Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Reporte de vulnerabilidades en IIoT. Proyecto DEFENDER

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The report claims that every IIoT attack can be filed under vector, target, impact, and consequence, and that machine-learning intrusion detection is the current best defense.

desk verdict A readable Spanish-language IIoT security survey whose central table of 'real attacks' has enough citation mismatches that it cannot be trusted as an evidence-based reference until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10819 v1 pith:5ZZDECHF submitted 2025-07-14 cs.CR

Pedro Almansa Jiménez , Lorenzo Fernández Maimó , Ángel Luis Peráles Gómez This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords IIoTindustrialcybersecurityvulnerabilitytaxonomyattackvectorsSCADAsecurityintrusiondetectionmachinelearningcriticalinfrastructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The report tries to establish that the security of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) environments can be systematically understood if threats are classified along four axes: attack vector, target, impact, and consequence, following the taxonomy introduced in [34]. It assembles this classification from a survey of device classes, protocols, attack phases, and 26 documented incidents, and it argues that current countermeasures converge on machine-learning-based intrusion detection, with additional layers such as protocol-aware deep packet inspection and blockchain-edge integrity schemes. The value of the claim, if correct, is that defenders of critical infrastructure can map any IIoT incident to a standard cell in the taxonomy and then select countermeasures according to the physical or cyber consequence at stake.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the four-axis classification of IIoT attacks: vector (cyber or physical), target (cyber or physical), impact (cyber or physical), and consequence (cyber or physical), inherited from the survey [34] and rendered as Table 2's 26 incident rows. Because each incident is forced into one cell per axis, the taxonomy turns qualitative case reports into a comparable grid; the grid is what supports the report's later inference that defenses must address both digital compromise and physical harm.

What would settle it

Check whether each cited reference in Table 2 actually documents the named incident; the side-channel, DNS-spoofing, and false-data-injection rows cite sources that appear to describe datasets or unrelated models, so if those references do not contain the incident, the compilation is unsupported. Alternatively, find one documented IIoT attack whose vector, target, impact, and consequence cannot be placed in any taxonomy category.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the report's central discovery is that the IIoT attack space is not a scattered list of incidents but a structure: every attack can be located by its vector (cyber or physical), its target (cyber or physical), its impact on the compromised system, and its final consequence for the industrial process. The report adopts the taxonomy proposed in [34], applies it to a table of 26 real-world attacks, and then surveys countermeasures, concluding that availability and integrity are the most critical security requirements in IIoT and that machine learning is the key technology for meeting them.

Load-bearing premise

The report rests on the assumption that the taxonomy of [34] is a valid and complete way to classify IIoT attacks, and that the 26 incidents in Table 2 are each accurately supported by the reference cited beside them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the taxonomy is accepted, IIoT incident reports can be standardized by filling in vector, target, impact, and consequence, making disparate attacks comparable.
  • The protocol vulnerability table implies that widely used industrial protocols lack authentication or encryption by default, so network-level defenses must assume plaintext and unauthenticated traffic.
  • The report's survey suggests that signature-based intrusion detection alone is insufficient and that hybrid machine-learning-based detection is the current effective direction for IIoT.
  • The 26-case compilation supports the conclusion that consequences can be physical, such as defective products, machine breakage, or environmental disaster, so security investment should be tied to physical risk rather than only data risk.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the taxonomy is complete, it could be turned into a lookup schema for mapping newly reported IIoT incidents to known countermeasure families; I would test this by coding vectors, targets, impacts, and consequences for incidents from vulnerability databases and checking whether any case falls outside the grid.
  • The report's own examples suggest a testable extension: entries whose citations describe datasets or unrelated models rather than the named incident (e.g., side-channel, DNS spoofing, false data injection) could be re-verified; if they cannot be supported, the empirical table needs revision but the taxonomy itself may still stand.
  • Because availability and integrity are stated as top priorities, one concrete extension is to rank countermeasures by the severity of physical consequence they prevent, not by detection accuracy alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Spanish-language technical report surveys the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) security landscape. It describes IIoT devices, architectures, protocols, and controllers; imports an attack taxonomy from Panchal et al. [34] organized by vector, target, impact, and consequence; presents a nine-phase attack model; compiles a table of 26 purported real-world attacks against IIoT infrastructure classified under that taxonomy; and reviews recent security countermeasures, with special attention to machine-learning-based intrusion detection. The central stated objective is to provide an organized, evidence-based reference for IIoT threats and mitigations.

