M., Reza, M. M., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). LoRa
and server-based home automation using the internet of things (IoT). Journal of King Saud Univer-
sity—Computer and Information Sciences. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jksuci.​2020.​12.​020
16. Requirements, F., et al. The IBM advantage for implementing the CSCC cloud customer reference
architecture for internet of things (IoT).
17. INTEL. (2016). The Intel® IoT platform architecture specification white paper internet of things
(IoT). pp. 1–11.
18. Qadah, E., Mock, M., Alevizos, E., & Fuchs, G. (2018). Lambda architecture for batch and stream
processing. CEUR Workshop Proc, vol. 2083, no. October, pp. 109–116. [Online]. Available: https://​
d1.​awsst​atic.​com/​white​papers/​lambda-​archi​tecure-​on-​for-​batch-​aws.​pdf.
19. rfid tags green iot. https://​ieeex​plore.​ieee.​org/​stamp/​stamp.​jsp?​arnum​ber=​79976​98 (accessed Jun. 28,
2020).

13
1512 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

20. Parada, R., Melià-Seguí, J., Morenza-Cinos, M., Carreras, A., & Pous, R. (2015). Using RFID to
detect interactions in ambient assisted living environments. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 30(4), 16–22.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MIS.​2015.​43
21. Arshad, R., Zahoor, S., Shah, M. A., Wahid, A., & Yu, H. (2017). Green IoT: An investigation on
energy saving practices for 2020 and beyond. IEEE Access, 5, 15667–15681. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
ACCESS.​2017.​26860​92
22. Stephen, A., Arockiam, L., & Scholar, R. (2021). Attacks against Rplin Iot: A survey. vol. 25, no.
4, pp. 9767–9786. [Online]. Available: http://​annal​sofrs​cb.​ro.
23. Badenhop, C. W., Graham, S. R., Ramsey, B. W., Mullins, B. E., & Mailloux, L. O. (2017).
The Z-Wave routing protocol and its security implications. Computers & Security, 68, 112–129.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cose.​2017.​04.​004
24. Gulati, K., Kumar Boddu, R. S., Kapila, D., Bangare, S. L., Chandnani, N., & Saravanan, G.
(2021). A review paper on wireless sensor network techniques in internet of things (IoT). Materi-
als Today: Proceedings. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​2021.​05.​067
25. Chung, M. A., & Chang, W. H. (2020). Low-cost, low-profile and miniaturized single-plane
antenna design for an internet of thing device applications operating in 5G, 4G, V2X, DSRC, WiFi
6 band, WLAN, and WiMAX communication systems. Microwave and Optical Technology Let-
ters, 62(4), 1765–1773. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​mop.​32229
26. Singh, S., Sanwar Hosen, A. S. M., & Yoon, B. (2021). Blockchain security attacks, challenges,
and solutions for the future distributed IoT network. IEEE Access, 9, 13938–13959. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2021.​30516​02
27. Basir, R., et al. (2019). Fog computing enabling industrial internet of things: State-of-the-art and
