Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28850104›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2017

A Practical Evaluation of a High-Security Energy-Efficient Gateway for IoT Fog Computing Applications.

Manuel Suárez-Albela, Tiago M Fernández-Caramés, Paula Fraga-Lamas, Luis Castedo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Manuel Suárez-AlbelaDepartment Computer Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Universidade da Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain. m.albela@udc.es.
Tiago M Fernández-CaramésDepartment Computer Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Universidade da Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain. tiago.fernandez@udc.es.
Paula Fraga-LamasDepartment Computer Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Universidade da Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain. paula.fraga@udc.es.
Luis CastedoDepartment Computer Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Universidade da Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain. luis.castedo@udc.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fog computing extends cloud computing to the edge of a network enabling new Internet of Things (IoT) applications and services, which may involve critical data that require privacy and security. In an IoT fog computing system, three elements can be distinguished: IoT nodes that collect data, the cloud, and interconnected IoT gateways that exchange messages with the IoT nodes and with the cloud. This article focuses on securing IoT gateways, which are assumed to be constrained in terms of computational resources, but that are able to offload some processing from the cloud and to reduce the latency in the responses to the IoT nodes. However, it is usually taken for granted that IoT gateways have direct access to the electrical grid, which is not always the case: in mission-critical applications like natural disaster relief or environmental monitoring, it is common to deploy IoT nodes and gateways in large areas where electricity comes from solar or wind energy that charge the batteries that power every device. In this article, how to secure IoT gateway communications while minimizing power consumption is analyzed. The throughput and power consumption of Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) are considered, since they are really popular, but have not been thoroughly analyzed when applied to IoT scenarios. Moreover, the most widespread Transport Layer Security (TLS) cipher suites use RSA as the main public key-exchange algorithm, but the key sizes needed are not practical for most IoT devices and cannot be scaled to high security levels. In contrast, ECC represents a much lighter and scalable alternative. Thus, RSA and ECC are compared for equivalent security levels, and power consumption and data throughput are measured using a testbed of IoT gateways. The measurements obtained indicate that, in the specific fog computing scenario proposed, ECC is clearly a much better alternative than RSA, obtaining energy consumption reductions of up to 50% and a data throughput that doubles RSA in most scenarios. These conclusions are then corroborated by a frame temporal analysis of Ethernet packets. In addition, current data compression algorithms are evaluated, concluding that, when dealing with the small payloads related to IoT applications, they do not pay off in terms of real data throughput and power consumption.

Indexed as

cryptographic securityECCECDHEECDSAenergy efficiencyfog computingIoTIoT gatewayIoT securityperformancepower consumptionRSATLS

Identifiers

PMID28850104
PMCPMC5620735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.