ContexloT: Towards Providing Contextual Integrity to Appified IoT Platforms
Feb 2020·3 min read
paper-reviewsecurityiot
This is a paper review for: Jia, Yunhan Jack, et al. “ContexloT: Towards Providing Contextual Integrity to Appified IoT Platforms.” NDSS. Vol. 2. No. 2. 2017.
Summary
The authors performed a study of possible attacks on IoT platforms that supports third-party apps. They
picked Samsung’s SmartThings as a use case. They introduced ContextIoT, which is a new backwardcompatible context-based permission system that identifies the context for sensitive actions and
provides users with useful information to help them determine whether to approve or disprove a
specific action in a particular context. They evaluated ContextIoT on a dataset of IoT attacks and found
that neither performance nor usability was affected considerably
Things I liked
The authors explored how they can migrate exploits that occur in non-appified IoT platforms to
appified IoT platforms which seems to provide more use cases
They mentioned the performance aspect of their contribution and were not satisfied by only
the novelty of their contribution
They gave a hard solid number for the average number of prompts for the smart app, which is
3.5. If they did not mention this number, I would have thought that this number is much larger.
They compared their definition of context with definitions provided by previous context-based
permissions papers and proved that their definition is better in terms of security against attacks
The authors’ solution does not require extra programming effort. It allows the user to approve a
specific data flow in one scenario and disapprove of the same data flow in another scenario. This
concept is novel in the IoT world
I liked how they focused the study on one aspect of attacks, which are those on the app-level.
They ignored attacks on external services.
I liked how the authors introduced a different domain which is natural language processing as
one of the domains that can enhance the usage of ContextIoT
Things I did not like:
Regarding time delays, the authors only mentioned delay caused by code and did not include
delays caused by the waiting time for the user to respond to the prompt
The authors mentioned papers that discussed the usability aspect of the permission system. I
am not sure this is related to the topic of the paper.
Further research
The authors used static analysis and runtime logging to analyze the risks of smart apps. I guess that took
them some time. I think looking into more efficient means to analyze the risks of smartapps can be of
benefit.