research challenges. Sensors (Switzerland), 19(21), 1–38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​s1921​4807
28. Adelantado, F., Vilajosana, X., Tuset-Peiro, P., Martinez, B., Melia-Segui, J., & Watteyne, T.
(2017). Understanding the limits of LoRaWAN. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(9), 34–40.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MCOM.​2017.​16006​13
29. Fizza, K., et al. (2021). QoE in IoT: A vision, survey and future directions. Discover Internet of
Things. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s43926-​021-​00006-7
30. Vejlgaard, B., Lauridsen, M., Nguyen, H., Mogensen, P., & Sørensen M. (2017). Coverage and
capacity analysis of sigfox, lora, gprs, and nb-iot. In 2017 IEEE 85th Vehicular Technology Con-
ference (VTC Spring). IEEE.
31. Zafari, F., Gkelias, A., & Leung, K. K. (2019). A survey of indoor localization systems and tech-
nologies. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(3), 2568–2599. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
COMST.​2019.​29115​58
32. Patnaik, R., Padhy, N., & Srujan Raju, K. (2021). A systematic survey on IoT security issues, vul-
nerability and open challenges. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1171(January),
723–730. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​15-​5400-1_​68
33. Thread Group. (2015). Thread Usage of 6LoWPAN. White Pap, [Online]. Available: https://​threa​
dgroup.​org/​ourre​sourc​es#​White​papers.
34. Dhumane, A., Bagul, A., & Kulkarni, P. (2015). A review on routing protocol for low power and
lossy networks in IoT. International Journal of Advanced Engineering and Global Technology,
3(12), 1440–1444.
35. Wu, Y. (2020). > accepted by IEEE Communications Magazine< 2.
36. Nur, R., Saharuna, Z., Irmawati, I., Irawan, I., & Wahyuni, R. (2019). Gateway redundancy using
common address redundancy protocol (CARP). IJITEE (International Journal of Information
Technology and Electrical Engineering), 2(3), 71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22146/​ijitee.​43701
37. Vilajosana, X., et al. (2019). IETF 6TiSCH : A tutorial to cite this version : IETF 6TiSCH : A
tutorial.
38. Gomez, C., Paradells, J., Bormann, C., & Crowcroft, J. (2017). From 6LoWPAN to 6Lo: Expand-
ing the universe of IPv6-supported technologies for the internet of things. IEEE Communications
Magazine, 55(12), 148–155. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MCOM.​2017.​16005​34
39. Hong, Y., Choi, Y., Shin, M., & Youn, J. (2015). Analysis of design space and use case in IPv6
over NFC for resource-constrained IoT devices. In Int. Conf. ICT Converg. 2015 Innov. Towar. IoT,
5G, Smart Media Era, ICTC 2015, pp. 1009–1012. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICTC.​2015.​73547​
25.
40. Masirap, M., Amaran, M. H., Yussoff, Y. M., Rahman, R. A., & Hashim, H. (2016). Evaluation of
reliable UDP-based transport protocols for internet of things (IoT). In ISCAIE 2016—2016 IEEE
Symp. Comput. Appl. Ind. Electron, pp. 200–205. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ISCAIE.​2016.​75750​63.

