Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Securing Emergent IoT Applications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Engineering Trustworthy Software Systems (SETSS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11430))

Abstract

Attacks on IoT, Cyber-Physical-Systems (CPS), and other computing systems are evolving rapidly. As a result, IoT devices used in critical infrastructures such as energy, health-care, and water supply systems are vulnerable to attacks. A successful attack on such safety-critical infrastructures may have life-threatening consequences. On the other hand, existing security mechanisms are not enough to protect constrained IoT devices. Therefore, we need better security mechanisms and tools to manage and protect IoT devices from malicious use.

In emerging paradigms like Internet-of-Things (IoT) platforms, Industry 4.0, collaborative portals, and many others, we deal with a multi-tenant architecture. In a multi-tenant architecture, the owners want to secure their own integrity, confidentiality, and functionality goals without being concerned about the goals of other entities. In this paper, we present a framework to negotiate, compromise, and inter-operate between different services or platforms to fulfill a purpose. Furthermore, to ensure correct and safe operation of IoT systems, we must assure that the integrity of the underlying systems and processes is properly executed as intended i.e., the processes cannot be changed in an unauthorized way.

In this paper, we present our Petri Net based workflow specification and enforcement framework to realize workflow-aware access control and to protect the process integrity of IoT applications. The Petri Net models are amenable to formal verification. The resulting workflows have other properties such as the ability to recover from error conditions. In addition, we present a method to achieve distributed access control and accountability integrated with our framework. We allow practitioner-friendly tools to collect requirements and goals to design secure IoT systems and processes. Finally, we present a guide to implement our framework with existing development environments and validate the methodology using concrete use case scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63139-9_48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Putting high-level Petri nets to work in industry. Comput. Ind. 25(1), 45–54 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-3615(94)90031-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AIOTI: The Alliance for the Internet of Things Innovation (2018). https://aioti.eu/. Accessed Dec 2018

  4. Antonakakis, M., et al.: Understanding the Mirai Botnet. In: 26th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 1092–1110 (2017). https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity17/technical-sessions/presentation/antonakakis

  5. Atluri, V., Huang, W.-K.: An authorization model for workflows. In: Bertino, E., Kurth, H., Martella, G., Montolivo, E. (eds.) ESORICS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1146, pp. 44–64. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61770-1_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Atluri, V., Huang, W.: A Petri net based safety analysis of workflow authorization models. J. Comput. Secur. 8(2/3), 209–240 (2000). http://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-computer-security/jcs113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bahga, A., Madisetti, V.K.: Blockchain platform for industrial internet of things. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 9, 533–546 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2016.910036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartoletti, M., Pompianu, L.: An empirical analysis of smart contracts: platforms, applications, and design patterns. In: Brenner, M., et al. (eds.) FC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10323, pp. 494–509. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Basin, D., Burri, S.J., Karjoth, G.: Optimal workflow-aware authorizations. In: ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT 2012), pp. 93–102 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2295136.2295154

  10. Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Atluri, V.: The specification and enforcement of authorization constraints in workflow management systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 2(1), 65–104 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/300830.300837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bishop, M.: Computer Security: Art and Science. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002). https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kft059. https://books.google.de/books?id=b4gcswEACAAJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Bormann, C., Ersue, M., Keranen, A.: Terminology for constrained-node networks. Technical report, IETF, May 2014. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7228

  13. Castelluccia, C., Francillon, A., Perito, D., Soriente, C.: On the difficulty of software-based attestation of embedded devices. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on Computer and communications security - CCS 2009, p. 400. ACM Press, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1653662.1653711

  14. Christidis, K., Devetsikiotis, M.: Blockchains and smart contracts for the internet of things. IEEE Access 4, 2292–2303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7467408/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Compagna, L., dos Santos, D.R., Ponta, S.E., Ranise, S.: Aegis: automatic enforcement of security policies in workflow-driven web applications. In: Proceedings of ACM on Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy - CODASPY 2017, pp. 321–328 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3029806.3029813

