ANALYSIS OF FRAMEWORKS AND TECHNICAL SECURITY MEASURES FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE INTERNET OF ROBOTIC THINGS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35546/kntu2078-4481.2025.4.3.17Keywords:
IoRT, ISMS, risk management, threats, vulnerabilities, information assets, blockchain, decentralized systems, intelligent devices, IoT ecosystem, critical infrastructure, digital securityAbstract
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the architectural, organizational, and technological foundations for the formation of an information security management system (ISMS) for the Internet of Things (IoRT) infrastructure, which combines the capabilities of IoT and robotics and is characterized by a high level of autonomy, scalability, and criticality of functions. The classification of IoRT application areas by user entities and industry areas is considered. Based on the requirements of the strategic and operational levels of management, the key components of the ISMS for IoRT are outlined. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of administrative, physical, and technical security measures, covering device identification and authentication management, access control, secure interaction with suppliers, hardware protection, network segmentation, cryptographic mechanisms, and a secure software lifecycle. In the context of the implementation of the European NIS2 directive, the need to integrate international ISMS standards (ISO, NIST, ISA) at all levels of the IoRT architecture is emphasized. An analysis of current trends in the deployment of ISMS was conducted, the main risk scenarios, typical threats and vulnerabilities that are characteristic of both IoT, IoRT technologies in particular and complex infrastructure using IoT, IoRT cluster, as a whole were identified. An approach is proposed to use several security management frameworks within one branched infrastructure in accordance with the identified context and results of the risk management process. Attention is paid to the possibilities and limitations of using blockchain technology to increase the level of IoRT security. The stages of blockchain integration are analyzed. At the same time, the problems of scalability, processing delays and energy consumption that limit the use of blockchain in real-time scenarios are emphasized. A hybrid approach is proposed that involves combining blockchain with decentralized databases to achieve a balance between performance and security.
References
H. Yin, D. Guo, K. Wang, Z. Jiang, Y. Lyu, and J. Xing, ‘‘Hyperconnected network: A decentralized trusted computing and networking paradigm’’ IEEE Netw., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 112–117, Jan./Feb. 2018.
Q. Lu and X. Xu, ‘‘Adaptable blockchain-based systems: A case study for product traceability’’ IEEE Softw., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 21–27, Nov./Dec. 2017.
Y. Liang, Z. Cai, J. Yu, Q. Han, and Y. Li, ‘‘Deep learning based inference of private information using embedded sensors in smart devices’’ IEEE Netw. Mag., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 8–14, Jul./Aug. 2018.
A. Halevy, P. Norvig, and F. Pereira, ‘‘The unreasonable effectiveness of data,’’ IEEE Intell. Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 8–12, Mar. 2009.
D. E. O’Leary, ‘‘Artificial intelligence and big data,’’ IEEE Intell. Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 96–99, Mar. 2013
T. Chajed, J. Gjengset, J. Van Den Hooff, M. F. Kaashoek, J. Mickens, R. Morris, and N. Zeldovich, ‘‘Amber: Decoupling user data from Web applications,’’ in Proc. 15th Workshop Hot Topics Oper. Syst. (HotOS XV), Warth-Weiningen, Switzerland, 2015, pp. 1–6.
Y.-A. de Montjoye, E. Shmueli, S. S. Wang, and A. S. Pentland, ‘‘openPDS: Protecting the privacy of metadata through SafeAnswers,’’ PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 7, 2014, Art. no. e98790
Q. Xia, E. B. Sifah, K. O. Asamoah, J. Gao, X. Du, and M. Guizani, ‘‘MeDShare: Trust-less medical data sharing among cloud service providers via blockchain,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 14757–14767, 2017.
W. Meng, E. W. Tischhauser, Q. Wang, Y. Wang, and J. Han, ‘‘When intrusion detection meets blockchain technology: A review,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 10179–10188, 2018.
J. Wang, M. Li, Y. He, H. Li, K. Xiao, and C. Wang, ‘‘A blockchain based privacy-preserving incentive mechanism in crowdsensing applications,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 17545–17556, 2018.
I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, ‘‘Generative adversarial networks,’’ 2014, arXiv:1406.2661. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661
A. Praseed and P. S. Thilagam, ‘‘DDoS attacks at the application layer: Challenges and research perspectives for safeguarding Web applications,’’ IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 661–685, 1st Quart., 2019
Stain A.J. Mollerhaug, “Harmonizing Standards for Digital Trust: Bridging IEC 62443, ISO/IEC 42001, and ISO/IEC 27001”, https://pecb.com/en/past-webinars/harmonizing-standards-for-digital-trust-bridging-iec-62443-iso-iec-42001-and-iso-iec-27001#:~:text=Webinar-,Harmonizing%20Standards%20for%20Digital%20Trust:%20Bridging%20IEC%2062443%2C%20ISO/,and%20ISO/IEC%2027001%20auditing, 2025
George Usi, CMMC 2.0 vs. ISO/IEC 27001 vs. NIST 800-171: What You Need to Know, https://pecb.com/en/past-webinars/cmmc-2-0-vs-iso-iec-27001-vs-nist-800-171-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=IEC%2027001%20vs. -,NIST%20800%2D171:%20What%20You%20Need%20to%20Know,to%20measure%20and%20implement%20compliance, 2021