Significance. If the compilation is reliable, the report would be a useful structured reference for practitioners entering IIoT security: it organizes a broad and often scattered literature, provides a protocol-level vulnerability summary, and collects known industrial cyber incidents such as Stuxnet and the Ukraine power-grid attack. The report's strength is its clear scaffolding: the taxonomy-based classification of attacks and the protocol vulnerability table (Table 1) are well aligned with the cited literature, and the countermeasure survey names concrete proposals with their limitations. However, the paper's main added value—Table 2 as a selection of 'real documented attacks'—is also its weakest load-bearing element, because several entries cite machine-learning and dataset papers rather than incident reports or vulnerability disclosures. The report is therefore best assessed as a useful draft whose factual core requires substantial verification and revision before it can serve as a dependable reference.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 2 (rows 19, 21, 23)] The heading and introductory sentence of §4.2 promise 'ataques reales que han afectado a infraestructura IIoT', but rows 19, 21, and 23 cite references that do not plausibly document real-world incidents. Row 19 (side-channel attack) cites [15], the Edge-IIoTset dataset paper; row 21 (DNS spoofing in OT networks) cites [14], a hybrid CNN-LSTM intrusion-detection paper; and row 23 (false data injection in pipelines) cites [19], an arXiv preprint on federated learning for computer vision. None of these sources reports a documented attack of the type described. These citations must be replaced with actual incident reports, vulnerability advisories, or case studies; otherwise the affected rows should be explicitly relabeled as hypothetical or illustrative attacks rather than real documented incidents.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2 (rows 7, 8, 9)] Rows 7 (jamming of signals), 8 (infected USB device), and 9 (tailgating as social engineering) contain no citation at all. Since Table 2 is introduced as a compilation of real documented attacks, every row needs a verifiable source. If these entries are meant as generic examples of the taxonomy's physical vectors rather than documented incidents, the table's header and the accompanying text should say so explicitly, and the rows should be moved to an 'illustrative examples' section or annotated accordingly.
  3. [§4.2, Table 2 (rows 16, 22, 26)] Additional citation mismatches undermine confidence in the table beyond the three clearest examples. Row 16 ('Falsificación de Certificados') cites [22], a vendor blog about establishing trust in IoT/OT environments, which is not an incident report. Row 22 ('Cryptojacking en Dispositivos Edge') cites [37], a CNN-GRU intrusion-detection paper on the Edge-IIoTset dataset, which does not document a cryptojacking incident. Row 26 ('Ataque a Sistemas de Edge Computing') cites [16], which is the same Edge-IIoTset dataset paper as [15], and does not describe the race-condition attack listed. The authors should systematically audit every row of Table 2 against its cited source, replace mismatched references, and remove duplicate or irrelevant citations.
  4. [§4.2, Table 2 (general)] The table mixes well-documented real incidents (e.g., Stuxnet, row 1) with generic attack scenarios that may not correspond to any public incident (e.g., battery drain, row 24; edge-computing race condition, row 26). The sentence after the table claims that 'cada uno de estos ataques ilustra' the taxonomy, but the preceding promise is stronger: 'ataques reales que han afectado a infraestructura IIoT'. The manuscript should state the inclusion criteria for Table 2, distinguish between documented incidents and illustrative taxonomy exercises, and make the evidence level of each row transparent. Without this clarification, the table's reliability as a reference work remains questionable even after individual citation fixes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2 (heading)] The heading contains a typo: 'anteriror' should be 'anterior'.
  2. [References, item [31]] Reference [31] is incomplete: it lists a journal name as 'Review (2025)' and a URL that appears truncated; it needs the full venue, volume, article number, and a working DOI.
  3. [References, items [15] and [16]] References [15] and [16] are the same paper (Edge-IIoTset) with identical bibliographic data; the duplicate should be removed and the in-text citations reassigned.
  4. [§5.2] In the paragraph on machine learning, 'Otro estudio en [28]' follows a sentence that already cites [28]; the reference cannot distinguish between the particle-swarm framework and the autoencoder/PCA study. The authors should split these into separate citations or clarify which work is meant.
  5. [§2.3] Several protocol names contain stray artifacts such as 'IIoT!s', 'PLC!s', and 'TCP!/IP!'; these should be cleaned to standard notation.
  6. [Figure 8] Figure 8 is labeled 'Tabla de comparación de datasets de intrusiones en IIoT' but appears as a figure; if it is a reproduction of a table from [34], it should be formatted as a table or the caption should match its presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the report imports an external taxonomy and compiles incidents; citation misattributions are support-quality concerns, not circular derivation.

