Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Zero-Trust Foundation Models: A New Paradigm for Secure and Collaborative Artificial Intelligence for Internet of Things

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Zero-Trust Foundation Models claim to turn IoT into a self-defending, continuously verified ecosystem.

desk verdict A useful but overclaimed survey that rebrands known zero-trust and FM-security ideas as 'ZTFM'; no implementation or feasibility analysis, so the transformative claims are not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23792 v1 pith:TC57N6NK submitted 2025-05-26 cs.CR cs.AI

Kai Li , Conggai Li , Xin Yuan , Shenghong Li , Sai Zou , Syed Sohail Ahmed , Wei Ni , Dusit Niyato
show 3 more authors
Abbas Jamalipour Falko Dressler Ozgur B. Akan
This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords FoundationmodelsZerotrustInternetofThingsSecurityFederatedlearningBehavioralanalyticsEmergingthreatsDefensestrategies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the security problems of AI-driven Internet of Things (IoT) systems will not be solved by patching the network perimeter, and proposes instead a new paradigm: Zero-Trust Foundation Models (ZTFMs), which embed zero-trust security principles directly into the design, training, and deployment of foundation models. The four principles—least privilege access, continuous verification, data confidentiality and integrity, and behavioral analytics—are meant to turn every device, user, and interaction into something that must prove itself continuously rather than being trusted after a one-time authentication. The paper is the first structured synthesis of this idea, and it supports it with a technical framework that combines federated learning, blockchain-based identity management, micro-segmentation, and trusted execution environments to keep collaborative AI verifiable at the edge. If the paradigm holds, IoT systems could move from vulnerable, trust-once architectures into self-defending ecosystems capable of detecting poisoning, backdoors, inference leakage, and Byzantine failures as they happen. The paper itself flags that scalability, resource constraints, and lightweight security orchestration remain open problems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Zero-Trust Foundation Model (ZTFM)—a foundation model whose entire lifecycle, from training to inference, is governed by four zero-trust principles: least privilege access, continuous verification, data confidentiality and integrity, and behavioral analytics. The machinery that carries the argument is the integration of enabling technologies around the FM: federated learning and secure aggregation to protect gradients, blockchain and smart contracts to anchor identity and audit logs, trusted execution environments and encryption to isolate sensitive computation, and anomaly detection to score behavior in real time. What makes the paradigm distinctive is the dual role assigned to the FM: it is simultaneously the target of attacks and the active engine of trust enforcement, using its learned understanding of normal device behavior to drive continuous verification decisions.

