pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21188 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 💻 cs.CR

Physically Unclonable Functions for Secure IoT Authentication and Hardware-Anchored AI Model Integrity

Maryam Taghi Zadeh , Mohsen Ahmadi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 22:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR
keywords Physical Unclonable FunctionsIoT securityhardware trust anchorsAI model integrityedge computing securitydevice authenticationadversarial environmentsTrusted Platform Module
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hardware-rooted trust anchors outperform software-only methods for securing AI-enabled IoT against physical attacks.

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

This survey examines literature on trust mechanisms for AI-integrated IoT and edge systems. It compares TPM-based attestation, silicon and FPGA physical unclonable functions, hybrid hardware roots, and software-only approaches. The synthesis finds that hardware solutions resist physical tampering and device cloning more effectively in exposed, adversarial settings. Hybrid designs extend these benefits to runtime and container environments common in modern deployments. The comparison of security, scalability, cost, and complexity shows PUF-based and hybrid options strike a practical balance for large-scale trustworthy AI-IoT platforms.

Core claim

By systematically reviewing representative mechanisms including TPM-based measurement and attestation, silicon and FPGA-based PUFs, hybrid container-aware hardware roots of trust, and software-only security approaches, the analysis establishes that hardware-rooted solutions generally provide stronger protection against physical tampering and device cloning compared to software-only approaches, particularly in adversarial and physically exposed environments, while hybrid designs extend hardware trust into runtime and containerized edge deployments, and PUF-based plus hybrid anchors offer a promising balance of security strength, scalability, cost, and deployment complexity for large-scale AI-

What carries the argument

The systematic trade-off evaluation of security strength, scalability, cost, and deployment complexity across hardware-rooted and software-only trust anchors.

If this is right

  • PUF-based anchors achieve a workable balance of security and scalability for large IoT networks.
  • Hybrid hardware roots extend trust protection into containerized runtime environments used in edge AI.
  • Software-only mechanisms leave AI model integrity and device authenticity vulnerable to physical attacks.
  • Design of future trustworthy AI-IoT platforms should prioritize hardware-rooted anchors over purely software solutions.
  • The review identifies concrete challenges in cost and complexity that must be addressed for widespread adoption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Integrating PUFs could lower the risk of AI model tampering in distributed IoT fleets where physical access is possible.
  • Standardized hybrid trust solutions might support secure over-the-air AI model updates without weakening hardware roots.
  • One testable extension is measuring attack success rates in adversarial field trials comparing PUF hardware to software baselines.
  • Hardware anchors may enable more reliable federated learning across edge devices by anchoring both identity and model state.

Load-bearing premise

That the examined literature and representative mechanisms provide a comprehensive basis for concluding hardware-rooted solutions outperform software-only ones in real adversarial environments without new empirical validation.

What would settle it

A side-by-side empirical test in a physically exposed IoT testbed where a software-only security system resists device cloning and model tampering attacks at rates comparable to or better than PUF-based hardware anchors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21188 by Maryam Taghi Zadeh, Mohsen Ahmadi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Your caption here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Typical microcontroller architecture used in edge IoT devices; hard￾ware root-of-trust components such as secure boot, PUF, or TPM are not ex￾plicitly shown. Recent research has extended HRoT concepts into containerized and virtual￾ized environments, where traditional hardware trust anchors are not directly accessible to lightweight workloads. By combining TPM PCR measurements with container-specific runti… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hardware-based attack vectors across the integrated circuit manu￾facturing and deployment lifecycle Compared with software-based approaches, hardware-level detection mecha￾nisms offer lower overhead and faster response times, often operating within a few clock cycles. These characteristics enable rapid identification of malicious code patterns and support the deployment of secure computing systems at the e… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into Internet of Things (IoT) and edge computing systems has intensified the need for robust, hardware-rooted trust mechanisms capable of ensuring device authenticity and AI model integrity under strict resource and security constraints. This survey reviews and synthesizes existing literature on hardware-rooted trust mechanisms for AI-enabled IoT systems. It systematically examines and compares representative trust anchor mechanisms, including Trusted Platform Module (TPM)-based measurement and attestation, silicon and FPGA-based Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs), hybrid container-aware hardware roots of trust, and software-only security approaches. The analysis highlights how hardware-rooted solutions generally provide stronger protection against physical tampering and device cloning compared to software-only approaches, particularly in adversarial and physically exposed environments, while hybrid designs extend hardware trust into runtime and containerized environments commonly used in modern edge deployments. By evaluating trade-offs among security strength, scalability, cost, and deployment complexity, the study shows that PUF-based and hybrid trust anchors offer a promising balance for large-scale, AI-enabled IoT systems, whereas software-only trust mechanisms remain insufficient in adversarial and physically exposed settings. The presented comparison aims to clarify current design challenges and guide future development of trustworthy AI-enabled IoT platforms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a literature survey reviewing hardware-rooted trust mechanisms for AI-enabled IoT systems. It examines and compares TPM-based attestation, silicon/FPGA PUFs, hybrid container-aware roots of trust, and software-only approaches, highlighting trade-offs in security against physical tampering/cloning, scalability, cost, and deployment complexity. The central claim is that PUF-based and hybrid anchors provide a promising balance for large-scale deployments, while software-only mechanisms are insufficient in adversarial and physically exposed settings.