  16. Cuellar, J., Kasinathan, P., Calvo, D.: Privacy-enhanced-tokens (PAT) profile for ACE. Technical report, IETF (2018). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cuellar-ace-pat-priv-enhanced-authz-tokens/

  17. Delmolino, K., Arnett, M., Kosba, A.E., Miller, A., Shi, E.: Step by step towards creating a safe smart contract: lessons and insights from a cryptocurrency lab. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015, 460 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_6. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/460.pdf

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1145/360933.360975

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Esparza, J.: Decidability and complexity of Petri net problems—an introduction. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 374–428. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-65306-6_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Ethereum: Solidity—Solidity (2018). https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/. Accessed Aug 2018

  21. Ethereum: What Are Smart Contracts - EthereumWiki (2018). http://www.ethereumwiki.com/ethereum-wiki/smart-contracts/. Accessed Mar 2018

  22. European Union (EU): EU GDPR Information Portal (2018). https://www.eugdpr.org/. Accessed July 2018

  23. Friedenthal, S., Moore, A., Steiner, R.: A Practical Guide to SysML, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374379-4.X0001-X

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerdes, S., Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., Selander, G., Seitz, L.: Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) (2018). https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-03. Accessed Mar 2018

  25. Hardt, D.: The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework (2012). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749. Accessed Dec 2017

  26. Harney, H., Muckenhirn, C.: Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Specification, July 1997. https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc2093

  27. Heckel, R.: Open Petri nets as semantic model for workflow integration. In: Ehrig, H., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G., Weber, H. (eds.) Petri Net Technology for Communication-Based Systems. LNCS, vol. 2472, pp. 281–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-40022-6_14

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang, W.K., Atluri, V.: SecureFlow: a secure web-enabled workflow management system. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control - RBAC 1999, pp. 83–94 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/319171.319179

  29. IBM: Energy-Blockchain Labs and IBM Create Carbon Credit Management Platform Using Hyperledger Fabric on the IBM Cloud, pp. 2–3. IBM Press Release (2017). https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/51839.wss

  30. IBM: Hyperledger Fabric – Hyperledger (2018). https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/fabric. Accessed Aug 2018

  31. IBM: Hyperledger-Smart Contract Language – Chaincode (2018). https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/release-1.2/blockchain.html. Accessed Aug 2018

  32. IETF ACE Working Group: Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) (2017). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz/. Accessed Dec 2017

  33. Jamal, M., Zafar, N.A.: Transformation of activity diagram into coloured Petri nets using weighted directed graph. In: 2016 International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT), pp. 181–186. IEEE, December 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIT.2016.041. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7866750/

  34. Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri nets. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Petri Nets: Central Models and Their Properties. LNCS, vol. 254, pp. 248–299. Springer, Heidelberg (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0046842

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri nets: a high level language for system design and analysis. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) ICATPN 1989. LNCS, vol. 483, pp. 342–416. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53863-1_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets - Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03241-1

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.M., Wells, L.: Coloured Petri nets and CPN tools for modelling and validation of concurrent systems. STTT 9(3–4), 213–254 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-007-0038-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jürjens, J.: UMLsec: extending UML for secure systems development. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 412–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45800-X_32

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Kasinathan, P., Cuéllar, J.: Securing the integrity of workflows in IoT. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks, EWSN 2018, Madrid, Spain, 14–16 February 2018, pp. 252–257 (2018). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3234908

  40. Kasinathan, P., Cuellar, J.: Workflow-aware security of integrated mobility services. In: Lopez, J., Zhou, J., Soriano, M. (eds.) ESORICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11099, pp. 3–19. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98989-1_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Knorr, K.: Dynamic access control through Petri net workflows. In: 16th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2000), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 11–15 December 2000, pp. 159–167 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSAC.2000.898869