full rationale

The report is a survey, not a derivation chain. Section 3 explicitly adopts an external taxonomy: 'utilizaremos como punto de partida la taxonomía propuesta en Security Issues in IIoT: A Comprehensive Survey of Attacks on IIoT and Its Countermeasures [34]'. That taxonomy is an independent external benchmark; the report does not define its categories in terms of its own outputs, nor does it fit any parameter to data and then 'predict' the same data. Table 2 (Section 4.2) classifies a 'selección de casos reales de ataques documentados' under the Section 3 taxonomy, but this is a post-hoc labeling exercise, not a derivation: no row of the table is generated by the taxonomy, no equation or fitted value is involved, and no numerical prediction is made. The skeptical concern that several rows cite ML/dataset papers rather than incident reports is a legitimate evidence-quality issue, not circularity: for example, entry 19 cites the Edge-IIoTset dataset paper [15] for a side-channel attack, entry 21 cites a hybrid CNN-LSTM intrusion-detection paper [14] for DNS spoofing, and entry 23 cites a federated-learning-for-computer-vision preprint [19] for false data injection. Those references are external sources and are not themselves outputs of this report, so they cannot make the report circular; they affect accuracy and support strength. No self-citation chain is load-bearing: the authors do not cite their own prior work to justify the taxonomy, the attack compilation, or the countermeasure list. The countermeasure sections are framed as a bibliography of recent external approaches rather than as validated predictions. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The report introduces no new quantities, entities, or free parameters. Its claims rest on the completeness and accuracy of the cited literature and on the validity of the imported taxonomy; the most fragile of these is the mapping between each attack entry and its supporting reference.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The taxonomy of Panchal et al. [34] (vector, target, impact, consequence) is a valid organizing framework for IIoT attacks.
    Adopted at the start of Section 3 and used to structure both the vulnerability and attack tables without independent validation.
  • domain assumption The references cited in Tables 1 and 2 accurately support the stated vulnerabilities and attacks.
    Invoked throughout Section 3.5 and Section 4.2; contradicted by multiple entries where the cited source is about a different topic.
  • domain assumption The described IIoT devices, protocols, and architectures are representative of real industrial environments.
    Assumed in Sections 1 and 2 based on the IIRA reference model and selected surveys, with no empirical measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reporte de vulnerabilidades en IIoT. Proyecto DEFENDER." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZZDECHF

@misc{pith2026250710819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reporte de vulnerabilidades en IIoT. Proyecto DEFENDER},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZZDECHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10819}
}
read the original abstract