Significance. If the synthesis is representative and accurate, the work could usefully guide design choices for trustworthy AI-IoT platforms by clarifying current challenges. The topic is timely. However, because the paper performs no new experiments, measurements, or formal analysis, its significance rests entirely on the quality and balance of the qualitative literature synthesis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim to 'systematically examines and compares representative trust anchor mechanisms' is not accompanied by any description of literature search strategy, databases used, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or handling of contradictory results. This is load-bearing for the central claim that hardware-rooted solutions demonstrably outperform software-only ones, as the trade-off comparisons depend on unbiased coverage of the examined papers.
  2. [Conclusion] Conclusion (final paragraph): The assertion that 'software-only trust mechanisms remain insufficient in adversarial and physically exposed settings' is supported only by qualitative synthesis without citing specific counterexamples, attack studies, or quantitative failure rates from the reviewed literature. This weakens the recommendation for hardware solutions and leaves the comparison open to selection bias.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Throughout] Ensure all acronyms (PUF, TPM, IoT, AI) are defined at first use and used consistently.
  2. [Results/Discussion] If comparison tables or figures exist, add explicit references to them in the text when discussing specific trade-offs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our literature survey. The comments identify important areas for improving methodological transparency and the evidential grounding of our conclusions. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the manuscript without altering its core scope as a qualitative synthesis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim to 'systematically examines and compares representative trust anchor mechanisms' is not accompanied by any description of literature search strategy, databases used, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or handling of contradictory results. This is load-bearing for the central claim that hardware-rooted solutions demonstrably outperform software-only ones, as the trade-off comparisons depend on unbiased coverage of the examined papers.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should explicitly reference the review methodology to support claims of systematic examination. We will revise the abstract to include a concise statement describing the literature search strategy, primary databases (IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Google Scholar), time frame, inclusion/exclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed works addressing hardware trust for IoT/AI, and our process for addressing contradictory findings via cross-validation. This change will make the basis for the comparisons transparent and reduce any perception of selection bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Conclusion] Conclusion (final paragraph): The assertion that 'software-only trust mechanisms remain insufficient in adversarial and physically exposed settings' is supported only by qualitative synthesis without citing specific counterexamples, attack studies, or quantitative failure rates from the reviewed literature. This weakens the recommendation for hardware solutions and leaves the comparison open to selection bias.

