Survey on Security Threats in Agricultural IoT and Smart Farming
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. State-of-the-Art ICT in Agriculture: Definitions, Technologies, Applications and Benefits
- Crop monitoring, decreasing the overall costs;
- Logistic and qualitative traceability of food production combining decision making processes with real-time data for reducing the waste of inputs and overall costs;
- Capitalizing on Big Data resources, at hardware and software level, establishing new agriculture communities in urban and rural areas;
- Generating novel business models in the sector, creating a new retailer–consumer relationship;
- Automatic irrigation systems development that adjust their operations based on the humidity, temperature and soil moisture values which are retrieved through the embedded sensors;
- Collection of environmental parameters, in an automatic way using IoT, which are usable for further analysis;
- Big Data analytic processes and tools for enhancing productivity using decision support systems.
3. Security Threats in Modern Agriculture
3.1. Equipment and Data Vulnerabilities, Risks and Threats in Modern Agriculture
3.2. Cybercrime and Cybersecurity in Agriculture
- Wireless connections (e.g., Wi-Fi);
- Radio Frequency Identification (RFID);
- Air, soil and crop and infrastructure sensors;
- Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), e.g., drones;
- Automation systems focused on PA (e.g., Real Time Kinematic Technology);
- Mobile devices (e.g., laptops, mobile phones, GPS trackers);
- Vertical farming and smart agriculture;
- The combination of biotechnology and nanotechnology with Artificial Intelligence (AI).
3.3. IoT Vulnerabilities, Risks and Threats in Agriculture
- Unpatched firmware and/or extended use of default passwords, which allow for compromising the devices within an IoT network;
- Limited computational resources of smart devices, which hinders the implementation of complex cryptographic algorithms, due to the efforts of vendors to reduce the costs of their products in a competitive environment;
- Vulnerabilities in the communication protocols used by smart devices (e.g., ZigBee, Bluetooth);
- Low security level of the old version of the Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) protocol, which is still used in many cases;
- Search engines that can be used for executing passive vulnerability detection;
- The danger of organizing millions of smart devices in a powerful botnet (e.g., Mirai), due to the relatively easy detection of vulnerabilities by means of internet scanning;
- General lack of attention to the security of smart devices.
4. Mitigation Measures and Strategies for Security Threats in Agriculture
- Support Vector Machine (SVM);
- K-Nearest Neighbor;
- Decision Trees;
- Deep Belief Network (DBN);
- Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN);
- Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN);
- Artificial Neural Networks (ANN);
- Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs);
- Natural Language Processing (NLP);
- Biologically inspired techniques, such as Deep Neural Networks (DNN) and/or Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs).
5. Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Roopaei, M.; Rad, P.; Choo, K.R. Cloud of Things in smart agriculture: Intelligent irrigation monitoring by thermal imaging. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2017, 4, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlov, A.A. Cybersecurity of internet of things—Risks and opportunities. In Proceedings of the XXVI International Symposium on Nuclear Electronics & Computing (NEC’2017), Budva, Montenegro, 25–29 September 2017; pp. 182–187. [Google Scholar]
- Malavade, V.N.; Akulwar, P.K. Role of IoT in agriculture. IOSR J. Comput. Eng. 2016, 2016, 56–57. [Google Scholar]
- Prasad, R.; Rohokale, V. Cyber Security: The Lifeline of Information and Communication Technology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-31702-7. [Google Scholar]
- Calicioglu, O.; Flammini, A.; Bracco, S.; Bellú, L.; Sims, R. The future challenges of food and agriculture: An integrated analysis of trends and solutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Devendra, C. Climate Change Threats and Effects: Challenges for Agriculture and Food Security; ASM Series on Climate Change; Academy of Sciences Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Horrigan, L.; Lawrence, R.S.; Walker, P. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Brien, D. The A to Z of Cyber Security. Available online: https://medium.com/threat-intel/the-a-to-z-of-cyber-security-93150c4f336c (accessed on 7 September 2020).
