Security Best Practices: A Critical Analysis Using IoT as a Case Study

IF 3 4区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1145/3563392
David Barrera, Christopher Bellman, P. V. van Oorschot
{"title":"Security Best Practices: A Critical Analysis Using IoT as a Case Study","authors":"David Barrera, Christopher Bellman, P. V. van Oorschot","doi":"10.1145/3563392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic research has highlighted the failure of many Internet of Things (IoT) product manufacturers to follow accepted practices, while IoT security best practices have recently attracted considerable attention worldwide from industry and governments. Given current examples of security advice, confusion is evident from guidelines that conflate desired outcomes with security practices to achieve those outcomes. We explore a surprising lack of clarity, and void in the literature, on what (generically) best practice means, independent of identifying specific individual practices or highlighting failure to follow best practices. We consider categories of security advice, and analyze how they apply over the lifecycle of IoT devices. For concreteness in discussion, we use iterative inductive coding to code and systematically analyze a set of 1,013 IoT security best practices, recommendations, and guidelines collated from industrial, government, and academic sources. Among our findings, of all analyzed items, 68% fail to meet our definition of an (actionable) practice, and 73% of all actionable advice relates to the software development lifecycle phase, highlighting the critical position of manufacturers and developers. We hope that our work provides a basis for the community to better understand best practices, identify and reach consensus on specific practices, and find ways to motivate relevant stakeholders to follow them.","PeriodicalId":56050,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security","volume":"26 1","pages":"1 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3563392","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Academic research has highlighted the failure of many Internet of Things (IoT) product manufacturers to follow accepted practices, while IoT security best practices have recently attracted considerable attention worldwide from industry and governments. Given current examples of security advice, confusion is evident from guidelines that conflate desired outcomes with security practices to achieve those outcomes. We explore a surprising lack of clarity, and void in the literature, on what (generically) best practice means, independent of identifying specific individual practices or highlighting failure to follow best practices. We consider categories of security advice, and analyze how they apply over the lifecycle of IoT devices. For concreteness in discussion, we use iterative inductive coding to code and systematically analyze a set of 1,013 IoT security best practices, recommendations, and guidelines collated from industrial, government, and academic sources. Among our findings, of all analyzed items, 68% fail to meet our definition of an (actionable) practice, and 73% of all actionable advice relates to the software development lifecycle phase, highlighting the critical position of manufacturers and developers. We hope that our work provides a basis for the community to better understand best practices, identify and reach consensus on specific practices, and find ways to motivate relevant stakeholders to follow them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安全最佳实践:使用物联网作为案例研究的关键分析
学术研究强调了许多物联网(IoT)产品制造商未能遵循公认的实践,而物联网安全最佳实践最近引起了全球工业界和政府的广泛关注。考虑到当前的安全建议示例,将期望的结果与实现这些结果的安全实践混为一谈的指导方针很容易引起混淆。我们探索了一个令人惊讶的缺乏清晰度和空白的文献,关于什么是(一般的)最佳实践,独立于确定具体的个人实践或强调失败遵循最佳实践。我们考虑了安全建议的类别,并分析了它们如何在物联网设备的生命周期中应用。为了讨论的具体,我们使用迭代归纳编码来编码并系统分析一组1,013个物联网安全最佳实践、建议和指南,这些最佳实践、建议和指南来自工业、政府和学术来源。在我们的发现中,在所有分析的项目中,68%的项目不符合我们对(可操作的)实践的定义,73%的可操作建议与软件开发生命周期阶段有关,突出了制造商和开发人员的关键地位。我们希望我们的工作能为社区提供一个基础,以便更好地了解最佳实践,确定具体实践并达成共识,并找到激励相关利益相关者遵循这些实践的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security
ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security Computer Science-General Computer Science
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security (TOPS) (formerly known as TISSEC) publishes high-quality research results in the fields of information and system security and privacy. Studies addressing all aspects of these fields are welcomed, ranging from technologies, to systems and applications, to the crafting of policies.
期刊最新文献
ZPredict: ML-Based IPID Side-channel Measurements ZTA-IoT: A Novel Architecture for Zero-Trust in IoT Systems and an Ensuing Usage Control Model Security Analysis of the Consumer Remote SIM Provisioning Protocol X-squatter: AI Multilingual Generation of Cross-Language Sound-squatting Toward Robust ASR System against Audio Adversarial Examples using Agitated Logit
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1