    Authors: We accept that the concluding paragraph would be strengthened by direct references to supporting evidence. We will expand the final paragraph to explicitly cite key attack studies and counterexamples drawn from the reviewed literature, such as documented physical extraction attacks on software-based roots of trust and cloning vulnerabilities, along with any available quantitative indicators (e.g., reported success rates in cited works). A brief summary table of representative attack vectors may also be added. These additions will provide more concrete grounding for the qualitative assessment while remaining within the survey's scope. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: survey synthesizes external literature without internal derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

This is a literature survey paper with no equations, models, predictions, or derivations of any kind. Its claims about the relative strengths of hardware-rooted versus software-only trust mechanisms are presented as syntheses of cited external sources rather than results generated from the paper's own inputs, fits, or self-citations. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a definition, parameter fit, or author-prior ansatz; the work contains no mathematical content that could exhibit such equivalence. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the external benchmarks it cites.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a literature survey, the central claims rest entirely on the reviewed external papers rather than new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities introduced by this work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5527 in / 1046 out tokens · 52977 ms · 2026-05-09T22:11:43.245486+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cheikh, I., Roy, S., Sabir, E., & Aouami, R. (2026). Energy, scalability, data and security in massive IoT: Current landscape and future directions. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Abdi, H., & Nozari, H. (2026). Energy challenges in transformative technologies-based super-smart city implementation. In Energy-Efficient Transformative Technologies for Data-Driven Smart Cities (pp. 71-90). Elsevier

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    A., & Jung, H

    Anjum, M., Khan, M. A., & Jung, H. (2026). Designing an end-to-end sustainable IoT network: a comprehensive guideline. In Design and Analysis of Green and Sustainable IoT Technologies for Future Wireless Communica- tions (pp. 17-52). Academic Press

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Banciu, C., & Florea, A. (2026). AIoT at the Frontline of Climate Change Management: Enabling Resilient, Adaptive, and Sustainable Smart Cities. Cli- mate, 14(1), 19

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    R., & Iyer, R

    Maralapalle, V., Muktinutalapati, J., Chandra, B., Narala, G. R., & Iyer, R. (2026). Analyzing the Role of Geospatial Technologies and Al in Urban Infras- tructure Planning and the Development of Smart Cities, Including Transporta- tion Systems, Utilities, and Public Services. In Advanced Geospatial Intelligence and AI for Environmental Resilience and Sus...

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    S., & Mondal, S

    Goswami, S. S., & Mondal, S. (2024). The role of 5G in enhancing IOT con- nectivity: A systematic review on applications, challenges, and future prospects. Big data and computing visions, 4(4), 314-325

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    S., & Moantri, S

    Patil, R. S., & Moantri, S. (2026). Challenges and Opportunities in Re- alâ€￿Time Data Processing: Advancements and Limitations in Realâ€￿Time Data Analytics. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Neurology , 2, 647-683

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Dao, T., Nguyen, M., Do, S., & Tran, H. (2026). Cyberscurity Threats and Defense Mechanisms in IoT network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00556

    work page arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    F., & Sharma, A

    Wen, S. F., & Sharma, A. (2026). Structuring Trust: A Quantitative and Traceable Framework for Hardware Security Assurance

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    (2026, May)

    De Meulemeester, J., Oswald, D., Verbauwhede, I., & Van Bulck, J. (2026, May). Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Comput- ing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing. In 47th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P)

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Tashdid, I., Farheen, T., & Rahman, S. (2026). InterPUF: Distributed Au- thentication via Physically Unclonable Functions and Multi-party Computation for Reconfigurable Interposers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11368

    work page arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Colombier, B., & Bossuet, L. (2014). Survey of hardware protection of design data for integrated circuits and intellectual properties. IET Computers 34 & Digital Techniques, 8(6), 274-287

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    N., & Ma, Z

    Jørgensen, B. N., & Ma, Z. G. (2026). Cybersecurity and Resilience of Smart Grids: A Review of Threat Landscape, Incidents, and Emerging Solu- tions. Applied Sciences, 16(2), 981

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Leo, M., Tan, F., Miao, T., & Anand, G. (2026). From threat to trust: assessing security risks of agentic AI systems: M. Leo et al. International Journal of Information Security , 25(1), 23

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    Internet of Things

    Shafiq, M., Gu, Z., Cheikhrouhou, O., Alhakami, W., & Hamam, H. (2022). The Rise of “Internet of Things”: Review and Open Research Issues Related to Detection and Prevention of IoTâ€￿Based Security Attacks. Wireless Commu- nications and Mobile Computing, 2022(1), 8669348