- Ivanov, I. Cyber Security and Cyber Threats: Eagle VS “New Wars”? Academia.edu: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Koerner, J.; Dinesh, D.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Campbell, B. Lessons learnt from CCAFS—10 Years Scaling Climate-Smart Agriculture: Insights from the Review of CCAFS Scaling Activities. 2019. Available online: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/lessons-learnt-ccafs-10-years-scaling-climate-smart-agriculture-insights-review-ccafs#.X6vmtVVR0uU (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Misra, N.N.; Dixit, Y.; Al-Mallahi, A.; Bhullar, M.S.; Upadhyay, R.; Martynenko, A. IoT, big data and artificial intelligence in agriculture and food industry. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Chabla, R.; Real-Avilés, K.; Morán, C.; Grijalva, P.; Recalde, T. IoT applications in Agriculture: A systematic literature review. In ICT for Agriculture and Environment; Valencia-García, R., Alcaraz-Mármol, G., del Cioppo-Morstadt, J., Vera-Lucio, N., Bucaram-Leverone, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 68–76. [Google Scholar]
- Muangprathub, J.; Boonnam, N.; Kajornkasirat, S.; Lekbangpong, N.; Wanichsombat, A.; Nillaor, P. IoT and agriculture data analysis for smart farm. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 156, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, S.A.; Wood, S.D. Precision farming: Environmental legitimation, commodification of information, and industrial coordination. Rural Sociol. 1997, 62, 180–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwivedi, A.; Naresh, R.; Kumar, R.; Yadav, R.; Kumar, R. Precision Agriculture; Parmar Publishers & Distributors: Dhanbad, India, 2017; pp. 83–105. [Google Scholar]
- Milella, A.; Reina, G.; Nielsen, M. A multi-sensor robotic platform for ground mapping and estimation beyond the visible spectrum. Precis. Agric. 2019, 20, 423–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McBratney, A.; Whelan, B.; Ancev, T.; Bouma, J. Future directions of precision agriculture. Precis. Agric. 2005, 6, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whelan, B.; Mcbratney, A. Definition and interpretation of potential management zones in Australia. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Precision Agriculture and Other Precision Resources Management, Geelong, Australia, 2–6 February 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Hubbard, N.; Loudjani, P.; European Parliament; Joint Research Centre (JRC); Monitoring Agriculture Resources (MARS). Precision Agriculture: An Opportunity for EU-Farmers—Potential Support with the AP 2014–2020; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Trivelli, L.; Apicella, A.; Chiarello, F.; Rana, R.L.; Fantoni, G.; Tarabella, A. From precision agriculture to Industry 4.0: Unveiling technological connections in the agrifood sector. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schrijver, R.; Poppe, K.; Daheim, C. Precision Agriculture and the Future of Farming in Europe; Scientific Foresight Study; EPRS—European Parliamentary Research Service: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hassija, V.; Chamola, V.; Saxena, V.; Jain, D.; Goyal, P.; Sikdar, B. A Survey on IoT security: Application areas, security threats, and solution architectures. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 82721–82743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Symeonaki, E.; Arvanitis, K.; Piromalis, D. A context-aware middleware cloud approach for integrating precision farming facilities into the IoT toward agriculture 4.0. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keerthana, K.T.E.; Karpagavalli, S.; Posonia, A.M. Smart system monitoring agricultural land Using IoT. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Emerging Trends and Innovations. In Engineering And Technological Research (ICETIETR), Ernakulam, India, 11–13 July 2018; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Sreekantha, D.K.; Kavya, A.M. Agricultural crop monitoring using IOT—A study. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO), Coimbatore, India, 5–6 January 2017; pp. 134–139. [Google Scholar]
- Moulat, M.E.; Debauche, O.; Mahmoudi, S.; Brahim, L.A.; Manneback, P.; Lebeau, F. Monitoring system using Internet of Things for potential landslides. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 134, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elijah, O.; Abd Rahman, T.; Orikumhi, I.; Leow, C.Y.; Hindia, M. An overview of Internet of Things (IoT) and Data Analytics in agriculture: Benefits and challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018, 5, 3758–3773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamienski, C.; Soininen, J.-P.; Taumberger, M.; Fernandes, S.; Toscano, A.; Cinotti, T.; Maia, R.; Neto, A. SWAMP: An IoT-based Smart Water Management Platform for Precision Irrigation in Agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2018 Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS), Bilbao, Spain, 4–7 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kamienski, C.; Soininen, J.-P.; Taumberger, M.; Toscano, A.; Cinotti, T.; Dantas, R.; Maia, R.; Neto, A.; Ferreira, F. Smart water management platform: IoT-based precision irrigation for agriculture. Sensors 2019, 19, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patil, S.J.; Patil, A. Precision Agriculture for water management using IOT. In International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication; Auricle Technologies Pvt. Ltd.: Rajasthan, India, 2017; Volume 5, pp. 142–144. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Qian, S. IoT application system with crop growth models in facility agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2011 6th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology (ICCIT), Seogwipo, Korea, 29 November–1 December 2011; pp. 129–133. [Google Scholar]
