Download fulltext HTML
Arrofiq, M., Nur Isnianto, H., Budiyanto, M., & Wahyo S, Y. (2019). Data Transmission Frequency Effect on MQTT Protocol Under Syn Flooding Attack. KnE Social Sciences, 3(23), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i23.5148

https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i23.5148

statistics

  • 402 Abstract Views
  • 707 PDF Views
  • 0 HTML Views

authors

  • Muhammad Arrofiq

    Muhammad Arrofiq

    Departement of Electrical and Information Engeenering, Vocational College Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Hidayat Nur Isnianto

    Hidayat Nur Isnianto

    Departement of Electrical and Information Engeenering, Vocational College Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Maun Budiyanto

    Maun Budiyanto

    Departement of Electrical and Information Engeenering, Vocational College Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Y Wahyo S

    Y Wahyo S

    Departement of Electrical and Information Engeenering, Vocational College Universitas Gadjah Mada

Published Date

  • Aug 28, 2019

Data Transmission Frequency Effect on MQTT Protocol Under Syn Flooding Attack

KnE Social Sciences / International Conference on Technology for Sustainable Development 2018 (ICTSD 2018) / Pages 183–187

Abstract

Nowadays, the IoT implementations grow rapidly in most sectors. One of the challenges faced due to this growth is performance of implemented protocol under attack that aims to destroy the system performance. One of the popular IoT protocols is message queuing telemetry transport, MQTT. This research evaluates the performance of MQTT broker under syn flooding attack. The research variable implemented is data transmission frequency. The variation of data transmission frequency is operated in publisher. Publisher sends data to broker under attack. The three difference data transmission frequencies are set representing three different conditions, i.e. high, medium and low frequency. Results show that a pattern is obtained. The higher data transmission frequency is the lower number of packet loss is obtained.

References
[1] Abdul-Ghani, H. A., Konstantas, D., & Mahyoub, M. (2018). A Comprehensive IoT Attacks Survey based on a Building-blocked Reference Model. (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 355-373.

[2] Banafa, A. (2016). IoT implementation and Challenges. Retrieved from Linked in: https://www.linkedin. com/pulse/iot-implementation-challenges-ahmed-banafa?trk=mp-author-card

[3] Banafa, A. (2017, March 14). Three Major Challenges Facing IoT. Retrieved from iot.ieee.org: https: //iot.ieee.org/newsletter/march-2017/three-major-challenges-facing-iot.html

[4] Fehrenbach, P. (2018, 9 30). Messaging Queues in the IoT under pressure. Retrieved from https://blog.it-securityguard.com: https://blog.it-securityguard.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ IOT_Mosquitto_Pfehrenbach.pdf

[5] Firdous, S. N., Baig, Z., Valli, C., & Ibrahim, A. (2017). Modelling and Evaluation of Malicious Attacks against the IoT MQTT Protocol. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData) (pp. 748-755). IEEE.

[6] NG, A. (2018, 3 15). IoT attacks are getting worse – and no one’s listening. Retrieved from www.cnet.com: https://www.cnet.com/news/iot-attacks-hacker-kaspersky-are-getting-worse-and-noone- is-listening/

[7] Salman, T., & Jain, R. (2017). A Survey of Protocols and Standards for Internet of Things. Advanced Computing and Communications, 1-20.

[8] World, R. W. (2018, 9 30). COAP vs MQTT | Difference between COAP and MQTT protocols. Retrieved from Home of RF and Wireless Vendors and Resources: http://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/ COAP-vs-MQTT.html