Article Preview
TopIntroduction
The advancement of technological capabilities bringing in ubiquitous connectivity and low-powered Devices in the Internet of Things (IoT) are a flourishing phenomenon. There has been a meteoric rise in the number of internet-connected devices around us in recent years. Global tech advisory firm Gartner has predicted that by the end of 2021, there will be more than 50 billion connected devices, which is approximately three times the current human population and 70 billion in the next five years. The Internet of Everything (IoE) is one of the key technologies. integrators in industry-4.0, which contributes to the large-scale deployment of low-power and lossy (LLN) networks (Ghaleb et al., 2018) that enable networked connection among People, processes, data, and things here Things are physical devices and objects connected to the internet for intelligent decision-making; Real-time insight Data is mainly used to leverage these data into more useful information for decision-making, and the process is used to deliver the right information to the right person (or machine) at the right time and finally, People involved in more Relevant, valuable ways. Despite the rise, one of the major inconveniences slowing rapid adaption is the ‘security’ (Mutchler & Warkentin, 2020; Zhou & Jing, 2020) of these devices (Suresh Babu et al., 2016). The myriad of companies that manufacture them and the multiple protocols from the many standards that existing out there is one of the major reasons why there is still a non-standardized approach to solving these problems. In particular, we look at the Mirai malware family, which became notoriously popular in 2016 when it was first used to coordinate a massive denial of service (DoS) (Babu et al., 2016; Van Kerkhoven et al., 2019; Vishwakarma & Jain, 2020) attack using an army of innocent IoT devices (Babu, Dadi, Singh et al, 2022; Hosen et al., 2020; Nagarajan et al., 2021). This attack is part of the bigger picture indicating the rise of attacks using a legion of “compromised devices that the end-users are unaware of. In addition to the security issue, LLN Networks also possess some other challenging issues, such as (1) the maximum The size of the packet at the physical layer is 127 bytes, which results in the maximum The size of the frame at the data link layer is 102 bytes (Babu, Kavati, Nayak et al, 2022; Babu et al., 2015). If we security parameter, it includes security overhead, which is still reduced to 81 bytes on the link layer. (2) Low bandwidth for such a constrained network includes data rates of 20 kbps, 40kbps, and 250 kbps for each physical layer defined at 868 MHz, 915 MHz, and 2.4 GHz, respectively, (3) Device location is not predefined. Sometimes devices move to a new location, and (4) Devices in LLN may go to sleep for energy conservation. Such devices can’t communicate when they are in sleep mode. (5) It consists of a large number of restricted devices with low power and processing, limited memory, and energy when the devices are battery-operated. (6) All the nodes in LLN are connected through lossy links, which are generally not stable and supports low data rates.