- Stočes, M.; Vaněk, J.; Masner, J.; Pavlík, J. Internet of Things (IoT) in agriculture—Selected aspects. Agris on-Line Pap. Econ. Inform. 2016, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghanshala, K.K.; Chauhan, R.; Joshi, R.C. A novel framework for smart crop monitoring using Internet of Things (IoT). In Proceedings of the 2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC), Jalandhar, India, 15–17 December 2018; pp. 62–67. [Google Scholar]
- Kajol, R.; Akshay, K.; Keerthan Kumar, T.G. Automated agricultural field analysis and monitoring system using IoT. Int. J. Inf. Eng. Electron. Bus. 2018, 10, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kuaban, G.S.; Czekalski, P.; Molua, E.L.; Grochla, K. An architectural framework proposal for IoT driven agriculture. In Computer Networks; Gaj, P., Sawicki, M., Kwiecień, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 18–33. [Google Scholar]
- Pandithurai, O.; Aishwarya, S.; Aparna, B.; Kavitha, K. Agro-tech: A digital model for monitoring soil and crops using internet of things (IoT). In Proceedings of the 2017 Third International Conference on Science Technology Engineering Management (ICONSTEM), Chennai, India, 23–24 March 2017; pp. 342–346. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, L.; Dave, N.; Fernandez, R.E.; Jayachandran, K.; Bhansali, S. Smart gardening IoT soil sheets for real-time nutrient analysis. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, B3157–B3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Na, A.; Isaac, W.; Varshney, S.; Khan, E. An IoT based system for remote monitoring of soil characteristics. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Information Technology (InCITe)—The Next Generation IT Summit on the Theme—Internet of Things: Connect Your Worlds, Noida, India, 6–7 October 2016; pp. 316–320. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Li, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, G. Monitoring citrus soil moisture and nutrients using an IoT based system. Sensors 2017, 17, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athani, S.; Tejeshwar, C.H.; Patil, M.M.; Patil, P.; Kulkarni, R. Soil moisture monitoring using IoT enabled arduino sensors with neural networks for improving soil management for farmers and predict seasonal rainfall for planning future harvest in North Karnataka—India. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC), Palladam, India, 10–11 February 2017; pp. 43–48. [Google Scholar]
- Ampatzidis, Y.; De Bellis, L.; Luvisi, A. iPathology: Robotic applications and management of plants and plant diseases. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khattab, A.; Habib, S.E.D.; Ismail, H.; Zayan, S.; Fahmy, Y.; Khairy, M.M. An IoT-based cognitive monitoring system for early plant disease forecast. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 166, 105028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, S. Internet of Things application to monitoring plant disease and insect pests. In Proceedings of the 2015 International conference on Applied Science and Engineering Innovation, Jinan, China, 30–31 August 2015; pp. 31–34. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.F.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, S.W.; Shi, Y. Monitoring and discrimination of plant disease and insect pests based on agricultural IoT. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Technology and Management Innovation, Shenzhen, China, 12–13 September 2015; pp. 112–115. [Google Scholar]
- Nawaz, M.; Khan, T.; Rasool, R.; Kausar, M.; Usman, A.; Bukht, F.; Ahmad, R.; Ahmad, J.; Multan, P. Pakistan Plant disease detection using Internet of Thing (IoT). Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2020, 11, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Han, W.; Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Wang, J.; Zheng, L. An Internet-of-Things solution for food safety and quality control: A pilot project in China. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2016, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popa, A.; Hnatiuc, M.; Paun, M.; Geman, O.; Hemanth, D.J.; Dorcea, D.; Son, L.H.; Ghita, S. An intelligent IoT-based food quality monitoring approach using low-cost sensors. Symmetry 2019, 11, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhatia, M.; Manocha, A. Cognitive framework of food quality assessment in IoT-inspired smart restaurants. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fennema, O. An over-all view of low temperature food preservation. Cryobiology 1966, 3, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwasaki, W.; Morita, N.; Nagata, M.P.B. 14—IoT sensors for smart livestock management. In Chemical, Gas, and Biosensors for Internet of Things and Related Applications; Mitsubayashi, K., Niwa, O., Ueno, Y., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 207–221. ISBN 978-0-12-815409-0. [Google Scholar]