What would settle it

Run a ZTFM-style pipeline—continuous verification, behavioral analytics, federated aggregation, blockchain audit logging, TEE-based inference, and encrypted communication—on a realistic low-power IoT testbed with non-IID data under active data-poisoning and backdoor attacks, and measure per-device energy, latency, memory, and detection accuracy. If the composite overhead exceeds the devices' budgets or detection performance falls below existing single-layer defenses, the practical claim of the framework fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that foundation models in IoT should be built and operated under a zero-trust assumption: no device, user, or model component is inherently trusted, and every interaction is continuously authenticated, authorized, and validated. The paper formalizes four founding principles and operationalizes them through a layered technical stack—federated learning for privacy-preserving collaboration, blockchain for tamper-resistant identity and auditability, micro-segmentation for least privilege, and trusted execution environments for confidential computation. Within this architecture, the foundation model plays a dual role: it is both the object being protected and an active agent that performs behavioral analytics, anomaly detection, and dynamic access control. The paper claims this makes IoT systems self-defending, detecting compromise through behavioral drift rather than relying on signatures or static rules, while acknowledging that the computational cost of the full stack on constrained devices is an unresolved challenge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the full stack of continuous verification, behavioral analytics, federated learning, blockchain, trusted execution environments, and encryption can be made energy- and latency-feasible on real, resource-constrained IoT devices, which the paper itself lists as an open problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ZTFM works as claimed, IoT access control becomes dynamic and context-aware: permissions tighten or revoke in real time based on behavioral drift rather than fixed roles.
  • Federated learning with secure aggregation and blockchain-based identity management would let heterogeneous devices train a shared foundation model without exposing raw data or accepting poisoned updates.
  • Behavioral analytics built into the FM would detect subtle compromise—like a smart thermostat exfiltrating data at odd hours—without pre-written signatures.
  • The same architecture could enforce zero trust across mission-critical settings such as healthcare IoT, industrial automation, and smart cities, and the paper extends it to dynamic edge environments such as LEO satellite networks.
  • The paper's listed open challenges imply that practical ZTFM deployment depends on solving lightweight cryptography, resource-aware security orchestration, and interpretable trust decisions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paradigm generalizes, zero trust could become a design principle for all AI services, not just IoT: any foundation model serving multiple tenants would continuously verify every caller and scope every inference to a least-privilege policy.
  • A natural next experiment is to quantify the overhead of the full ZTFM stack on real constrained hardware; if the composite cost cannot be met, the architecture could degrade gracefully by making verification selective and risk-driven rather than continuous.
  • The dual role of the FM as trust enforcement agent introduces a new attack surface that the paper only partially addresses: an adversary who compromises the FM itself could corrupt the behavioral analytics used to grant access, so trust calibration of the trust engine may need independent verification.
  • Cross-domain policy federation, which the paper lists as open, is likely the precondition for real deployment: hospitals, factories, and transit systems each have their own trust domains, and a global ZTFM would need auditable ways to translate and honor those policies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes "Zero-Trust Foundation Models" (ZTFMs), a paradigm that embeds zero-trust security principles — least privilege access, continuous verification, data confidentiality and integrity, and behavioral analytics — into the lifecycle of foundation models for IoT systems. It surveys existing threats to FM-based IoT (data/model poisoning, membership inference, Byzantine failures, backdoors, adversarial attacks on intrusion detection), reviews defensive strategies, and then proposes a technical architecture integrating federated learning, blockchain-based identity, micro-segmentation, trusted execution environments, and encryption. The paper positions itself as the first structured synthesis of ZTFMs and closes with a list of open research challenges. The contribution is qualitative: it is a survey and position statement, with no implementation, experiment, formal model, or quantitative evaluation of the proposed architecture.

Significance. If validated, the ZTFM concept could be a useful organizing frame for combining zero-trust security with FM-based IoT intelligence, and the paper's taxonomies — attack-to-defense mappings, principle-to-mechanism tables, and the explicit enumeration of open problems — are genuinely helpful for researchers entering this area. The manuscript is well structured and cites a broad set of recent works, including several that independently combine zero-trust and federated learning. Its strength lies in synthesis rather than in new technical results. However, because the central "enable" and "transform" claims are not backed by a formal model or empirical demonstration, the significance is currently at the level of a research roadmap rather than a proven security architecture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section VII] The abstract and conclusion state that ZTFMs "can enable secure, privacy-preserving AI" and "transform conventional trust-based IoT architectures into resilient, self-defending ecosystems," but the manuscript provides no implementation, experiment, simulation, or quantitative analysis that would demonstrate these outcomes. The paper is a qualitative survey and architecture sketch, which is acceptable for a research vision if explicitly framed as such. I recommend either adding concrete evidence (even a small proof-of-concept or a formal security argument) or rewriting these sentences to state that ZTFMs are a proposed paradigm whose capability remains an open research question.
  2. [Section IV and Contribution 2] Contribution 2 claims the paper "formalizes four core security principles," yet Section IV provides no formal definitions, security properties, threat models, or verification conditions for least privilege access, continuous verification, data confidentiality and integrity, or behavioral analytics. The subsections describe mechanisms and cite prior work, but there is no formalization in the mathematical or logical sense. If the claim of formalization is to be retained, the principles need precise definitions and an explicit adversary model; otherwise, the contribution should be described as "conceptualizes" or "characterizes" rather than "formalizes."
  3. [Sections V, VI, and Table VI] The proposed ZTFM stack composes federated learning, blockchain, micro-segmentation, TEEs, continuous verification, and encryption, but the manuscript nowhere analyzes whether this composite architecture is resource-feasible on constrained IoT hardware. Table VI explicitly lists computational overhead, latency, and key management as challenges for essentially every component, and Section VI, challenge 5, admits that IoT has "inherent constraints in bandwidth, memory, and compute" and calls security orchestration a "pressing challenge." This unresolved feasibility issue is load-bearing because the central "enable" claim presupposes that the full stack can operate within IoT energy, memory, latency, and bandwidth budgets. The authors should supply at least a representative budget analysis for a concrete device class, or explicitly state that deployability is an open question rather than a property of the proposed framework.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I.D] The acronym "ZFTM" is used repeatedly in Section I.D, while the rest of the paper uses "ZTFM"; please unify the terminology.
  2. [Section III.E] The final sentence of Section III.E ends with "toward a Z," which appears to be a truncated reference to ZTFM; the sentence is incomplete and should be finished.
  3. [Figure 1 and Table VI] There are several typographical errors, including "Priviliege" in Figure 1, "Falures" in Figure 1, and "Advantanges" in Table VI. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [References [41] and [101]] Reference [41] and reference [101] appear to cite the same paper by H. Joshi with slightly different publication years and volume information; please merge or disambiguate them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No cyclic derivation: ZTFM is an explicitly defined design paradigm; security outcomes are stated as design goals rather than derived predictions, and self-citations are illustrative only.

