Security threats on smart objects do not vary much
compared to normal wireless or wired networks. The main
difference is that suitable security mechanisms are absent
because of the lack of respective architectures and resources.
The adversary model of life-logging involves stealing
personal data, impersonating or launching DoS attacks. This
model exists all over the Internet, irrespectively of the
connection technology. Since smart objects are usually
equipped with one wireless communication radio, respective
security challenges are mostly compared to the wireless
networks. Such security challenges exist in all different
layers of OSI model (IOS/IEO Commission, 1994) but the main
difference of wireless networks to the wired ones is the
medium. At the physical layer the most critical dangers
involve eavesdropping, impersonating in a secure or insecure
communication channel and jamming attacks (Stammberger
et al., 2010).
Security threats on smart objects do not vary muchcompared to normal wireless or wired networks. The maindifference is that suitable security mechanisms are absentbecause of the lack of respective architectures and resources.The adversary model of life-logging involves stealingpersonal data, impersonating or launching DoS attacks. Thismodel exists all over the Internet, irrespectively of theconnection technology. Since smart objects are usuallyequipped with one wireless communication radio, respectivesecurity challenges are mostly compared to the wirelessnetworks. Such security challenges exist in all differentlayers of OSI model (IOS/IEO Commission, 1994) but the maindifference of wireless networks to the wired ones is themedium. At the physical layer the most critical dangersinvolve eavesdropping, impersonating in a secure or insecurecommunication channel and jamming attacks (Stammbergeret al., 2010).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