- Houngue, P.; Sagbo, R.; Kedowide, C. An hybrid novel layered architecture and case study: IoT for smart agriculture and smart liveStock. In Society with Future: Smart and Liveable Cities; Pereira, P., Ribeiro, R., Oliveira, I., Novais, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2020; pp. 71–82. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, L.; Xu, M.; Xi, L.; Hao, Y. Research of livestock farming IoT system based on RESTful web services. In Proceedings of the 2016 5th International Conference on Computer Science and Network Technology (ICCSNT), Changchun, China, 10–11 December 2016; pp. 113–116. [Google Scholar]
- Saravanan, K.; Saraniya, S. Cloud IoT based novel livestock monitoring and identification system using UID. Sens. Rev. 2018, 38, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolci, R. IoT solutions for precision farming and food manufacturing: Artificial Intelligence applications in digital food. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Turin, Italy, 4–8 July 2017; pp. 384–385. [Google Scholar]
- Kaewmard, N.; Saiyod, S. Sensor data collection and irrigation control on vegetable crop using smart phone and wireless sensor networks for smart farm. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Wireless Sensors (ICWiSE), Subang, Malaysia, 26–28 October 2014; pp. 106–112. [Google Scholar]
- Nandyala, S.; Kim, H.-K. Green IoT agriculture and healthcare application (GAHA). Int. J. Smart Home 2016, 10, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cambra, C.; Sendra, S.; Lloret, J.; Garcia, L. An IoT service-oriented system for agriculture monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Paris, France, 21–25 May 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Ferris, J.L. Data privacy and protection in the agriculture industry: Is federal regulation necessary? Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2017, 18, 309. [Google Scholar]
- Alrajhi, A.M. A survey of Artificial Intelligence techniques for cybersecurity improvement. Int. J. Cyber-Secur. Digit. Forensic 2020, 9, 34–41. [Google Scholar]
- Salam, A. Internet of Things for sustainability: Perspectives in privacy, cybersecurity, and future trends. In Internet of Things for Sustainable Community Development: Wireless Communications, Sensing, and Systems; Salam, A., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2020; pp. 299–327. ISBN 978-3-030-35291-2. [Google Scholar]
- Barreto, L.; Amaral, A. Smart farming: Cyber security challenges. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS), Funchal, Portugal, 25–27 September 2018; pp. 870–876. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, M.; Abdelsalam, M.; Khorsandroo, S.; Mittal, S. Security and privacy in smart farming: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 34564–34584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Industry 4.0 in Agriculture: Focus on IoT Aspects; Digital Transformation Monitor; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Window, M. Security in Precision Agriculture: Vulnerabilities and Risks of Agricultural Systems. Master’s Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Champion, S.; Linsky; Mutschler, P.; Ulicny, B.; Reuters, T.; Barrett, L.; Bethel, G.; Matson, M.; Strang, T.; Ramsdell, K.; et al. Threats to Precision Agriculture; 2018 Public-Private Analytic Exchange Program Report; United States Department of Homeland Security and Office of Intelligence and Analysis: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
- McCartney, L.; Lefsrud, M. Protected agriculture in extreme environments: A review of controlled environment agriculture in tropical, arid, polar and urban locations. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2018, 34, 455–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzounis, A.; Katsoulas, N.; Bartzanas, T.; Kittas, C. Internet of Things in agriculture, recent advances and future challenges. Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 164, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bannister, K.; Giorgetti, G.; Sandeep, K. Wireless sensor networking for hot applications: Effects of temperature on signal strength, data collection and localization. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors (HotEmNets’ 08), Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2–3 July 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Boano, C.A.; Tsiftes, N.; Voigt, T.; Brown, J.; Roedig, U. The Impact of temperature on outdoor industrial sensornet applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2010, 6, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thelen, J.; Goense, D.; Langendoen, K. Radio Wave Propagation in Potato Fields. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=70.%09Thelen%2C+J.%3B+Goense%2C+D.%3B+Langendoen%2C+K.+Radio+wave+propagation+in+potato+fields&btnG= (accessed on 3 September 2020).
- Lopez, J.; Roman, R.; Alcaraz, C. Analysis of security threats, requirements, technologies and standards in wireless sensor networks. In Foundations of Security Analysis and Design V: FOSAD 2007/2008/2009 Tutorial Lectures; Aldini, A., Barthe, G., Gorrieri, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 289–338. ISBN 978-3-642-03829-7. [Google Scholar]
- El Bilali, H.; Allahyari, M.S. Transition towards sustainability in agriculture and food systems: Role of information and communication technologies. Inf. Process. Agric. 2018, 5, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begemann, S. 13 Ways Precision Ag Advances Leave Farmers Vulnerable to Attack. Available online: https://www.agprofessional.com/article/13-ways-precision-ag-advances-leave-farmers-vulnerable-attack (accessed on 3 September 2020).
- Vogt, W. 4 Tips for Improved Farm Data Integrity. Available online: https://www.farmprogress.com/data/4-tips-improved-farm-data-integrity (accessed on 3 September 2020).