full rationale

This paper is a survey and position paper, not a derivation chain. It contains no equations or quantitative claims that could reduce to their inputs. The ZTFM concept is explicitly defined as embedding zero-trust principles into the FM lifecycle (Section I.C: 'A ZTFM is envisaged to integrate zero-trust security principles into the design, training, and deployment of FMs, enabling continuous verification, fine-grained access control, and privacy-preserving computation across distributed IoT environments'). The Abstract's claim that ZTFMs 'can enable secure, privacy-preserving AI' is a restatement of that design goal, not a theorem derived from independent premises, so no hidden reduction exists. The paper's own self-citations ([60], [61], [83], [85]) are used only as examples of known attacks and defenses; they are not load-bearing for the ZTFM paradigm itself. The feasibility limitation identified by the skeptic (Section VI, Table VI) is an acknowledged open challenge and a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, the paper is self-contained as a qualitative synthesis, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ZTFM claim depends on three domain-level assumptions about feasibility and composability, not on fitted numerical parameters. No experiments or quantitative constants are present; the only 'entity' introduced is the ZTFM concept itself, which lacks independent evidence.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Zero-trust principles can be embedded into the foundation-model lifecycle without breaking model utility or IoT operations.
    Stated throughout Sections I and IV; no implementation or experiment demonstrates the integration, so the central promise rests on it.
  • domain assumption Foundation models can run effectively in resource-constrained, intermittently connected IoT environments.
    Section I.B and II.B note energy and latency constraints but only suggest future 'lightweight versions'; the paper acknowledges open problem in Section VI. This is load-bearing for any real deployment.
  • ad hoc to paper FL, blockchain, micro-segmentation, and TEEs can be composed into one architecture without unresolved conflicts.
    Section V proposes the unified framework, but Table VI lists incompatible-seeming cost profiles (blockchain latency, TEE hardware dependency, communication overhead) without a composition analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Zero-Trust Foundation Model (ZTFM)
    purpose: Serves as the proposed paradigm that embeds zero-trust security principles into the design, training, and deployment of foundation models for IoT.
    The paper introduces ZTFM as a named concept but provides no formal definition, prototype, or falsifiable prediction; it is a conceptual umbrella over existing technologies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-Trust Foundation Models: A New Paradigm for Secure and Collaborative Artificial Intelligence for Internet of Things." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TC57N6NK