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    R., Basha, M

    Komala, C. R., Basha, M. M., Farook, S., Niranchana, R., Rajendiran, M., & Subhi, B. (2024). Smart Energy Systems-Integrated Machine Learning, IoT, and AI Tools. In Reshaping Environmental Science Through Machine Learning and IoT (pp. 201-229). IGI Global Scientific Publishing

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    P., Tochukwu, M

    Agupugo, C. P., Tochukwu, M. F. C., Ogunmoye, K. A., Mosha, A. S., & Sabbih, F. (2025). Review of Smart Microgrid Platform Integrating AI and Deep Reinforcement Learning for Sustainable Energy Management

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    (2025, June)

    Tashdid, I., Farheen, T., & Rahman, S. (2025, June). Safe-sip: Secure authentication framework for system-in-package using multi-party computation. In Proceedings of the Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI 2025 (pp. 391-396)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    R., Brighente, A., & Conti, M

    Najafi, F., Kaveh, M., Mosavi, M. R., Brighente, A., & Conti, M. (2024). EPUF: An Entropy-Derived Latency-Based DRAM Physical Unclonable Func- tion for Lightweight Authentication in Internet of Things. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Mishra, J., & Sahay, S. K. (2025). Modern hardware security: A review of attacks and countermeasures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04394

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Chatterjee, D., Maitra, S., Mishra, N., Shukla, S., & Mukhopadhyay, D. (2025). Hardware security in the connected world. Wiley Interdisciplinary Re- views: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 15(3), e70034

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    (2020, July)

    Robyns, P., Di Martino, M., Giese, D., Lamotte, W., Quax, P., & Noubir, G. (2020, July). Practical operation extraction from electromagnetic leakage for side-channel analysis and reverse engineering. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks (pp. 161-172)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Shwartz, O., Mathov, Y., Bohadana, M., Elovici, Y., & Oren, Y. (2018). Re- verse engineering IoT devices: Effective techniques and methods. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 5(6), 4965-4976

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Boubakri, M., & Zouari, B. (2025). A Survey of RISC-V Secure Enclaves and Trusted Execution Environments. Electronics, 14(21), 4171. 35

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    S., Sood, S., Pandey, A

    Rohini, C., Negi, B. S., Sood, S., Pandey, A. K., Sahu, P. K., & Na- gappan, B. Context-Aware Energy Management Systems for Optimizing Power Consumption in Smart Ubiquitous Environments

    work page

  26. [26]

    Emehin, O., Akanbi, I., Emeteveke, I., & Adeyeye, O. J. (2024). Enhanc- ing cybersecurity with safe and reliable AI: mitigating threats while ensuring privacy protection. International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research, doi , 10

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Golda, A., Mekonen, K., Pandey, A., Singh, A., Hassija, V., Chamola, V., & Sikdar, B. (2024). Privacy and security concerns in generative AI: A comprehensive survey. Ieee Access, 12, 48126-48144

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Johnson, R. (2025). Designing secure and scalable IoT systems: Definitive reference for developers and engineers. HiTeX Press

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    J., Kook, S., Kim, K., & Won, D

    Cha, W., Lee, H. J., Kook, S., Kim, K., & Won, D. (2025). A Lightweight Authentication and Key Distribution Protocol for XR Glasses Using PUF and Cloud-Assisted ECC. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) , 26(1), 217

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Arul Selvan, M. (2025). Utilization of Secure Bootloaders in Embedded Systems for Ensuring Device Integrity and Preventing Firmware Tampering Through Cryptographic Validation Mechanisms

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Siyal, F., Guzzo, A., Alkhabbas, F., Sacca, D., & Fortino, G. (2026). Se- cure Supply Chain Provenance via PUF-Anchored NFTs and 6G Edge Net- works. IEEE Wireless Communications

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Kasimatis, D., Politis, I., Pitropakis, N., Papadopoulos, P., & Buchanan, W. J. (2025). Decentralised Device Identity: PUF‑Driven Soulbound Token Verification for IoT Supply Chain Security. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    T., & Hong, J