- Bughin, J.; Hazan, E.; Ramaswamy, S.; Chui, M.; Allas, T.; Dahlström, P.; Henke, N.; Trench, M. Artificial Intelligence: The Next Digital Frontier? McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jochinke, D.C.; Noonon, B.J.; Wachsmann, N.G.; Norton, R.M. The adoption of precision agriculture in an Australian broadacre cropping system—Challenges and opportunities. Field Crop. Res. 2007, 104, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talaviya, T.; Shah, D.; Patel, N.; Yagnik, H.; Shah, M. Implementation of artificial intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of pesticides and herbicides. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2020, 4, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, W.; Jia, Y.; Peng, A.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, P. The Effect of IoT new features on security and privacy: New threats, existing solutions, and challenges yet to be solved. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 1606–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferrag, M.A.; Shu, L.; Yang, X.; Derhab, A.; Maglaras, L. Security and privacy for green IoT-based agriculture: Review, blockchain solutions, and challenges. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 32031–32053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmar, D. Cyber security techniques for internet of things in agriculture. Guj. J. Ext. Educ. 2019, 30, 185–190. [Google Scholar]
- Kohl, K.D. The Increase of Cybersecurity Threats to the Food and Agriculture Sector from Smart Agriculture. Master’s Thesis, Utica College, New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Okupa, H. Cybersecurity and the Future of Agri-Food Industries. Master’s Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Lezzi, M.; Lazoi, M.; Corallo, A. Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0 in the current literature: A reference framework. Comput. Ind. 2018, 103, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, S.E.; Reinhard, R.; Williams, R.C.; Ramsey, F.; Thomason, W.; Lee, K.; Dudek, N.; Mostaghimi, S.; Colbert, E.; Murch, R. Cyberbiosecurity: A New Perspective on Protecting U.S. Food and Agricultural System. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Manninen, O. Cybersecurity in Agricultural Communication Networks: Case Dairy Farms. Master’s Thesis, JAMK University of Applied Sciences, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bogaardt, M.; Poppe, K.; Viool, V.; van Zuidam, E. Cybersecurity in the Agrifood Sector; Capgemini Consulting: Wien, Austria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Jahn, M.; Oemichen, W.; Treverton, G.; David, S.; Rose, M.; Brosig, M.; Jayamaha, B.; Hutchison, W.; Rimestad, B. Cyber Risk and Security Implications in Smart Agriculture and Food Systems. Available online: https://jahnresearchgroup.webhosting.cals.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/223/2019/01/Agricultural-Cyber-Risk-and-Security.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Cooper, C. Cybersecurity and food and agriculture. In Protecting Our Future, Volume 2: Educating a Cybersecurity Workforce; Hudson Whitman/ECP: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Altawy, R.; Youssef, A.M. Security, privacy, and safety aspects of civilian drones: A survey. ACM Trans. Cyber Phys. Syst. 2016, 1, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ametepe, A.F.; Ahouandjinou, S.A.R.M.; Ezin, E.C. Secure encryption by combining asymmetric and symmetric cryptographic method for data collection WSN in smart agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Casablanca, Morocco, 10–17 October 2019; pp. 93–99. [Google Scholar]
- Mekala, M.S.; Viswanathan, P. A Survey: Smart agriculture IoT with cloud computing. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Microelectronic Devices, Circuits and Systems (ICMDCS), Vellore, India, 10–12 August 2017; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Vangala, A.; Das, A.K.; Kumar, N.; Alazab, M. Smart secure sensing for IoT-based agriculture: Blockchain perspective. IEEE Sens. J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanna, A.; Kaur, S. Evolution of Internet of Things (IoT) and its significant impact in the field of Precision Agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 157, 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, S.; Lou, W.; Ren, K. Chapter 15—Data Security in Cloud Computing. In Handbook on Securing Cyber-Physical Critical Infrastructure; Das, S.K., Kant, K., Zhang, N., Eds.; Morgan Kaufmann: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 389–410. ISBN 978-0-12-415815-3. [Google Scholar]
- Chamarajnagar, R.; Ashok, A. Integrity threat identification for distributed IoT in precision agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2019 16th Annual IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking (SECON), Boston, MA, USA, 10–13 June 2019; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Davcev, D.; Mitreski, K.; Trajkovic, S.; Nikolovski, V.; Koteli, N. IoT agriculture system based on LoRaWAN. In Proceedings of the 2018 14th IEEE International Workshop on Factory Communication Systems (WFCS), Imperia, Italy, 13–15 June 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Nesarani, A.; Ramar, R.; Pandian, S. An efficient approach for rice prediction from authenticated Block chain node using machine learning technique. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 20, 101064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisogni, F.; Cavallini, S.; Trocchio, S. Cybersecurity at European level: The role of information availability. Commun. Strateg. 2011, 1, 105–124. [Google Scholar]
- Palm, T. Impact of authenticity on sense making in word problem solving. Educ. Stud. Math. 2008, 67, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. Authenticity, Integrity, and Security in a Digital World: Proceedings of a Workshop–In Brief; Whitacre, P., Ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bothe, A.; Bauer, J.; Aschenbruck, N. RFID-assisted Continuous user authentication for IoT-based smart farming. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on RFID Technology and Applications (RFID-TA), Pisa, Italy, 25–27 September 2019; pp. 505–510. [Google Scholar]
- Mccullagh, A.; Caelli, W. Non-repudiation in the digital environment. First Monday 2000, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holkar, A.M.; Holkar, N.S.; Nitnawwre, D. Investigative analysis of repudiation attack on MANET with different routing protocols. Int. J. Emerg. Trends Technol. Comput. Sci. 2013, 2, 356–359. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, P.K. Bluetooth security threats. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2013, 4, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
- Seri, B.; Vishnepolsky, G. BlueBorne: The Dangers of Bluetooth Implementations: Unveiling Zero Day Vulnerabilities and Security Flaws in Modern Bluetooth Stacks. Available online: https://kryptera.se/assets/uploads/2017/09/blueborne-technical-white-paper.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2020).