@misc{pith2026250523792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-Trust Foundation Models: A New Paradigm for Secure and Collaborative Artificial Intelligence for Internet of Things},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TC57N6NK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23792}
}
read the original abstract

This paper focuses on Zero-Trust Foundation Models (ZTFMs), a novel paradigm that embeds zero-trust security principles into the lifecycle of foundation models (FMs) for Internet of Things (IoT) systems. By integrating core tenets, such as continuous verification, least privilege access (LPA), data confidentiality, and behavioral analytics into the design, training, and deployment of FMs, ZTFMs can enable secure, privacy-preserving AI across distributed, heterogeneous, and potentially adversarial IoT environments. We present the first structured synthesis of ZTFMs, identifying their potential to transform conventional trust-based IoT architectures into resilient, self-defending ecosystems. Moreover, we propose a comprehensive technical framework, incorporating federated learning (FL), blockchain-based identity management, micro-segmentation, and trusted execution environments (TEEs) to support decentralized, verifiable intelligence at the network edge. In addition, we investigate emerging security threats unique to ZTFM-enabled systems and evaluate countermeasures, such as anomaly detection, adversarial training, and secure aggregation. Through this analysis, we highlight key open research challenges in terms of scalability, secure orchestration, interpretable threat attribution, and dynamic trust calibration. This survey lays a foundational roadmap for secure, intelligent, and trustworthy IoT infrastructures powered by FMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A conceptual overview of ZTFM-enabled IoT applications. The architecture integrates Zero Trust principles with enabling technologies. These components collaboratively mitigate adversarial threats such as model poi￾soning, membership inference, backdoors, and Byzantine failures, enhancing the security posture of real-world IoT scenarios, including Smart Cities, Healthcare, and Industrial IoT. security with the adapti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ZTFM-enabled security architecture for IoT. FMs analyze behavioral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of an adversarial variational graph autoencoder-enabled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An illustration of the GradCAM-based defense mechanism against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Core principles of ZTFM in IoT environments. Each principle – Least Privilege Access, Continuous Verification, Data Confidentiality & Integrity, and Behavioral Analytics – maps to specific mechanisms and goals designed to enhance security posture in distributed, hetero…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A representative architecture of privacy-preserving FL in edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An illustration of a CPU–GPU co-architecture for confidential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The core structure of the zero-trust architecture proposed in [107], [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Overview of a potential privacy breach in blockchain-based IoT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Workflow of an FL poisoning attack presented in [114]. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of the zero trust multi-cloud architecture with distributed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Large Language Models for Next-Generation Wireless Network Management: A Survey and Tutorial

    cs.NI 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey and tutorial that organizes LLM-enabled wireless network optimization into formulation, solution, and verification stages, with case studies drawn from the authors' own prior papers.

  2. The Age of Sensorial Zero Trust: Why We Can No Longer Trust Our Senses

    cs.CR 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A position paper argues that organizations should apply Zero Trust verification principles to human sensory perception to defend against deepfake and voice-clone fraud.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

162 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Internet of Things sensing networks, smart manufacturing big data, and digitized mass production in sus- tainable Industry 4.0

    E. Hopkins and A. Siekelova, “Internet of Things sensing networks, smart manufacturing big data, and digitized mass production in sus- tainable Industry 4.0.”Economics, Management & Financial Markets, vol. 16, no. 4, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Distributed machine learning for wireless communication networks: Techniques, architectures, and applications,

    S. Hu, X. Chen, W. Ni, E. Hossain, and X. Wang, “Distributed machine learning for wireless communication networks: Techniques, architectures, and applications,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1458–1493, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    An artificial intelligence- based collaboration approach in industrial iot manufacturing: Key concepts, architectural extensions and potential applications,

    P. Trakadas, P. Simoens, P. Gkoniset al., “An artificial intelligence- based collaboration approach in industrial iot manufacturing: Key concepts, architectural extensions and potential applications,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 19, p. 5480, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    Blockchain with IoT and AI: A review of agriculture and healthcare,