    Tran, S., Ngo, C. T., & Hong, J. P. (2025). A lightweight ECC-compatible end-to-end security protocol using CRP-PUF and TRNG for IoT devices. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    V., Kalyani, D., Adudhodla, M., Saraf, S., Manellore, P

    Vathsala, A. V., Kalyani, D., Adudhodla, M., Saraf, S., Manellore, P. K. R., & Reddy, J. R. (2025, September). GridTrust: A Secure and Scalable IoT Framework for Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Communication. In 2025 6th Inter- national Conference on Electronics and Sustainable Communication Systems (ICESC) (pp. 1391-1397). IEEE

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    S., & Totaro, M

    Sarkar, S., Shafaei, S., Jones, T. S., & Totaro, M. W. (2025). Secure commu- nication in drone networks: A comprehensive survey of lightweight encryption and key management techniques. Drones, 9(8), 583

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Lai, C., Ma, J., Wang, X., Zhou, H., & Zheng, D. (2025). A novel authen- tication and key agreement scheme for in-vehicle networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. 36

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    S., Tamilselvi, M., Ganapathi, R., Rao, P

    Venugopal, A., Yogi, K. S., Tamilselvi, M., Ganapathi, R., Rao, P. V. V., & Muniyandy, E. (2026). Blockchain-Based Data Integrity and Provenance Tracking System for Environmental Electrochemical Sensor Network Analyt- ics. Analytical Letters, 1-22

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    Khan, M. S. M., Biswas, L. K., Kottur, H. R., Noor, R., Varshney, N., Hastings, N., & Asadizanjani, N. (2025). Toward standardized vulnerability assessment of advanced packaging against probing attacks. IEEE Design & Test

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Zheng, Y., Boyapally, H., Liu, W., Yang, Y., & Chang, C. H. (2025). A Lightweight PUF-Based Secure Group Communication Scheme for Low Altitude Network With Dynamic Group Membership. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    F., Potestad-Ordóñez, F

    Casado-Galán, A., Sánchez-Solano, S., Tena-Sánchez, E., Rojas- Muñoz, L. F., Potestad-Ordóñez, F. E., MartÃnez-RodrÃguez, M. C., & Acosta-Jiménez, A. J. (2025). Analysis of EM Side-Channel Leakage on an RO-PUF and Proposed Countermeasures. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    L., Grabski, P

    Pawlik, L., Wilk-Jakubowski, J. L., Grabski, P. T., & Wilk-Jakubowski, G. (2025). Securing the Electrified Future: A Systematic Review of Cyber At- tacks, Intrusion and Anomaly Detection, and Authentication in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Energies, 18(18), 4847

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    (2025, October)

    Samanta, S., Ray, B., & Milenkovic, A. (2025, October). Analysis of Tem- perature Effect on SRAM PUF for Low Cost Applications. In 2025 IEEE Phys- ical Assurance and Inspection of Electronics (PAINE) (pp. 1-7). IEEE

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Yadav, A., Kumar, S., & Singh, J. (2022). A review of physical unclonable functions (PUFs) and its applications in IoT environment. Ambient Communi- cations and Computer Systems: Proceedings of RACCCS 2021, 1-13

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Al-Meer, A., & Al-Kuwari, S. (2023). Physical unclonable functions (PUF) for IoT devices. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(14s), 1-31

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Zhang, Q., Wu, J., Zhong, H., He, D., & Cui, J. (2022). Efficient anonymous authentication based on physically unclonable function in industrial internet of things. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18, 233-247

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    A., & Mahinderjit Singh, M

    Alhamarneh, R. A., & Mahinderjit Singh, M. (2024). Strengthening internet of things security: Surveying physical unclonable functions for authentication, communication protocols, challenges, and applications. Applied Sciences, 14(5), 1700

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Shan, X., Yu, H., Chen, Y., & Yang, Z. (2023). Physical unclonable function-based lightweight and verifiable data stream transmission for indus- trial iot. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(12), 11573-11583