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1513

41. Hussain, F. K., Rahayu, W., & Takizawa, M. (2021). Special issue on Intelligent fog and inter-
net of things (IoT)-based services. World Wide Web, 24(3), 925–927. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11280-​021-​00888-1
42. Mohanta, B. K., Jena, D., Satapathy, U., & Patnaik, S. (2020). Survey on IoT security: Challenges
and solution using machine learning, artificial intelligence and blockchain technology. Internet of
Things, 11, 100227. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iot.​2020.​100227
43. Anuar, B., & Hepworth, E. (2003). WLRP: A resource reservation protocol for quality of service
in next-generation wireless networks. In Proceedings of the 28th annual IEEE international con-
ference on local computer networks (LCN’03) (vol. 742. no. 1303/03).
44. Megyesi, P., Krämer, Z., & Molnár, S. (2016). How quick is QUIC?. In 2016 IEEE Int. Conf.
Commun. ICC 2016. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICC.​2016.​75107​88.
45. Kharrufa, H., Al-Kashoash, H. A. A., & Kemp, A. H. (2019). RPL-based routing protocols in IoT
applications: A review. IEEE Sensors Journal, 19(15), 5952–5967. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​JSEN.​
2019.​29108​81
46. Urien, P. (2016). Three innovative directions based on secure elements for trusted and secured IoT
platforms. In 2016 8th IFIP Int. Conf. New Technol. Mobil. Secur. NTMS 2016. doi: https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1109/​NTMS.​2016.​77924​82.
47. Khalid, L. F., & Ameen, S. Y. (2021). Secure Iot integration in daily lives: A review. Journal of
Information Technology and Informatics, 1(1), 6–12.
48. Mohammed Sadeeq, M., Abdulkareem, N. M., Zeebaree, S. R. M., Mikaeel Ahmed, D., Saifullah
Sami, A., & Zebari, R. R. (2021). IoT and cloud computing issues, challenges and opportunities:
A review. Qubahan Academic Journal, 1(2), 1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​48161/​qaj.​v1n2a​36
49. Kumar, R. P. (2018). Applications in internet of things ( IoT ). In 2018 2nd Int. Conf. Inven. Syst.
Control, no. Icisc, pp. 1156–1161.
50. Naik, N. (2017). Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP
and HTTP. In 2017 IEEE Int. Symp. Syst. Eng. ISSE 2017—Proc. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
SysEng.​2017.​80882​51.
51. White, T., Johnstone, M. N., & Peacock, M. (2017). An investigation into some security issues
in the DDS messaging protocol. In Proc. 15th Aust. Inf. Secur. Manag. Conf. AISM 2017, pp.
132–139. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​4225/​75/​5a84f​cff95​b52.
52. hjp: doc: RFC 6120: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core. https://​www.​
hjp.​at/​doc/​r fc/​r fc61​20.​html (accessed Jul. 04, 2020).
53. Secure mqtt. https://​ieeex​plore.​ieee.​org/​stamp/​stamp.​jsp?​arnum​ber=​72800​18&​casa_​token=​r uwba​
N2lss​UAA​AAA​:​e6Ppy​2aEiu​FNGVO​d0sMa​1lD2N​miKly​8K67r​3qkQ9​UF8L1​fAK7N​PrrVu​B9bmu​
Eeg0i​s7tUX​Mcd6M​&​tag=1 (accessed Jul. 04, 2020).
54. De Donno, M., Tange, K., & Dragoni, N. (2019). Foundations and evolution of modern computing
paradigms: Cloud, IoT, edge, and fog. IEEE Access, 7, 150936–150948. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
ACCESS.​2019.​29476​52
55. Stergiou, C., Psannis, K. E., Kim, B. G., & Gupta, B. (2018). Secure integration of IoT and cloud
computing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 78, 964–975. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​future.​
2016.​11.​031
56. Botta, A., De Donato, W., Persico, V., & Pescapé, A. (2016). Integration of cloud computing and
internet of things: A survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 56, 684–700. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​future.​2015.​09.​021
57. Yu, W., et al. (2017). A survey on the edge computing for the internet of things. IEEE Access,
6(c), 6900–6919. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2017.​27785​04
58. Shi, W., Cao, J., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., & Xu, L. (2016). Edge computing: Vision and challenges. IEEE
Internet of Things Journal, 3(5), 637–646. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​JIOT.​2016.​25791​98
59. Naha, R. K., et al. (2018). Fog computing: Survey of trends, architectures, requirements, and
research directions. IEEE Access, 6, 47980–48009. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2018.​28664​
91
60. Omoniwa, B., Hussain, R., Javed, M. A., Bouk, S. H., Member, S., & Malik, S. A. (2018). Fog/
edge computing-based IoT (FECIoT): Architecture, applications, and research issues. IEEE Inter-
net of Things Journal, 6(3), 4118–4149.
61. Mukherjee, M., et al. (2017). Security and privacy in fog computing: Challenges. IEEE Access, 5,
19293–19304. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2017.​27494​22
62. Fernando, N., Loke, S. W., Avazpour, I., Chen, F. F., Abkenar, A. B., & Ibrahim, A. (2019).
Opportunistic fog for IoT: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(5),
8897–8910. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​JIOT.​2019.​29241​82