    P. Singh and N. Singh, “Blockchain with IoT and AI: A review of agriculture and healthcare,”Research Anthology on Convergence of Blockchain, Internet of Things, and Security, pp. 1315–1330, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Drive Safe: Cognitive-Behavioral Mining for Intelligent Transportation Cyber-Physical System

    M. S. Munir, S. F. Abedin, K. T. Kim, D. H. Kim, M. G. R. Alam, and C. S. Hong, “Drive safe: Cognitive-behavioral mining for intelligent transportation cyber-physical system,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.10148, 2020. 18

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Intelligent decision support system for home automation–ANFIS based approach,

    K. Reena and V . Venkatesh, “Intelligent decision support system for home automation–ANFIS based approach,”Int. J. Eng. Technol.(UAE), vol. 7, pp. 421–427, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Industry white papers of industry IoT consortium

    I. I. Consortium, “Industry white papers of industry IoT consortium.” [Online]. Available: https://www.iiconsortium.org/ white-papers/industry/

  8. [8]

    Accelerating railway digitalization - the startup sector’s perspective

    K. GmbH, “Accelerating railway digitalization - the startup sector’s perspective.” [Online]. Available: https://resources.konux. com/accelerating-railway-digitalization-the-startup-sectors-perspective

Show all 162 references
  1. [9]

    LG’s new smart home hub has a built-in voice assistant

    J. P. Tuohy, “LG’s new smart home hub has a built-in voice assistant.” [Online]. Available: https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/28/ 24230692/lg-thinq-on-smart-home-hub-ai-voice-assistant

    2024

  2. [10]

    A survey on foundation-model-based industrial defect detection,

    T. Yang, L. Chang, J. Yan, J. Li, Z. Wang, and K. Zhang, “A survey on foundation-model-based industrial defect detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19106, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryderet al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” inProc. NeurIPS 2020, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” inProc. NAACL-HLT 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 4171–4186

    2019

  5. [13]

    DeepSeek- R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning,

    DeepSeek-AI, D. Guo, D. Yang, and H. Z. .etc, “DeepSeek- R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning,”CoRR, vol. abs/2501.12948, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12948

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    DeepSeek- V3 technical report,

    DeepSeek-AI, A. Liu, B. Feng, and B. X. .etc, “DeepSeek- V3 technical report,”CoRR, vol. abs/2412.19437, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.19437

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    A survey on large language models for communication, network, and service management: Application insights, challenges, and future directions,

    G. O. Boateng, H. Samiet al., “A survey on large language models for communication, network, and service management: Application insights, challenges, and future directions,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Membership inference attacks against language models via neighbourhood comparison,

    J. Mattern, F. Mireshghallah, Z. Jinet al., “Membership inference attacks against language models via neighbourhood comparison,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18462, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Backdoor threats from compromised foundation models to federated learning,

    X. Li, S. Wang, C. Wu, H. Zhou, and J. Wang, “Backdoor threats from compromised foundation models to federated learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00144, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Federated foundation models: Privacy-preserving and collaborative learning for large models,

    S. Yu, J. P. Mu ˜noz, and A. Jannesari, “Federated foundation models: Privacy-preserving and collaborative learning for large models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11414, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Applying zero trust security principles to defence mechanisms against data exfiltration attacks,

    H. Egerton, M. Hammoudeh, D. Unal, and B. Adebisi, “Applying zero trust security principles to defence mechanisms against data exfiltration attacks,”Security and Privacy in the Internet of Things: Architectures, Techniques, and Applications, pp. 57–89, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Anatomy of threats to the Internet of Things,

    I. Makhdoom, M. Abolhasan, J. Lipman, R. P. Liu, and W. Ni, “Anatomy of threats to the Internet of Things,”IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1636–1675, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Build security into your network’s dna: The zero trust network architecture,

    J. Kindervaget al., “Build security into your network’s dna: The zero trust network architecture,”Forrester Research Inc, vol. 27, pp. 1–16, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,

    R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeliet al., “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Survey on foundation models for prognostics and health management in industrial cyber-physical systems,

    R. Liu, Q. Zhang, T. Han, B. Yang, W. Zhang, S. Yin, and D. Zhou, “Survey on foundation models for prognostics and health management in industrial cyber-physical systems,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Trustworthy AI: A computational perspective,

    H. Liu, Y . Wanget al., “Trustworthy AI: A computational perspective,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–59, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Zero trust architecture (ZTA): A comprehensive survey,

    N. F. Syed, S. W. Shah, A. Shaghaghi, A. Anwar, Z. Baig, and R. Doss, “Zero trust architecture (ZTA): A comprehensive survey,”IEEE access, vol. 10, pp. 57 143–57 179, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Zero trust architecture: A comprehensive review of prin- ciples, implementation strategies, and future directions in enterprise cybersecurity,

    F. Mensah, “Zero trust architecture: A comprehensive review of prin- ciples, implementation strategies, and future directions in enterprise cybersecurity,”International Journal of Academic and Industrial Re- search Innovations (IJAIRI), vol. 10, pp. 339–346, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Edge machine learning for AI- enabled IoT devices: A review,

    M. Merenda, C. Porcaro, and D. Iero, “Edge machine learning for AI- enabled IoT devices: A review,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 9, p. 2533, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Design and implemen- tation of a contextual-based continuous authentication framework for smart homes,

    Y . Ashibani, D. Kauling, and Q. H. Mahmoud, “Design and implemen- tation of a contextual-based continuous authentication framework for smart homes,”Applied System Innovation, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 4, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Design of cloud-edge-gateway collab- orative zero-trust architecture and workflow for smart factories,

    Z. Xu, B. Di, and L. Song, “Design of cloud-edge-gateway collab- orative zero-trust architecture and workflow for smart factories,” in 2024 IEEE International Workshop on Radio Frequency and Antenna Technologies (iWRF&AT). IEEE, 2024, pp. 335–339

    2024

  22. [30]

    A trustworthy IoT-based supply chain traceability system with semantic multi-chain and pre-blockchain data verification,

    L. Li, W. Wang, X. Zhouet al., “A trustworthy IoT-based supply chain traceability system with semantic multi-chain and pre-blockchain data verification,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, pp. 1–1, 2025, early access

    2025

  23. [31]

    The transformative impact of zero-trust architecture on healthcare security,

    N. Alsuwaidi, N. Alharmoodi, and H. Al Hamadi, “The transformative impact of zero-trust architecture on healthcare security,” in2024 2nd International Conference on Cyber Resilience (ICCR). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  24. [32]

    A blockchain-enabled cold start aggregation scheme for federated reinforcement learning-based task offloading in zero trust leo satellite networks,

    B. Mao, Y . Liu, Z. Wei, H. Guo, Y . Xun, J. Wang, J. Liu, and N. Kato, “A blockchain-enabled cold start aggregation scheme for federated reinforcement learning-based task offloading in zero trust leo satellite networks,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, pp. 1–11, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Toward zero-trust security for the metaverse,

    R. Cheng, S. Chen, and B. Han, “Toward zero-trust security for the metaverse,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 156– 162, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    OFDMA-F²L: Federated learning with flexible aggregation over an OFDMA air interface,

    S. Hu, X. Yuan, W. Ni, X. Wang, E. Hossain, and H. Vincent Poor, “OFDMA-F²L: Federated learning with flexible aggregation over an OFDMA air interface,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica- tions, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6793–6807, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    A federated learning-based zero trust intrusion detection system for Internet of Things,

    D. Javeed, M. S. Saeed, M. Adil, P. Kumar, and A. Jolfaei, “A federated learning-based zero trust intrusion detection system for Internet of Things,”Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 162, p. 103540, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Amplitude- varying perturbation for balancing privacy and utility in federated learning,

    X. Yuan, W. Ni, M. Ding, K. Wei, J. Li, and H. V . Poor, “Amplitude- varying perturbation for balancing privacy and utility in federated learning,”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 18, pp. 1884–1897, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Personalized federated learning with differential privacy and convergence guarantee,

    K. Wei, J. Li, C. Ma, M. Ding, W. Chen, J. Wu, M. Tao, and H. V . Poor, “Personalized federated learning with differential privacy and convergence guarantee,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 18, pp. 4488–4503, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Privacy and robustness in federated learning: Attacks and defenses,

    L. Lyu, H. Yu, X. Ma, C. Chen, L. Sun, J. Zhao, Q. Yang, and P. S. Yu, “Privacy and robustness in federated learning: Attacks and defenses,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 8726– 8746, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    A taxonomy of attacks on federated learning,

    M. Jere, T. Farnan, and F. Koushanfar, “A taxonomy of attacks on federated learning,”IEEE Secur. Priv., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 20–28, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Huang, Y

    D. Huang, Y . Na, Y . Liu, Z. Zhang, and B. Mi, “Overview of cooperative fault-tolerant control driven by the full information chain of intelligent connected vehicle platoons under the zero-trust framework: Opportunities and challenges,”IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems ...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Emerging technologies driving zero trust maturity across industries,

    H. Joshi, “Emerging technologies driving zero trust maturity across industries,”IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, vol. 6, pp. 25–36, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Zero trust implementation in the emerging technologies era: Survey,

    A. I. Weinberg and K. Cohen, “Zero trust implementation in the emerging technologies era: Survey,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09575

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Security and privacy on 6g network edge: A survey,

    B. Mao, J. Liu, Y . Wu, and N. Kato, “Security and privacy on 6g network edge: A survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1095–1127, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Distributed foundation models for multi-modal learning in 6G wireless networks,

    J. Du, T. Lin, C. Jiang, Q. Yang, C. F. Bader, and Z. Han, “Distributed foundation models for multi-modal learning in 6G wireless networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 20–30, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    netFound: Foundation model for network security,

    S. Guthula, R. Beltiukov, N. Battula, W. Guo, A. Gupta, and I. Monga, “netFound: Foundation model for network security,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.17025

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Leveraging foundation models for zero-shot IoT sensing,

    D. Xue, X. Fan, T. Chen, G. Lan, and Q. Song, “Leveraging foundation models for zero-shot IoT sensing,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19893

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Foundation models for CPS-IoT: Opportunities and challenges,

    O. Baris, Y . Chen, G. Dong, L. Han, T. Kimura, P. Quan, R. Wang, T. Wang, T. Abdelzaher, M. Berg ´es, P. P. Liang, and M. Srivastava, “Foundation models for CPS-IoT: Opportunities and challenges,”

  40. [48]

    Foundation models secretly understand neural network weights: Enhancing hypernetwork architectures with foundation models,

    J. Gu and S. Yeung-Levy, “Foundation models secretly understand neural network weights: Enhancing hypernetwork architectures with foundation models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2503.00838

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Decentralized training of foundation models in heterogeneous environments,

    B. Yuan, Y . He, J. Davis, T. Zhang, T. Dao, B. Chen, P. S. Liang, C. R ´e, and C. Zhang, “Decentralized training of foundation models in heterogeneous environments,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022, pp. 25 464–25 477

    2022

  42. [50]

    Large multi-modal models (lmms) as universal foundation models for AI-native wireless systems,

    S. Xu, C. Kurisummoottil Thomas, O. Hashash, N. Muralidhar, W. Saad, and N. Ramakrishnan, “Large multi-modal models (lmms) as universal foundation models for AI-native wireless systems,”IEEE Network, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 10–20, 2024. 19

    2024

  43. [51]

    Training and serving system of foundation models: A comprehensive survey,

    J. Zhou, Y . Chen, Z. Hong, W. Chen, Y . Yu, T. Zhang, H. Wang, C. Zhang, and Z. Zheng, “Training and serving system of foundation models: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, vol. 5, pp. 107–119, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Membership inference attacks on machine learning: A survey,