  42. Krebs, B., BMW: connected mobility lab – center digitization.bayern (2017). https://zentrum-digitalisierung.bayern/connected-mobility-lab/. Accessed Oct 2018

  43. Linhares, M.V., da Silva, A.J., de Oliveira, R.S.: Empirical evaluation of SysML through the modeling of an industrial automation unit. In: 2006 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, pp. 145–152. IEEE, September 2006. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA.2006.355190. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4178305/

  44. Lodderstedt, T., Basin, D., Doser, J.: SecureUML: a UML-based modeling language for model-driven security. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 426–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45800-X_33

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Luu, L., Chu, D.H., Olickel, H., Saxena, P., Hobor, A.: Making smart contracts smarter. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security - CCS 2016, pp. 254–269. ACM Press, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978309

  46. Merlin, P.M., Farber, D.J.: Recoverability of communication protocols-implications of a theoretical study. IEEE Trans. Commun. (1976). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCOM.1976.1093424

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Miessler, D., Smith, C., Haddix, J.: OWASP Internet of Things Top Ten Project (2014). Accessed Dec 2017

    Google Scholar 

  48. Modelio – Open Source Tool: Modelio – the open source modeling tool. https://www.modelio.org/. Accessed Aug 2018

  49. Morimoto, S.: A survey of formal verification for business process modeling. In: Bubak, M., van Albada, G.D., Dongarra, J., Sloot, P.M.A. (eds.) ICCS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5102, pp. 514–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69387-1_58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Mortensen, K.H.: Automatic code generation method based on coloured Petri net models applied on an access control system. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, pp. 367–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44988-4_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Murata, T.: Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1109/5.24143. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/24143/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed Oct 2018

  53. Özsu, M.T., Valduriez, P.: Principles of Distributed Database Systems, 3rd edn. Springer, New York (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8834-8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Petri, C.A.: Communication with automata (1966). http://edoc.sub.uni-hamburg.de/informatik/volltexte/2010/155/

  55. Pohl, K.: Requirements Engineering: An Overview. RWTH, Fachgruppe Informatik, Aachen (1996). ftp://ftp8.de.freebsd.org/pub/packages/CREWS/CREWS-96-02.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pommereau, F.: SNAKES: a flexible high-level Petri nets library (tool paper). In: Devillers, R., Valmari, A. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9115, pp. 254–265. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19488-2_13

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Rahim, M., Boukala-Ioualalen, M., Hammad, A.: Petri nets based approach for modular verification of SysML requirements on activity diagrams. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Petri Nets and Software Engineering (PNSE), Tunis, Tunisia, 23–24 June 2014, pp. 233–248 (2014). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1160/paper14.pdf

  58. Reisig, W.: Petri Nets: An Introduction. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 4. Springer, Heidelberg (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69968-9

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Reisig, W.: A Primer in Petri Net Design. Springer Compass International. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75329-9

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Reisig, W.: Understanding Petri Nets – Modeling Techniques, Analysis Methods, Case Studies. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33278-4

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Sadeghi, A.R., Wachsmann, C., Waidner, M.: Security and privacy challenges in industrial internet of things. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Design Automation Conference on - DAC 2015, pp. 1–6. ACM Press, New York (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2744769.2747942

  62. Sandhu, R.S., Samarati, P.: Access control: principles and practice. IEEE Commun. Mag. 32(9), 40–48 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1109/35.312842. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/312842/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Schaller, R.: Moore’s law: past, present and future. IEEE Spectr. 34(6), 52–59 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1109/6.591665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Seitz, L., Gerdes, S., Selander, G., Mani, M., Kumar, S.: Use cases for authentication and authorization in constrained environments (2016). ISSN 2070-1721. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7744

