An Architecture of Enhanced Profiling Assurance for IoT Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The research presents advancements with the Enhanced Profiling Assurance (EPA) architecture, there are some specific observations as follows:

1. Integrating stateful inspections with stateless rules is resource intensive. This affects the deployment of EPA in a large-scale IoT network with thousands or millions of devices. Pls justify.

2. While the EPA aims to reduce false positives with a combination of stateful and stateless inspections, it still struggles with accurately discerning between legitimate and illegitimate traffic, especially as attack patterns evolve. Can you explain it?

3. The introduction of layered intrusion detection and prevention systems complicate the implementation and maintenance processes, Pls justify.

4. Combining stateful and stateless inspection mechanisms introduce latency and computational overhead, potentially affecting the real-time performance of IoT devices and applications. Pls justify.

5. Implementing the 'uncommitted' permission effectively requires continuous and dynamic monitoring, which could be challenging in environments with limited computational or network resources.

6. The EPA's effectiveness against newly emerging threats and sophisticated attack vectors needs regular updates and adaptations, which can be labour-intensive and require ongoing research and development.

7. Ensuring compatibility and seamless integration with existing network infrastructure and security protocols in diverse environments can present challenges.

8.     Check the number of 4.2 Limitations of the MUD Architecture.

9.     Pls include table in 4.3 Network traffic analysis in MUD-based network.

10.  Pls include table in 4.2 Gateway-based MUD architecture.

11.  Pls include section for complexity analysis in detail.

12.  Also, detail flow chart should be used for reflecting proper flow of the research.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences needs re-structuring with proper grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Few recommendations for overall articles

• While the paper is comprehensive, some sections, particularly the background and related works, could be more concise to improve readability.
• Ensure all figures and diagrams are clear and appropriately labeled. Some diagrams could benefit from more detailed captions to explain their relevance.
• Minor grammatical errors and typos should be corrected. For example, "Enhance Profiling Assurance" should consistently be "Enhanced Profiling Assurance."
• While the related works section is thorough, integrating more recent studies on stateful inspection and three-way decision theory could strengthen the literature review.
• Including more technical details about the implementation of the EPA architecture, such as algorithms used for network behaviour analysis, would enhance the paper's technical depth.
• Provide step-by-step instructions on how each component of the EPA architecture is set up and integrated. Include specific technologies, protocols, and tools used.
• Add detailed flowcharts for each component's workflow and interaction within the EPA architecture to enhance understanding
• Elaborate on the implementation of stateful inspection mechanisms, including how they function and how they integrate with the EPA architecture to detect and prevent malicious activities.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language used is generally clear but could benefit from more precise wording and avoidance of ambiguity.

- Example: Phrases like "unequivocally demonstrates the superiority" can be simplified to "clearly shows the effectiveness" to enhance readability.

- Suggestion: Simplify complex sentences and use straightforward vocabulary to improve clarity and precision.

 

- Comment:** There is some inconsistency in terminology that might confuse readers.

- Example: The terms "EPA architecture," "Enhanced Profiling Assurance architecture," and "proposed solution" are used interchangeably.

- Suggestion: Consistently use "EPA architecture" throughout the document to maintain coherence.

- Comment: The document contains a few grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures that can hinder readability.

- Example: The sentence "This finding should be confident in the effectiveness of our proposed solution" is awkward.

- Suggestion: Revise this to "These findings support the effectiveness of our proposed solution." Proofread the document to correct grammatical errors and improve sentence flow.

By addressing these comments, the overall quality and readability of the article can be significantly improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed almost all the issues, the manuscript may be considered for the publication.