- Glaroudis, D.; Iossifides, A.; Chatzimisios, P. Survey, comparison and research challenges of IoT application protocols for smart farming. Comput. Netw. 2020, 168, 107037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, M.S.; Riaz, S.; Abid, A.; Abid, K.; Naeem, M.A. A survey on the role of IoT in agriculture for the implementation of smart farming. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 156237–156271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triantafyllou, A.; Tsouros, D.C.; Sarigiannidis, P.; Bibi, S. An architecture model for smart farming. In Proceedings of the 2019 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), Santorini Island, Greece, 29–31 May 2019; pp. 385–392. [Google Scholar]
- Aluthgama Acharige, R.; Halgamuge, M.; Wirasagoda, H.; Syed, A. Adoption of the Internet of Things (IoT) in agriculture and smart farming towards urban greening: A review. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2019, 10, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmed, N.; De, D.; Hussain, I. Internet of Things (IoT) for smart precision agriculture and farming in rural areas. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018, 5, 4890–4899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryu, M.; Yun, J.; Miao, T.; Ahn, I.-Y.; Choi, S.; Kim, J. Design and implementation of a connected farm for smart farming system. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE SENSORS, Busan, Korea, 1–4 November 2015; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Chinnaiyan, R.; Balachandar, S. Reliable administration framework of drones and IoT sensors in agriculture farmstead using blockchain and smart contracts. In 2020 2nd International Conference on Big Data Engineering and Technology; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 106–111. [Google Scholar]
- Demestichas, K.; Peppes, N.; Alexakis, T.; Adamopoulou, E. Blockchain in Agriculture Traceability Systems: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Wei, X.; Zou, T.; Li, Z.; Yang, G. Agriculture Big Data: Research status, challenges and countermeasures. In Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture VIII; Li, D., Chen, Y., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2015; pp. 137–143. [Google Scholar]
- Daoliang, L. Internet of things and wisdom agriculture. Agric. Eng. 2012, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Yousuf, T.; Mahmoud, R.; Aloul, F.; Zualkernan, I. Internet of Things (IoT) security: Current status, challenges and countermeasures. Int. J. Inf. Secur. Res. 2015, 5, 608–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butun, I.; Österberg, P.; Song, H. Security of the Internet of Things: Vulnerabilities, attacks, and countermeasures. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2020, 22, 616–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghadeer, H. Cybersecurity issues in Internet of Things and countermeasures. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Internet (ICII), Seattle, WA, USA, 21–23 October 2018; pp. 195–201. [Google Scholar]
- Mentsiev, A.U.; Magomaev, T.R. Security threats of NB-IoT and countermeasures. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 862, 052033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfleeger, C.P.; Pfleeger, S.L. Analyzing Computer Security: A Threat/Vulnerability/Countermeasure Approach; Pearson Education, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-13-278946-2. [Google Scholar]
- Beaver, K. Commonly hacked ports. In Hacking For Dummies; For Dummies; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Throwe, T.; Viren, B. Turning off Telnet Access (Telnetd) 2018. Available online: https://www.phy.bnl.gov/cybersecurity/old/telnet.html (accessed on 11 September 2020).