  65. Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., Tschofenig, H.: Authentication and authorization for constrained environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0 framework (ACE-OAuth). Technical report, IETF (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sicari, S., Rizzardi, A., Grieco, L., Coen-Porisini, A.: Security, privacy and trust in internet of things: the road ahead. Comput. Netw. 76, 146–164 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMNET.2014.11.008. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389128614003971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. van der Stok, P., Kampanakis, P., Kumar, S., Richardson, M., Furuhed, M., Raza, S.: EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps). Technical report, IETF (2018). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-coap-est/

  68. Sundmaeker, H., Guillemin, P., Friess, P., Woelfflé, S. (eds.): Vision and Challenges for Realising the Internet of Things. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2010). https://doi.org/10.2759/26127

  69. Szabo, N.: Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets, 1996. EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought (2001). http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_2.html

  70. Tandon, L., Fong, P.W.L., Safavi-Naini, R.: HCAP: a history-based capability system for IoT devices. In: Proceedings of the 23nd ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, SACMAT 2018, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 13–15 June 2018, pp. 247–258 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3205977.3205978

  71. TCG WG: TCG guidance for securing resource-constrained devices. Technical report, Trusted Computing Group (TCG) (2017). https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG-Guidance-for-Securing-Resource-Constrained-Devices-v1r22.pdf

  72. Thaler, D., Waltermire, D., Housley, R.: Software Updates for Internet of Things (suit) (2018). https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/suit/about/. Accessed Oct 2018

  73. The Official OMG SysML site: What Is OMG SysML? (2012). http://www.omgsysml.org/. Accessed Apr 2018

  74. Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., Park, J.: Secure group communication for CoAP (2018). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tiloca-core-multicast-oscoap/. Accessed Oct 2018

  75. Weber, M., Kindler, E.: The Petri net markup language. In: Ehrig, H., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G., Weber, H. (eds.) Petri Net Technology for Communication-Based Systems. LNCS, vol. 2472, pp. 124–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-40022-6_7

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Weber, R.H.: Internet of things – new security and privacy challenges. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 26(1), 23–30 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLSR.2009.11.008. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364909001939

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  77. WfMC: Workflow Management Coalition (2009). http://www.wfmc.org/. Accessed July 2017

  78. Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. J. Circuits Syst. Comput. 08(01), 21–66 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1142/S021812669800004. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218126698000043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wolter, C., Menzel, M., Schaad, A., Miseldine, P., Meinel, C.: Model-driven business process security requirement specification. J. Syst. Arch. 55(4), 211–223 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSARC.2008.10.002. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383762108001471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wolter, C., Schaad, A.: Modeling of task-based authorization constraints in BPMN. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  81. Wolter, C., Schaad, A., Meinel, C.: Task-based entailment constraints for basic workflow patterns. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies - SACMAT 2008, p. 51. ACM Press, New York (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1377836.1377844

  82. Woodcock, J., Larsen, P.G., Bicarregui, J., Fitzgerald, J.: Formal methods: practice and experience. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(4), 1–36 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1592434.1592436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Zhang, F., Cecchetti, E., Croman, K., Juels, A., Shi, E.: Town Crier: an authenticated data feed for smart contracts. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2016, pp. 270–282. ACM, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978326

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Jonathan P. Bowen for his suggestions and reviewing this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Siemens AG, CT, IT Security, Munich, Germany

    Prabhakaran Kasinathan & Jorge Cuellar

  2. University of Passau, Passau, Germany

    Prabhakaran Kasinathan & Jorge Cuellar

Authors
  1. Prabhakaran Kasinathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Cuellar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prabhakaran Kasinathan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. London South Bank University, London, UK

    Jonathan P. Bowen

  2. Southwest University, Chongqing, China

    Zhiming Liu

  3. Southwest University, Chongqing, China

    Zili Zhang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kasinathan, P., Cuellar, J. (2019). Securing Emergent IoT Applications. In: Bowen, J., Liu, Z., Zhang, Z. (eds) Engineering Trustworthy Software Systems. SETSS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11430. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17601-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17601-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17600-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17601-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation