Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40292982›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

The Newer, the More Secure? Standards-Compliant Bluetooth Low Energy Man-in-the-Middle Attacks on Fitness Trackers.

Hannah Greß, Björn Krüger, Elmar Tischhauser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Hannah GreßDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Phillips-University of Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0009-7841-5111
Björn KrügerDepartment of Epileptology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1596-6487
Elmar TischhauserDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Phillips-University of Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-8652

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The trend in self-tracking devices has remained unabated for years. Even if they record a large quantity of sensitive data, most users are not concerned about their data being transmitted and stored in a secure way from the device via the companion app to the vendor's server. However, the secure implementation of this chain from the manufacturer is not always given, as various publications have already shown. Therefore, we first provide an overview of attack vectors within the ecosystem of self-tracking devices. Second, we evaluate the data security of eight contemporary fitness trackers from leading vendors by applying four still partly standards-compliant Bluetooth Low-Energy Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks. Our results show that the examined devices are partially vulnerable against the attacks. For most of the trackers, the manufacturers put different security measures in place. These include short and user-initiated visibility and connectivity or app-level authentication to limit the attack surface. Interestingly, newer models are more likely to be attackable, underlining the constant need for verifying the security of BLE devices, reporting found vulnerabilities, and also strengthening standards and improving security awareness among manufacturers and users. Therefore, we finish our work with recommendations and best practices for law- and regulation-makers, vendors, and users on how to strengthen the security of BLE devices.

Indexed as

BLEBluetooth Low Energyfitness trackerInternet of ThingsIoTsecurity

Identifiers

PMID40292982
PMCPMC11945526

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.