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    & Wang, J

    Wei, Y., Ma, Y., Wang, R., Xiao, Y., Xie, Z., Dou, X., ... & Wang, J. (2026). Wearableâ€￿Compatible Allâ€￿Optical Physical Unclonable Functions 37 With Hybrid Deep Learningâ€￿Based Authentication. Laser & Photonics Re- views, e02874

    work page 2026

  49. [49]

    & Wang, A

    Chang, P., Duan, T., Li, X., Lv, Y., Hao, Z., Guo, Y., ... & Wang, A. (2026). On-chip nonlinear optical physical unclonable function based on a thin- film lithium niobate array. Optics Express, 34(2), 1408-1423

    work page 2026

  50. [50]

    Cao, R., Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Wang, Z., & Mei, N. (2026). Artificial Intelli- gence Attack-Resilient Physical Unclonable Functions from Colloidal Nanowire Randomness. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    Pan, L., Wei, Y., Wang, J., & Ma, X. (2026). Architected Nanomaterials Powering Optical Physical Unclonable Functions. Laser & Photonics Reviews, e01958

    work page 2026

  52. [52]

    (2026, January)

    Zhang, H., Pan, Y., Zuo, J., & Zhang, T. (2026, January). Physically unclonable function (PUF) structure by self-assembly. In 11th International Symposium on Advanced Optical Manufacturing and Testing Technologies (AO- MATT 2025) (Vol. 13992, pp. 513-517). SPIE

    work page 2026

  53. [53]

    & Nafria, M

    Baghban-Bousari, N., Eric, D., Palau, G., Crespo-Yepes, A., Porti, M., Ra- mon, E., ... & Nafria, M. (2026). Feasibility of Physical Unclonable Functions from Pre-stressed Organic Thin Film Transistors for Secure Microelectronics. Mi- croelectronic Engineering, 302, 112407

    work page 2026

  54. [54]

    Cheon, Y., Kim, H., Kim, J., Lee, J., & Ye, J. (2026). Random graphene adlayer morphologies grown on microfaceted Cu surfaces for physical unclonable functions. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, 44(1)

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    Singh, H. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Transforming Indus- tries with Intelligent Automation Solutions. Available at SSRN 5267868

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    J., & Andó, M

    Lajber, K., Szőlősi, J., Szekeres, B. J., & Andó, M. (2025). Sensor-based measurement system for welding torch position. IEEE Sensors Journal

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    M., Das, A., Sinha, A., Chand, N., Kar, A.,

    Nag, A., Hassan, M. M., Das, A., Sinha, A., Chand, N., Kar, A., ... & Alkhayyat, A. (2024). Exploring the applications and security threats of Internet of Thing in the cloud computing paradigm: A comprehensive study on the cloud of things. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 35(4), e4897

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    A., Ige, A

    Oladosu, S. A., Ige, A. B., Ike, C. C., Adepoju, P. A., Amoo, O. O., & Afolabi, A. I. (2022). Reimagining multi-cloud interoperability: A conceptual framework for seamless integration and security across cloud platforms. Open Access Res J Sci Technol, 4(1), 26

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    & Wuttisittikulkij, L

    Parnianifard, A., Jearavongtakul, S., Sasithong, P., Sinpan, N., Poomrit- tigul, S., Bajpai, A., ... & Wuttisittikulkij, L. (2022). Digital-twins towards cyber-physical systems: a brief survey. Engineering Journal, 26(9), 47-61

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    J., Riaz, S., & Mushtaq, A

    Kaur, M. J., Riaz, S., & Mushtaq, A. (2019). Cyber-physical cloud com- puting systems and internet of everything. In Principles of Internet of Things 38 (IoT) Ecosystem: Insight Paradigm (pp. 201-227). Cham: Springer Interna- tional Publishing

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Xu, H., Yu, W., Griffith, D., & Golmie, N. (2018). A survey on industrial Internet of Things: A cyber-physical systems perspective. Ieee access, 6, 78238- 78259

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    U., & Hamam, H

    Mazhar, T., Shahzad, T., Rehman, A. U., & Hamam, H. (2025). Integration of smart grid with industry 5.0: applications, challenges and solutions. Measure- ment: Energy, 5, 100031