The main objective of this technical report is to conduct a comprehensive study on devices operating within Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) environments, describing the scenarios that define this category and analysing the vulnerabilities that compromise their security. To this end, the report seeks to identify and examine the main classes of IIoT devices, detailing their characteristics, functionalities, and roles within industrial systems. This analysis enables a better understanding of how these devices interact and fulfil the requirements of critical industrial environments. The report also explores the specific contexts in which these devices operate, highlighting the distinctive features of industrial scenarios and the conditions under which the devices function. Furthermore, it analyses the vulnerabilities affecting IIoT devices, outlining their vectors, targets, impact, and consequences. The report then describes the typical phases of an attack, along with a selection of real-world documented incidents. These cases are classified according to the taxonomy presented in Section 3, providing a comprehensive view of the potential threats to security and assessing the impact these vulnerabilities may have on industrial environments. Finally, the report presents a compilation of some of the most recent and effective security countermeasures as potential solutions to the security challenges faced by industrial systems. Special emphasis is placed on the role of Machine Learning in the development of these approaches, underscoring its importance in enhancing industrial cybersecurity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10819 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proyecci´on del crecimiento del mercado de IoT hasta 2030. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Entorno IIoT. Imagen adaptada de [18]. Adem´as, estos entornos dependen de protocolos de comunicaci´on industriales para asegurar la transmisi´on eficiente y segura de datos entre dispositivos y plataformas. La integraci´on de m´etricas relevantes, como la latencia de la red, la disponibilidad del sistema y la seguridad de los datos, es esencial para medir el rendimiento y garantizar la sostenibilidad de las operaci… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Izquierda: Sensor industrial. Derecha: C´amara de visi´on infrarroja. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Izquierda: Controlador L´ogico Programable (PLC). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gateway Industrial. 2.1.4 Sistemas de Automatizaci´on Actuadores: Convierte se˜nales electr´onicas en acciones f´ısicas, como abrir v´alvulas, mover piezas o accionar motores. Los actuadores pueden ser hidr´aulicos, neum´aticos o el´ectricos, dependiendo de las necesid…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Izquierda: Actuador hidr´aulico industrial. Derecha: Brazo rob´otico multiarticulado. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Taxonomia ataques en IIoT. Imagen adaptada de [34]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tabla de comparaci´on de datasets de intrusiones en IIoT [34]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Edge-IIoTset: A new comprehensive realistic cyber security dataset of IoT and IIoT applications for centralized and federated learning

    M. A. Ferrag et al. “Edge-IIoTset: A new comprehensive realistic cyber security dataset of IoT and IIoT applications for centralized and federated learning”. In: IEEE Access 10 (2022), pp. 40281–40306. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022. 3179871

    doi:10.1109/access.2022 2022

  2. [34]

    Security Issues in IIoT: A Comprehensive Survey of Attacks on IIoT and Its Countermeasures

    Abhijeet C. Panchal, Vijay M. Khadse, and Parikshit N. Mahalle. “Security Issues in IIoT: A Comprehensive Survey of Attacks on IIoT and Its Countermeasures”. In: 2018 IEEE Global Conference on Wireless Computing and Networking (GCWCN). IEEE. Pune, India, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [14]

    A hybrid CNN-LSTM model for IIoT edge privacy-aware intrusion detection

    E. M. de Elias et al. “A hybrid CNN-LSTM model for IIoT edge privacy-aware intrusion detection”. In: 2022 IEEE Latin-American Conference on Communications (LATINCOM) . IEEE, 2022. doi: 10.1109/LATINCOM55665.2022. 9964214

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [19]

    Federated learning for computer vision

    Y. Himeur et al. “Federated learning for computer vision”. In: arXiv preprint (2023). doi: 2308.13558

    arXiv 2023

  5. [22]

    Establecimiento de la confianza en entornos IoT, IIoT y OT

    Keyfactor. Establecimiento de la confianza en entornos IoT, IIoT y OT . 2024. url: https://www.keyfactor.com/ es/blog/establishing-trust-in-iot-iiot-and-ot-environments/

    work page 2024

  6. [37]

    Secure IIoT networks with hybrid CNN-GRU model using edge-IIoTset

    R. Saadouni et al. “Secure IIoT networks with hybrid CNN-GRU model using edge-IIoTset”. In: 2023 15th Inter- national Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) . IEEE, 2023. doi: 10.1109/IIT57066.2023. 10229924

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [1]

    DeepIFS: Intrusion detection approach for industrial internet of things traffic in fog environ- ment

