Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

The Internet of Things involves connecting various things with several communication standards and technologies. While Internet of Things opens accessible opportunities in many fields, it announces new threats in the sphere of forensics investigations. The present day procedures and forensic tools cannot fit the widely distributed infrastructure of the IoT. Forensics investigators will experience threats determining, analyzing and collecting that evidence. This paper comes with the working solution of IoT forensics and consistently evaluates the IoT forensics area to examine the threats and issues in this peculiar field of forensics. We recommend a Forensics-aware IoT (FAIoT) model for approving reliable forensics investigations in the IoT environment.

Keywords

IoT; Digital forensics; Forensics-aware; IoT forensics; Digital forensics model

1. ZA Baig, et al. Future challenges for smart cities, Cyber-security and digital forensics, Digital Investigation, volume 22, 2017, 3-13.


2. R Adams, V Hobbs, G Mann. The advanced data acquisition model (ADAM), a process model for digital forensic practice. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 8(4), 2014, 25–48.


3. A Botta, W Donato, V Perisco et al. On the Integration of Cloud Computing and Internet of Things, in International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), 2014, 23-30.


4. U Salama, Smart Forensics for the Internet of Things (IoT), Security Intelligence IBM, 3, 2017.


5. T Baker, M Mackay, A Shaheed, B Aldawsari, Security-oriente Cloud Platform for SOA-based Scada, in the proceeding of the 15th IEEE/ACM international conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGrid), 2015.


6. A Mylonas, V Meletiadis, L Mitrou, D Gritzalis, Smartphone sensor data as digital evidence. Comput. Secur. 38, 2013, 51–75.


7. J Grover, Android forensics: Automated data collection and reporting from a mobile device. Digit. Investig. 10, 2013, S12–S20.


8. JM De Fuentes, L González-Manzano, AI Gonzalez-Tablas, J Blasco, WEVAN—A mechanism for evidence creation and verification in VANETs. J. Syst. Architecture 59, 2013, 985–995.


9. C Moore, M O’Neill, E O’Sullivan, Y Doröz, B Sunar, Practical homomorphic encryption, A survey in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 6, 2014, 2792–2795.


10. W Liu, M Yu, .AASR: Authenticated Anonymous Secure Routing for MANETs in Adversarial Environments. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 63, 2014, 4585–4593.


11. A Kosba, A Miller, E Shi, Z Wen, Papamanthou, C Hawk, The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Jose, CA, USA, 5, 2016, 839–858.


12. NP Karvelas, A Kiayias.  Efficient Proofs of Secure Erasure, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Security and Cryptography for Networks (SCN 2014), Amalfi, Italy, 9, 2014, 520–537.


13. S Peng, S Yu, A Yang. Smartphone malware and its propagation modeling: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 16, 2014, 925–941.