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    J., & Lu, C

    Kim, S., Park, K. J., & Lu, C. (2022). A survey on network security for cyber–physical systems: From threats to resilient design. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 24(3), 1534-1573

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    F., Rodrigues, Y

    Ribas Monteiro, L. F., Rodrigues, Y. R., & Zambroni de Souza, A. C. (2023). Cybersecurity in cyber–physical power systems. Energies, 16(12), 4556

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Antonioli, D., & Tippenhauer, N. O. (2015, October). MiniCPS: A toolkit for security research on CPS networks. In Proceedings of the First ACM work- shop on cyber-physical systems-security and/or privacy (pp. 91-100)

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Adam, M., Hammoudeh, M., Alrawashdeh, R., & Alsulaimy, B. (2024). A survey on security, privacy, trust, and architectural challenges in IoT sys- tems. IEEE Access, 12, 57128-57149

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    J., Muñoz, A., RodrÃguez-Gómez, F., & Jerez-Calero, A

    Jaime, F. J., Muñoz, A., RodrÃguez-Gómez, F., & Jerez-Calero, A. (2023). Strengthening privacy and data security in biomedical microelectrome- chanical systems by IoT communication security and protection in smart health- care. Sensors, 23(21), 8944

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Knapp, E. D. (2024). Industrial Network Security: Securing critical infras- tructure networks for smart grid, SCADA, and other Industrial Control Systems. Elsevier

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Wang, Z., Xie, W., Wang, B., Tao, J., & Wang, E. (2021). A survey on recent advanced research of CPS security. Applied Sciences, 11(9), 3751

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    Dhavlle, A., Hassan, R., Mittapalli, M., & Dinakarrao, S. M. P. (2021, May). Design of hardware trojans and its impact on cps systems: A comprehen- sive survey. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) (pp. 1-5). IEEE

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Alsabbagh, W., & Langendörfer, P. (2023). Security of programmable logic controllers and related systems: Today and Tomorrow. IEEE Open Journal of the Industrial Electronics Society, 4, 659-693

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2020). The (in) security of smart cities: Vulnera- bilities, risks, mitigation, and prevention. In Smart cities and innovative Urban technologies (pp. 47-65). Routledge. 39

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    (2024, October)

    Alsuwaidi, N., Alharmoodi, N., & Al Hamadi, H. (2024, October). Securing Smart Grid Infrastructures: Challenges, Defense Mechanisms, and Future Di- rections. In 2024 IEEE Future Networks World Forum (FNWF) (pp. 933-940). IEEE

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    F., Aziz, G

    Amin, M., El-Sousy, F. F., Aziz, G. A. A., Gaber, K., & Mohammed, O. A. (2021). CPS attacks mitigation approaches on power electronic systems with security challenges for smart grid applications: A review. Ieee Access, 9, 38571- 38601

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    I., Islam, S., & Razzaque, M

    Kure, H. I., Islam, S., & Razzaque, M. A. (2018). An integrated cyber security risk management approach for a cyber-physical system. Applied Sci- ences, 8(6), 898

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    (2005, Septem- ber)

    Coburn, J., Ravi, S., Raghunathan, A., & Chakradhar, S. (2005, Septem- ber). Seca: security-enhanced communication architecture. In Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on Compilers, architectures and synthesis for embedded systems (pp. 78-89)

    work page 2005

  77. [77]

    P., & Sklavos, N

    Fournaris, A. P., & Sklavos, N. (2014). Secure embedded system hardware design–A flexible security and trust enhanced approach. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 40(1), 121-133

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    Maene, P., Götzfried, J., De Clercq, R., Müller, T., Freiling, F., & Verbauwhede, I. (2017). Hardware-based trusted computing architectures for isolation and attestation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 67(3), 361-374

    work page 2017

  79. [79]

    Rahman, M. H. (2024). A Comprehensive Survey on Hardware- Software co-Protection against Invasive, Non-Invasive and Interactive Security Threats. Cryptology ePrint Archive

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Khan, M. S. M. (2025). Physical Attack Resilience and Authentication Strategies for Multi-Chiplet Integrated Circuits (IC) With Advanced Packag- ing (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.