    M. Abdel-Basset et al. “DeepIFS: Intrusion detection approach for industrial internet of things traffic in fog environ- ment”. In: IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17.11 (2020), pp. 7704–7715

    work page 2020

  8. [2]

    ¿Qu´ e es el secuestro de sesi´ on? [2025]

    KeepCoding Bootcamps. ¿Qu´ e es el secuestro de sesi´ on? [2025]. 2021. url: https://keepcoding.io/blog/que- es-el-secuestro-de-sesion/

    work page 2025

Show all 48 references
  1. [3]

    The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT): An analysis framework

    H. Boyes et al. “The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT): An analysis framework”. In: Computers in Industry 101 (2018). Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.015, pp. 1–12

    2018 doi

  2. [4]

    Evaluation of CAN bus security challenges

    M. Bozdal et al. “Evaluation of CAN bus security challenges”. In: Sensors 20.8 (2020). Disponible en: https : //doi.org/10.3390/s20082364, p. 2364

    2020 doi

  3. [5]

    DDoS attacks in Industrial IoT: A survey

    S. Chaudhary and P. K. Mishra. “DDoS attacks in Industrial IoT: A survey”. In: Computer Networks 236 (2023), p. 110015. doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2023.110015

    2023

  4. [6]

    Industrial Internet Consortium

    Industrial Internet Consortium. Industrial Internet Consortium . Disponible en: https://www.iiconsortium.org/ . 2023

    2023

  5. [7]

    The Industrial Internet Reference Architecture (IIRA)

    Industrial Internet Consortium. The Industrial Internet Reference Architecture (IIRA). Disponible en: https://www. iiconsortium.org/IIRA.htm. 2023

    2023

  6. [8]

    Cyber Kill Chain ®

    Lockheed Martin Corporation. Cyber Kill Chain ®. Disponible en: https : / / www . lockheedmartin . com / en - us / capabilities/cyber/cyber-kill-chain.html. 2025

    2025

  7. [9]

    MITRE ATT&CK® Framework

    MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK® Framework. Disponible en: https://attack.mitre.org/. 2025

    2025

  8. [10]

    An´ alisis a la utilizaci´ on de protocolos de inter- conexi´ on para internet de las cosas: Una revisi´ on sistem´ atica

    Manuel Andr´ es Ram ´ ırez Delgado and Flor Nancy D ´ ıaz-Piraquive. “An´ alisis a la utilizaci´ on de protocolos de inter- conexi´ on para internet de las cosas: Una revisi´ on sistem´ atica”. In:Universidad Cat´ olica de Colombia(2020). Disponible en: https://www.ucatolica.edu.co/

    2020

  9. [11]

    Stuxnet: What Has Changed?

    D. D. Denning. “Stuxnet: What Has Changed?” In: Future Internet (2012). doi: 10.3390/fi4040681

    2012 doi

  10. [12]

    A survey on the application of WirelessHART for industrial process monitoring and control

    P.A.M. Devan et al. “A survey on the application of WirelessHART for industrial process monitoring and control”. In: Sensors 21.15 (2021). Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21154951, p. 4951

    2021 doi

  11. [13]

    Robustness evaluations of sustainable machine learning models against data poisoning attacks in the internet of things

    D. Dunn, N. Moustafa, and B. Turnbull. “Robustness evaluations of sustainable machine learning models against data poisoning attacks in the internet of things”. In: Sustainability 12.16 (2020), p. 6434. doi: 10.3390/su12166434

    2020 doi

  12. [17]

    Increasing the trustworthiness in the industrial IoT networks through a reliable cyberattack detection model

    M. M. Hassan et al. “Increasing the trustworthiness in the industrial IoT networks through a reliable cyberattack detection model”. In: IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 16.9 (2020), pp. 6154–6162

    2020

  13. [18]

    X-IIoTID: A Connectivity- and Device-agnostic Intrusion Dataset for Industrial Internet of Things

    Muna Al-Hawawreh, Elena Sitnikova, and Neda Aboutorab. “X-IIoTID: A Connectivity- and Device-agnostic Intrusion Dataset for Industrial Internet of Things”. In: IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    Security challenges in SCADA systems over wireless sensor and actuator networks