13
1514 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

63. Neto, A. J. V., Zhao, Z., Rodrigues, J. J. P. C., Camboim, H. B., & Braun, T. (2018). Fog-based
crime-assistance in smart IoT transportation system. IEEE Access, 6, 11101–11111. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2018.​28034​39
64. Sruthi, M., & Kavitha, B. R. (2016). A survey on Iot platform. International Journal of Scientific
Research and Modern Education (IJSRME) ISSN (online), I(I), 2455–5630.
65. Lin, J. C. W., & Yeh, K. H. (2021). Security and privacy techniques in IoT environment. Sensors
(Switzerland), 21(1), 1–5. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​s2101​0001
66. Networks, S. (2021). Sensor networks. pp. 1–19.
67. Gautam, S., Malik, A., Singh, N., & Kumar, S. (2019). Recent advances and countermeasures
against various attacks in IoT environment. In 2nd Int. Conf. Signal Process. Commun. ICSPC
2019—Proc, pp. 315–319. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICSPC​46172.​2019.​89765​27.
68. Bostami, B., Ahmed, M., & Choudhury, S. (2019). False data injection attacks in internet of
things. In Performability in internet of things (pp. 47–58). Cham: Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​978-3-​319-​93557-7_4.
69. Lv, Z. (2020). Security of internet of things edge devices. Software: Practice and Experience. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​spe.​2806
70. Standaert, F. X. (2010). Introduction to side-channel attacks. In: I. Verbauwhede (Eds.), Secure inte-
grated circuits and systems. Integrated Circuits and Systems. Boston, MA: Springer. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​978-0-​387-​71829-3_2.
71. Mahalakshmi, G., Nadu, T., & Nadu, T. (2018). Denial of sleep attack detection using mobile agent in
wireless sensor. International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation, 3(5), 139–149.
72. Kim, H., Kang, E., Broman, D., & Lee, E. A. (2020). Resilient authentication and authorization for
the internet of things (IoT) using edge computing. ACM Trans. Internet Things, 1(1), 1–27. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1145/​33758​37
73. Čekerevac, Z., Dvorak, Z., Prigoda, L., & Čekerevac, P. (2017). Internet of things and the man-in-the-
middle attacks–security and economic risks. MEST J, 5(2), 15–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12709/​mest.​05.​
05.​02.​03
74. Gupta, K. S., & Jayant, K. P. (2019). A review study on phishing attack techniques for protecting the
attacks. Globus-An International Journal of Management and IT, 10(2), 22–25.
75. Singh, K. J., & Kapoor, D. S. (2017). Create your own internet of things: A survey of IoT platforms.
IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 6(2), 57–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MCE.​2016.​26407​18
76. Boo, E. S., Raza, S., Höglund, J., & Ko, J. G. (2019). Towards supporting IoT device storage and net-
work security using DTLs. In MobiSys 2019—Proc. 17th Annu. Int. Conf. Mob. Syst. Appl. Serv, pp.
570–571. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​33073​34.​33286​30.
77. Ravi, N., & Shalinie, S. M. (2020). Learning-driven detection and mitigation of DDoS attack in IoT
via SDN-cloud architecture. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(4), 3559–3570. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1109/​JIOT.​2020.​29731​76
78. Quasim, M. T. (2021). Challenges and applications of internet of things (IoT) in Saudi Arabia.
79. Zolanvari, M., Teixeira, M. A., Gupta, L., Khan, K. M., & Jain, R. (2019). Machine learning-based
network vulnerability analysis of industrial internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(4),
6822–6834. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​JIOT.​2019.​29120​22
80. Li, W., Logenthiran, T., Phan, V. T., & Woo, W. L. (2019). A novel smart energy theft system (SETS)
for IoT-based smart home. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(3), 5531–5539. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1109/​JIOT.​2019.​29032​81
81. Mahmoud, C., & Aouag, S. (2019). Security for internet of things: A state of the art on existing pro-
tocols and open research issues. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on information
systems and technologies (pp. 1–6). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​33615​70.​33616​22.
82. Gupta, H., & Van Oorschot, P. C. (2019). Onboarding and software update architecture for IoT
devices. In 2019 17th Int. Conf. Privacy, Secur. Trust. PST 2019—Proc. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
PST47​121.​2019.​89490​23.
83. Hind, M., Noura, O., Amine, K. M., & Sanae, M. (2020). Internet of things: Classification of attacks
using CTM method. In ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​33867​23.​33878​
76.
84. Ghosh, A., Chakraborty, D., & Law, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence in Internet of things. CAAI
Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 3(4), 208–218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1049/​trit.​2018.​1008
85. Samie, F., Bauer, L., & Henkel, J. (2019). From cloud down to things: An overview of machine learn-
ing in internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(3), 4921–4934. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
JIOT.​2019.​28938​66

