Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 37 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 44 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 14 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 14 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 90 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 179 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 462 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Discovering IoT Physical Channel Vulnerabilities (2102.01812v2)

Published 3 Feb 2021 in cs.CR and cs.FL

Abstract: Smart homes contain diverse sensors and actuators controlled by IoT apps that provide custom automation. Prior works showed that an adversary could exploit physical interaction vulnerabilities among apps and put the users and environment at risk, e.g., to break into a house, an adversary turns on the heater to trigger an app that opens windows when the temperature exceeds a threshold. Currently, the safe behavior of physical interactions relies on either app code analysis or dynamic analysis of device states with manually derived policies by developers. However, existing works fail to achieve sufficient breadth and fidelity to translate the app code into their physical behavior or provide incomplete security policies, causing poor accuracy and false alarms. In this paper, we introduce a new approach, IoTSeer, which efficiently combines app code analysis and dynamic analysis with new security policies to discover physical interaction vulnerabilities. IoTSeer works by first translating sensor events and actuator commands of each app into a physical execution model (PeM) and unifying PeMs to express composite physical execution of apps (CPeM). CPeM allows us to deploy IoTSeer in different smart homes by defining its execution parameters with minimal data collection. IoTSeer supports new security policies with intended/unintended physical channel labels. It then efficiently checks them on the CPeM via falsification, which addresses the undecidability of verification due to the continuous and discrete behavior of IoT devices. We evaluate IoTSeer in an actual house with 14 actuators, six sensors, and 39 apps. IoTSeer discovers 16 unique policy violations, whereas prior works identify only 2 out of 16 with 18 falsely flagged violations. IoTSeer only requires 30 mins of data collection for each actuator to set the CPeM parameters and is adaptive to newly added, removed, and relocated devices.

Citations (19)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.