    F. Janu´ ario et al. “Security challenges in SCADA systems over wireless sensor and actuator networks”. In: 2016 8th International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 363–368

    2016

  15. [21]

    An intrusion detection system for edge-envisioned smart agriculture in extreme environment

    D. Javeed et al. “An intrusion detection system for edge-envisioned smart agriculture in extreme environment”. In: IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2023). doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2023.3279314

    2023

  16. [23]

    A Comprehensive Review of Cyber Security Vulnerabilities, Threats, Attacks, and Solutions

    A. A. Al-Khalifa and M. A. Al-Khalifa. “A Comprehensive Review of Cyber Security Vulnerabilities, Threats, Attacks, and Solutions”. In: Electronics (2023). doi: 10.3390/electronics12061333

    2023 doi

  17. [24]

    Trojan Horses: A Review

    A. A. Al-Khalifa and M. A. Al-Khalifa. “Trojan Horses: A Review”. In: 2nd International Workshop on Materials Engineering and Computer Sciences (IWMECS 2015) . Atlantis Press, 2015. doi: 10.2991/iwmecs-15.2015.33

    2015 doi

  18. [25]

    Artificial Intelligence-Based Malware Detection, Analysis, and Mitigation

    A. S. Al-Khalifa and A. A. Al-Khalifa. “Artificial Intelligence-Based Malware Detection, Analysis, and Mitigation”. In: Mathematics (2022). doi: 10.3390/math10151461

    2022 doi

  19. [26]

    IoT, IIoT, and cyber-physical systems integration

    H. Khujamatov et al. “IoT, IIoT, and cyber-physical systems integration”. In: Advances in Green Synthesis . 2021, pp. 31–50. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-66222-6_3

    2021 doi

  20. [27]

    Situation aware intrusion detection system design for industrial IoT gateways

    J. Kirupakar and S. M. Shalinie. “Situation aware intrusion detection system design for industrial IoT gateways”. In: 2019 International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Data Science (ICCIDS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  21. [28]

    A new network forensic framework based on deep learning for internet of things networks: A particle deep framework

    N. Koroniotis, N. Moustafa, and E. Sitnikova. “A new network forensic framework based on deep learning for internet of things networks: A particle deep framework”. In: Future Generation Computer Systems 110 (2020), pp. 91–106

    2020

  22. [29]

    SECBlockEdge: Security threats in blockchain-edge based industrial IoT networks

    T. Kumar et al. “SECBlockEdge: Security threats in blockchain-edge based industrial IoT networks”. In: 2019 11th International Workshop on Resilient Networks Design and Modeling (RNDM) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–7

    2019

  23. [30]

    Soluciones de defensa cibern´ etica de Mandiant

    Mandiant. Soluciones de defensa cibern´ etica de Mandiant. Disponible en: https://cloud.google.com/security/ mandiant?hl=es-419. 2025

    2025

  24. [31]

    Cybersecurity for Industrial IoT (IIoT): Threats, countermeasures, challenges and fu- ture directions

    Sri Harsha Mekala et al. “Cybersecurity for Industrial IoT (IIoT): Threats, countermeasures, challenges and fu- ture directions”. In: Review (2025). Disponible en: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0140366423002189]

    2025

  25. [32]

    Security of IoT application layer protocols: Challenges and findings

    G. Nebbione and M.C. Calzarossa. “Security of IoT application layer protocols: Challenges and findings”. In: Future Internet 12.3 (2020). Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12030055, p. 55

    2020 doi

  26. [33]

    Deep packet inspection in industrial automation control system to mitigate attacks exploiting modbus/TCP vulnerabilities

    O. N. Nyasore et al. “Deep packet inspection in industrial automation control system to mitigate attacks exploiting modbus/TCP vulnerabilities”. In: 2020 IEEE 6th Intl Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud (BigDataSecurity), IEEE Intl Conference on High Performance and Smar...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Edge computing in industrial internet of things: Architecture, advances and challenges