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1515

86. De Lima Filho, F. S., Silveira, F. A. F., De Medeiros Brito Junior, A., Vargas-Solar, G., & Silveira, L.
F. (2019). Smart detection: An online approach for DoS/DDoS attack detection using machine learn-
ing. Security and Communication Networks. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2019/​15747​49
87. Nguyen, S. N., Nguyen, V. Q., Choi, J., & Kim, K. (2018). Design and implementation of intrusion
detection system using convolutional neural network for DoS detection. In ACM Int. Conf. Proceed-
ing Ser, pp. 34–38. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​31840​66.​31840​89.
88. Haripriya, A. P., & Kulothungan, K. (2019). Secure-MQTT: An efficient fuzzy logic-based approach
to detect DoS attack in MQTT protocol for internet of things. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Com-
munications and Networking. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13638-​019-​1402-8
89. Ying, X., Mazer, J., Bernieri, G., Conti, M., Bushnell, L., & Poovendran, R. (2019). Detecting ADS-B
spoofing attacks using deep neural networks. In 2019 IEEE Conf. Commun. Netw. Secur. CNS 2019,
pp. 187–195. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​CNS.​2019.​88027​32.
90. Alzaylaee, M. K., Yerima, S. Y., & Sezer, S. (2020). DL-Droid: Deep learning based android malware
detection using real devices. Computers & Security, 89, 101663. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cose.​2019.​
101663
91. Čech, P., Lokoč, J., & Silva, Y. N. (2020). Pivot-based approximate k-NN similarity joins for big
high-dimensional data. Information Systems, 87, 101410. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​is.​2019.​06.​006
92. Xu, X., Zhang, Y., Tang, M., Gu, H., Yan, S., & Yang, J. (2019). Emotion recognition based on
double tree complex wavelet transform and machine learning in internet of things. IEEE Access, 7,
154114–154120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2019.​29488​84
93. Xu, Y., Xia, J., Wu, H., & Fan, L. (2019). Q-learning based physical-layer secure game against
multiagent attacks. IEEE Access, 7, 49212–49222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2019.​29102​
72
94. Kim, M. (2019). Game theoretic approach of eavesdropping attack in millimeter-wave-based
WPANs with directional antennas. Wireless Networks, 25(6), 3205–3222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11276-​018-​1713-4
95. Hachimi, M., Kaddoum, G., Gagnon, G. & Illy, P. (2020). Multi-stage jamming attacks detec-
tion using deep learning combined with kernelized support vector machine in 5G cloud radio
access networks. In 2020 international symposium on networks, computers and communications
(ISNCC). IEEE.
96. Xu, Y., Lei, M., Li, M., Zhao, M., & Hu, B. (2019). A new anti-jamming strategy based on deep
reinforcement learning for MANET. In IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf, vol. 2019-April, pp. 1–5. doi:
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​VTCSp​r ing.​2019.​87464​94.
97. Liang, F., Hatcher, W. G., Liao, W., Gao, W., & Yu, W. (2019). Machine learning for security and
the internet of things: The good, the bad, and the ugly. IEEE Access, 7, 158126–158147. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2019.​29489​12
98. Mohanta, B. K., Jena, D., Panda, S. S., & Sobhanayak, S. (2019). Blockchain technology: A sur-
vey on applications and security privacy Challenges. Internet of Things, 8, 100107. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​iot.​2019.​100107
99. Raj, A., Maji, K., & Shetty, S. D. (2021). Ethereum for internet of things security. Multimedia
Tools and Applications, 80(12), 18901–18915.
100. Atlam, H. F., & Wills, G. B. (2019). Technical aspects of blockchain and IoT. In Advances in com-
puters (vol. 115, pp. 1–39). Elsevier.
101. Ali, Samad, et al. (2020). 6G white paper on machine learning in wireless communication net-
works. arXiv preprint arXiv:​2004.​13875.
102. Shabandri, B., & Maheshwari, P. (2019). Enhancing IoT security and privacy using distributed
ledgers with IOTA and the tangle. In 2019 6th Int. Conf. Signal Process. Integr. Networks, SPIN
2019, no. September 2016, pp. 1069–1075. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​SPIN.​2019.​87115​91.
103. Pirmagomedov, R., & Koucheryavy, Y. (2019). IoT technologies for augmented human: A survey.
Internet of Things. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iot.​2019.​100120
104. Zantalis, F., Koulouras, G., Karabetsos, S., & Kandris, D. (2019). A review of machine learning
and IoT in smart transportation. Future Internet, 11(4), 1–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​FI110​40094
105. Balaji, S., Nathani, K., & Santhakumar, R. (2019). IoT technology, applications and challenges:
A contemporary survey. Wireless Personal Communications, 108(1), 363–388. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11277-​019-​06407-w
106. Mistry, I., Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., & Kumar, N. (2020). Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for indus-
trial automation: A systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 135, 106382. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ymssp.​2019.​106382
107. Lin, F., et al. (2019). Survey on blockchain for internet of things. Journal of Internet Services and
Information Security, 9(2), 1–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22667/​JISIS.​2019.​05.​31.​001

