Endpoints and Interdependencies in Internet of Things Residual Artifacts: Measurements, Analyses, and Insights into Defenses

The usage of Internet of Things (IoT) devices is growing fast. Moreover, the lack of security measures among the IoT devices and their persistent online connection give adversaries an opportunity to exploit them for multiple types of attacks, such as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS). To understand the risks of IoT devices, we analyze IoT malware from an endpoint standpoint. We investigate the relationship between endpoints infected and attacked by IoT malware, and gain insights into the underlying dynamics in the malware ecosystem. We observe the affinities and different patterns among endpoints. Towards this, we reverse-engineer 2,423 IoT malware samples and extract IP addresses from them. We further gather information about these endpoints from Internet-wide scans. For masked IP addresses, we examine their network distribution, with networks accumulating more than 100 million endpoints. Moreover, we conduct a network penetration analysis, leveraging information such as active ports, vulnerabilities, and organizations. We discover the possibility of ports being an entry point of attack and observe the low presence of vulnerable services in dropzones. Our analysis shows the tolerance of organizations towards endpoints with malicious intent. To understand the dependencies among malware, we highlight dropzone characteristics including spatial, network, and organizational affinities. Towards the analysis of dropzones\u27 interdependencies and dynamics, we identify dropzones chains. In particular, we identify 56 unique chains, which unveil coordination among different malware families. Our further analysis of chains suggests a centrality-based defense and monitoring mechanism to limit malware propagation. Finally, we propose a defense based on the observed measures, such as the blocked/blacklisted IP addresses or ports. In particular, we investigate network-level and country-level defenses, by blocking a list of ports that are not commonly used by benign applications, and study the underlying issues and possible solutions of such a defense

Estimating and comparing greenhouse gas emissions with their uncertainties using different methods: A case study for an energy supply utility

<div><p>Energy supply utilities release significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. It is essential to accurately estimate GHG emissions with their uncertainties, for reducing GHG emissions and mitigating climate change. GHG emissions can be calculated by an activity-based method (i.e., fuel consumption) and continuous emission measurement (CEM). In this study, GHG emissions such as CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O are estimated for a heat generation utility, which uses bituminous coal as fuel, by applying both the activity-based method and CEM. CO₂ emissions by the activity-based method are 12–19% less than that by the CEM, while N₂O and CH₄ emissions by the activity-based method are two orders of magnitude and 60% less than those by the CEM, respectively. Comparing GHG emissions (as CO₂ equivalent) from both methods, total GHG emissions by the activity-based methods are 12–27% lower than that by the CEM, as CO₂ and N₂O emissions are lower than those by the CEM. Results from uncertainty estimation show that uncertainties in the GHG emissions by the activity-based methods range from 3.4% to about 20%, from 67% to 900%, and from about 70% to about 200% for CO₂, N₂O, and CH₄, respectively, while uncertainties in the GHG emissions by the CEM range from 4% to 4.5%. For the activity-based methods, an uncertainty in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) default net calorific value (NCV) is the major uncertainty contributor to CO₂ emissions, while an uncertainty in the IPCC default emission factor is the major uncertainty contributor to CH₄ and N₂O emissions. For the CEM, an uncertainty in volumetric flow measurement, especially for the distribution of the volumetric flow rate in a stack, is the major uncertainty contributor to all GHG emissions, while uncertainties in concentration measurements contribute a little to uncertainties in the GHG emissions. </p><p></p><p>Implications:</p><p>Energy supply utilities contribute a significant portion of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is important to accurately estimate GHG emissions with their uncertainties for reducing GHG emissions and mitigating climate change. GHG emissions can be estimated by an activity-based method and by continuous emission measurement (CEM), yet little study has been done to calculate GHG emissions with uncertainty analysis. This study estimates GHG emissions and their uncertainties, and also identifies major uncertainty contributors for each method.</p><p></p><p></p></div