    T. Qiu et al. “Edge computing in industrial internet of things: Architecture, advances and challenges”. In: IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 22.4 (2020). Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2020.3009103, pp. 2462–2488

    2020

  28. [36]

    Launch of denial of service attacks on the MODBUS/TCP protocol and development of its protection mechanisms

    A. Rahman et al. “Launch of denial of service attacks on the MODBUS/TCP protocol and development of its protection mechanisms”. In: International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 39 (2022). Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2022.100568, p. 100568

    2022

  29. [38]

    Cybersecurity for Industrial IoT, Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Solutions: A Brief Review

    A. S´ anchez-Zumba and D. Avila-Pesantez. “Cybersecurity for Industrial IoT, Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Solutions: A Brief Review”. In: Proceedings of Eighth International Congress on Information and Communication Technology (ICICT 2023) . Springer, Singapore, 2023. doi: 10...

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    Challenges and opportunities in securing the industrial internet of things

    M. Serror et al. “Challenges and opportunities in securing the industrial internet of things”. In: IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17.5 (2020), pp. 2985–2996

    2020

  31. [40]

    Shoulder Surfing: Mucho cuidado, podr ´ ıas caer en este ataque cibern´ etico

    La Sexta. Shoulder Surfing: Mucho cuidado, podr ´ ıas caer en este ataque cibern´ etico. 2022. url: https : / / www . lasexta.com/tecnologia-tecnoxplora/internet/shoulder-surfing-mucho-cuidado-podrias-caer-ataque- cibernetico_202202236216372fcfdb0c0001f267f4.html

    2022

  32. [41]

    Stouffer, J

    K. Stouffer, J. Falco, and K. Scarfone et al. Guide to industrial control systems (ICS) security . Tech. rep. 82. NIST Special Publication, 2011, p. 16

    2011

  33. [42]

    Fieldbus technology in industrial automation

    J.-P. Thomesse. “Fieldbus technology in industrial automation”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 93.6 (2005). Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2005.849724, pp. 1073–1101

    2005

  34. [43]

    MAGRU-IDS: A multi-head attention-based gated recurrent unit for intrusion detection in IIoT networks

    S. Ullah et al. “MAGRU-IDS: A multi-head attention-based gated recurrent unit for intrusion detection in IIoT networks”. In: IEEE Access (2023). doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3277812

    2023

  35. [44]

    A survey on industrial internet of things: A cyber-physical systems perspective

    H. Xu et al. “A survey on industrial internet of things: A cyber-physical systems perspective”. In: IEEE Access 6 (2018), pp. 78238–78259

    2018

  36. [45]

    Architecture and security of SCADA systems: A review

    G. Yadav and K. Paul. “Architecture and security of SCADA systems: A review”. In: International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 34 (2021), p. 100433. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcip.2021.100433

    2021

  37. [46]

    Hybrid intrusion detection system for edge-based IIoT relying on machine-learning-aided detection

    H. Yao et al. “Hybrid intrusion detection system for edge-based IIoT relying on machine-learning-aided detection”. In: IEEE Network 33.5 (2019), pp. 75–81

    2019

  38. [47]

    Sensor Attack Detection Based on Active Excitation Response with Uncertain Delays

    Y. Zhang et al. “Sensor Attack Detection Based on Active Excitation Response with Uncertain Delays”. In: Journal of Systems Architecture (2024). doi: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2024.05.004

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    Cybersecurity Solutions for Industrial Internet of Things–Edge Computing Integration: Chal- lenges, Threats, and Future Directions

    T. Zhukabayeva et al. “Cybersecurity Solutions for Industrial Internet of Things–Edge Computing Integration: Chal- lenges, Threats, and Future Directions”. In: Sensors (2024). doi: 10.3390/s25010213

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    Machine learning-based network vulnerability analysis of industrial internet of things

    M. Zolanvari et al. “Machine learning-based network vulnerability analysis of industrial internet of things”. In: IEEE Internet of Things Journal 6.4 (2019), pp. 6822–6834. doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2912022

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.