- El Mouaatamid, O.; Lahmer, M.; Belkasmi, M. Internet of Things security: Layered classification of attacks and possible countermeasures. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. 2016, 9, 24–37. [Google Scholar]
- West, J. A prediction model framework for cyber-attacks to precision agriculture technologies. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2018, 19, 307–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, Y.; Kong, L.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhu, H.; Gao, M.; Hou, H.; Wang, C. Machine learning and deep learning methods for cybersecurity. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 35365–35381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeadally, S.; Adi, E.; Baig, Z.; Khan, I.A. Harnessing Artificial Intelligence capabilities to improve cybersecurity. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 23817–23837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrade, R.; Ontaneda, N.; Silva, A.; Tello Oquendo, L.; Cadena, S.; Quiroz, D.; Fuertes, W.; Nacional, E. Application of Big Data Analytic in Cybersecurity. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Applied Cognitive Computing, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 29 July–1 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
Area | Studies |
---|---|
Continuous land monitoring | [3,23,24,25,26,27] |
Water management | [1,28,29,30] |
Monitoring and reporting of crop growth | [25,31,32,33,34,35] |
Identification and management of soil characteristics | [36,37,38,39,40] |
Detection and recognition of diseases in crops and/or plants | [41,42,43,44,45] |
Enhanced food preservation and quality control | [46,47,48,49] |
Smart livestock | [50,51,52,53] |
Security Aspect | Examples of Attacks | Agriculture Consequences | Studies |
---|---|---|---|
Privacy | Physical Attack Replay Attack Masquerade Attack | The collection of information regarding the type and possible usage of devices concerning agriculture projects. These security leaks can be used in order to get access to infrastructure and production standards as well as getting privacy data and compromising the privacy of the system. Theft and vandalism purposes can be the outcome of a possible violation of privacy. | [62,78,79,89,90,91,92] |
Confidentiality | Tracing Attack Brute Force Attack Known-Key Attack | The usage of various communication devices in a smart farming or an agriculture system based on ICT can outcome into data travelling through several interconnected devices and protocols from source to destination. Possible confidentiality problems can lead to the persistence, on many occasions, of loss of privacy and data or information breaches. The unauthorized access to important data as a result of the confidentiality loss could lead to theft of key information and also cause serious threats over the involved agriculture system users’ confidential information. | [29,62,79,93,94] |
Integrity | Forgery Attack Man-In-The-Middle Attack (MITM) Biometric Template Attack Trojan Horse Attack | As a result of possible unauthorized or improper changes in the trustworthiness of data or resources, information between agriculture ICT or smart farming systems can be no longer reliable or accurate. The transmitted information data between the devices and/or the people/farmers/stakeholders that are involved in an agriculture business or even a process can lead to possible financial or authentication frauds due to the lack of the assurance that the information is sufficiently accurate for its purpose. | [62,79,91,95,96] |
Availability | Denial of Service (DoS) attacks (SYN Flood, Ping of Death, Botnets) | A smart farming environment is meant for real or near-real time operations in order to keep a real-world impact. An attacker can suspend the activities of the installed smart farming network or even establish the services unavailable to the farmers. The lack of availability of the provided services can lead to business disruption, possible loss of customer’s confidence and revenue. | [62,79,92,97,98] |
Authenticity | Attacks against Authentication (Dictionary attack, Session Hijacking, Spoofing) | Authenticity ensures the authentication of certain information provided from a valid/authorized source. Forged attackers’ identities can mimic legal/authorized persons and gain access to the smart farming system. Possible results can be the data breach/loss and/or alternation, service unavailability, loss of devices connectivity or even smart farming agriculture system corruption and/or destruction. | [62,79,99,100,101] |
Non-Repudiation | Malicious Code Attack Repudiation Attack | During the authentication process, a commonly known service that provides proof of the integrity as well as the origin of data, both in an unforgeable relationship, and can be verified by any third party at any time with high assurance and genuineness, is non-repudiation. The repudiation of information allows an attacker to repudiate all the power consumption, generated information and production processes of an agriculture ICT system, which can lead to a situation of refusing services, authentication information or data transmissions, through the nodes of the system. | [62,79,102,103] |
Layer | Security Threats | Smart Farming Effects | Studies |
---|---|---|---|
Application | Data Thefts Access Control Attacks Service Interruption Attacks Malicious Code Injection Attacks Sniffing Attacks Reprogram Attacks | The top of the stack in the already mentioned IoT layer architecture. Possible effects or problems could be considered the lack of the delivery of services between the respective users from various domains such as farmers, retailers and/or other stakeholders. Accessibility problems for the involved users and lack of security and privacy are also major issues. | [62,79,106,107,108] |