13
1516 A. Raj, S. D. Shetty

108. Rathee, G., Garg, S., Kaddoum, G., & Choi, B. J. (2020). A decision-making model for secur-
ing IoT devices in smart industries. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 3203(c), 1–1.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​tii.​2020.​30052​52
109. Balliu, M., Bastys, I., & Sabelfeld, A. (2019). Securing IoT Apps. IEEE Security and Privacy,
17(5), 22–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MSEC.​2019.​29141​90
110. Sharma, B. B., & Kumar, N. (2021). Iot-based intelligent irrigation system for paddy crop using
an internet-controlled water pump. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Infor-
mation Systems, 12(1), 21–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4018/​IJAEIS.​20210​101.​oa2
111. Ahmad, A., Cuomo, S., Wu, W., & Jeon, G. (2019). Intelligent algorithms and standards for inter-
operability in internet of things. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92, 1187–1191. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​future.​2018.​11.​015
112. Noura, M., Atiquzzaman, M., & Gaedke, M. (2019). Interoperability in internet of things: Taxono-
mies and open challenges. Mobile Networks and Applications, 24(3), 796–809. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11036-​018-​1089-9
113. Vermesan, O. 2018. Advancing IoT platforms interoperability.
114. Oktian, Y. E., Witanto, E. N., & Lee, S.-G. (2021). A conceptual architecture in decentralizing
computing, storage, and networking aspect of IoT infrastructure. IoT, 2(2), 205–221. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3390/​iot20​20011
115. Gupta, A., Christie, R., & Manjula, R. (2017). Scalability in internet of things: Features, techniques
and research challenges. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research, 13(7),
1617–1627.
116. Ryan, P., & Watson, R. (2017). Research challenges for the internet of things: What role can or play?
Systems, 5(1), 24.
117. Badawy, M. M., Ali, Z. H., & Ali, H. A. (2019). QoS provisioning framework for service-oriented
internet of things (IoT). Cluster Computing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10586-​019-​02945-x
118. Raj, J. S., & Basar, A. (2019). Qos optimization of energy efficient routing in Iot wireless sensor net-
works. Journal of ISMAC, 01(01), 12–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​36548/​jismac.​2019.1.​002
119. Singh, M., Baranwal, G., & Tripathi, A. K. (2020). QoS-aware selection of IoT-based service. Ara-
bian Journal for Science and Engineering. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13369-​020-​04601-8
120. Zeadally, S., Shaikh, F. K., Talpur, A., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2020). Design architectures for energy har-
vesting in the internet of things. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 128(May), 109901.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2020.​109901
121. Atlam, H. F., & Wills, G. B. (2020). IoT security, privacy, safety and ethics. Springer International
Publishing.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Aparna Raj is a research scholar at Dept. of Computer Science, Bits

Pilani, Dubai campus. She has received her M.Tech. (Computer and
Communication Engineering) and B.Tech. (Information Technology)
from Karunya University and Calicut University, India in 2010 and
2012 respectively. Her research interests are in the areas of IoT and
Machine Learning.

13
IoT Eco‑system, Layered Architectures, Security and Advancing… 1517

Dr. Sujala D. Shetty is currently working as Associate Professor in

Dept. of Computer Science BITS Pilani, Dubai Campus. She joined
the dept. in September 2002. She received her B.E. degree in Com-
puter Science from Bangalore Institute of Technology and Master’s
degree in Computer Science from Manipal Institute of Technology in
1994 and 2002 respectively. She received her Ph.D. from Bits Pilani,
Rajasthan, India, in 2010. She has 23 years of teaching experience.
Previously she has worked in Manipal Institute of Technology. She has
guided many thesis, dissertations and projects undertaken by the
undergraduate and post graduate students. She has handled classes for
both undergraduate, postgraduate and distance education students. Her
research areas are Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, IoT, Web Services,
and Network Security. She has successfully guided one PhD student
and is currently guiding two PhD students. She is the faculty advisor
for ACM and ACM-W. She is instrumental in starting ACM-W in
2019. ACM-W is the Women in Tech arm of ACM. ACM-W at BITS
Dubai was the first such chapter for women in U.A.E. Also, ACM
chapter under her leadership was awarded Student Chapter Excellence Award for Outstanding Chapter
Activities by ACM headquarters, New York in April 2020.

13