Middleware | Man-In-the Middle Attack (MITM) SQL Injection Attack Signature Wrapping Attack Cloud Malware Injection Flooding Attack in Cloud | This layer operates in two-way mode. More specifically, this layer stands between (in the middle) of the application and the hardware layer and also acts as an interface between them. Major problems that come as a result of attacks on this layer can affect data and/or device (nodes installed into the agriculture infrastructure) management and other types of issues such as device information discovery, access control by the users and data analysis as well. | [62,79,107,109] |
Internet | Phishing Site Attack Access Attack DDoS/DoS Attack Data transit Attacks Routing Attacks | The most crucial layer concerning the establishment of the communication between two distinct endpoints, such as device-to-device, device-to-cloud, device-to-gateway and back end data-sharing. In case of a failure the communication is being disrupted and the ICT system is, practically, out of service. Improper communication services and/or lack of automatic updates could lead to privacy concerns among the users’ private information (e.g., access credentials) | [62,79,107,110] |
Access Gateway | Secure on-Boarding Extra Interfaces End-to-End Encryption Firmware Updates | Access GW layer contributes to the handling of the very first data as well as to bridging the gap between the client (farmers, stakeholders, retailers) and the end point (node or device). Messages routing, identification and subscribing problems between the smart farming nodes could be possible outcomes to the client side concerning the final form of the received message. This message may also include the desired information as well as lack of transport encryption/integrity verification, so sensitive data could easily then be intercepted. | [62,79,107,108,111] |
Edge Technology | Node Capturing Malicious Code Injection attack False data Injection Attack Side-Channel Attacks Eavesdropping and Interference Sleep Deprivation Attacks Booting Attacks | This layer is consisted of the majority of hardware parts (e.g., sensors, Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tags) and has a significant role for the communication between the involved devices as well as the data collection within the network and the servers that are deployed on the installed ICT smart farming system. Possible attacks on the entities of this layer could lead to important problems of monitoring or sensing various phenomena. Additionally, information theft and/or tampering could also be possible results. | [62,79,107,108,109] |
Mitigation Measures | Short Description | Security Aspect Threat | IoT Layer Threat | Studies |
---|---|---|---|---|
Firmware Update | It is important to be checked if an update mechanism is installed or even turned on in the device, in order to prevent various online and offline attacks. | Privacy, Confidentially, Availability | Application | [92,106,107,114,115,116,117,118,119,120] |
Block Unnecessary Ports | Block unnecessary, vulnerable or overlooked ports, so to prevent a possible cyberattack or device exploitation. | Privacy, Authenticity, Non-Repudiation | Internet | [100,101,107,110,114,115,116,117,118,120,121] |
Disable Telnet | Telnet is a great security risk due the fact of sending passwords and usernames in clear text. It should be ensured that is turned off. | Privacy, Authenticity, Non-Repudiation | Internet | [100,101,107,110,114,115,116,117,118,120,122] |
Encrypted Communication Usage (SSL/TLS) | Using a secure protocol such as SSL/TLS consists an essential step towards a device security through transport encryption. | Confidentially, Integrity, Authenticity | Access Gateway | [93,94,108,111,114,115,116,117,119,120] |
Strong Passwords | A token could be used to increase the security level of the device. | Privacy, Confidentially, Authenticity | Middleware | [93,94,100,107,109,114,115,116,117,120,123] |
Encryption of Drives | Keep the data inaccessible in case of a device theft. | Privacy, Integrity | Middleware, Edge Technology | [93,94,100,101,107,108,109,114,115,116,117,120,123] |
Accounts Lockout | Account lockout mechanism(s) should be incorporated in the device so as to allow a legitimate user to access and retrieve information. | Privacy, Confidentially, Authenticity | Edge Technology | [93,94,100,101,107,108,109,114,115,116,117,123] |
Periodic Assessment of Devices | Devices need periodic cybersecurity assessments in order to check and avoid possible new vulnerabilities of any type. | Privacy, Availability | Edge Technology | [93,94,100,101,107,108,109,114,115,116,117,120] |
Secure Password Recovery | Helps to retrieve back missed credentials in a secure way. | Privacy, Confidentially, Authenticity | Middleware | [93,94,100,107,109,114,115,116,117,118,119,120] |
Two-Factor Authentication | Keep data encrypted and protected as well. | Privacy, Confidentially, Authenticity | Middleware | [93,94,100,107,109,114,115,116,117,118,120] |
Disable UPnP | In order to avoid possible exposure of the network to aspiring attackers, the UPnP must be disabled as it does not require any authentication, which renders it an important security flaw. | Privacy, Confidentially, Availability | Internet | [93,94,100,107,110,114,115,116,117,120] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Demestichas, K.; Peppes, N.; Alexakis, T. Survey on Security Threats in Agricultural IoT and Smart Farming. Sensors 2020, 20, 6458. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226458
Demestichas K, Peppes N, Alexakis T. Survey on Security Threats in Agricultural IoT and Smart Farming. Sensors. 2020; 20(22):6458. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226458
Chicago/Turabian StyleDemestichas, Konstantinos, Nikolaos Peppes, and Theodoros Alexakis. 2020. "Survey on Security Threats in Agricultural IoT and Smart Farming" Sensors 20, no. 22: 6458. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226458
APA StyleDemestichas, K., Peppes, N., & Alexakis, T. (2020). Survey on Security Threats in Agricultural IoT and Smart Farming. Sensors, 20(22), 6458. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226458