    H. Hu, Z. Salcic, L. Sun, G. Dobbie, P. S. Yu, and X. Zhang, “Membership inference attacks on machine learning: A survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 11s, pp. 1–37, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Preserving the privacy of latent information for graph-structured data,

    B. Shan, X. Yuan, W. Ni, X. Wang, R. P. Liu, and E. Dutkiewicz, “Preserving the privacy of latent information for graph-structured data,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 18, pp. 5041–5055, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Cardinality counting in “Alcatraz

    N. Wu, X. Yuan, S. Wang, H. Hu, and M. Xue, “Cardinality counting in “Alcatraz”: A privacy-aware federated learning approach,” inProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, ser. WWW ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, p. 3076–3084. [Online]. Ava...

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Adversarial attacks and defenses in machine learning- empowered communication systems and networks: A contemporary survey,

    Y . Wang, T. Sun, S. Li, X. Yuan, W. Ni, E. Hossain, and H. Vin- cent Poor, “Adversarial attacks and defenses in machine learning- empowered communication systems and networks: A contemporary survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2245–2298, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    A comprehensive survey on poisoning attacks and countermeasures in machine learning,

    Z. Tian, L. Cui, J. Liang, and S. Yu, “A comprehensive survey on poisoning attacks and countermeasures in machine learning,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 166:1–166:35, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Data and model poisoning backdoor attacks on wireless federated learning, and the defense mechanisms: A comprehensive survey,

    Y . Wan, Y . Qu, W. Ni, Y . Xiang, L. Gao, and E. Hossain, “Data and model poisoning backdoor attacks on wireless federated learning, and the defense mechanisms: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1861–1897, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Data poisoning in sequential and parallel federated learning,

    F. Nuding and R. Mayer, “Data poisoning in sequential and parallel federated learning,” inIWSPA@CODASPY 2022: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM on International Workshop on Security and Privacy Ana- lytics. ACM, 2022, pp. 24–34

    2022

  51. [59]

    Manipulating machine learning: Poisoning attacks and countermea- sures for regression learning,

    M. Jagielski, A. Oprea, B. Biggio, C. Liu, C. Nita-Rotaru, and B. Li, “Manipulating machine learning: Poisoning attacks and countermea- sures for regression learning,” inProc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2018. IEEE Computer Society, 2018, pp. 19–35

    2018

  52. [60]

    Leverage variational graph representation for model poisoning on federated learning,

    K. Li, X. Yuan, J. Zheng, W. Ni, F. Dressler, and A. Jamalipour, “Leverage variational graph representation for model poisoning on federated learning,”IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 116–128, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Data-agnostic model poisoning against federated learning: A graph autoencoder approach,

    K. Li, J. Zheng, X. Yuan, W. Ni, ¨O. B. Akan, and H. V . Poor, “Data-agnostic model poisoning against federated learning: A graph autoencoder approach,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 19, pp. 3465–3480, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    MPAF: model poisoning attacks to federated learning based on fake clients,

    X. Cao and N. Z. Gong, “MPAF: model poisoning attacks to federated learning based on fake clients,” inProc. CVPR Workshops 2022. IEEE, 2022, pp. 3395–3403

    2022

  55. [63]

    Secure aggregation is insecure: Category inference attack on federated learning,

    J. Gao, B. Hou, X. Guo, Z. Liu, Y . Zhang, K. Chen, and J. Li, “Secure aggregation is insecure: Category inference attack on federated learning,”IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 147–160, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Poisoning- assisted property inference attack against federated learning,

    Z. Wang, Y . Huang, M. Song, L. Wu, F. Xue, and K. Ren, “Poisoning- assisted property inference attack against federated learning,”IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 3328–3340, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    Label inference attacks against vertical federated learning,

    C. Fu, X. Zhang, S. Ji, J. Chen, J. Wu, S. Guo, J. Zhou, A. X. Liu, and T. Wang, “Label inference attacks against vertical federated learning,” inProc. USENIX Security 2022. USENIX Association, 2022, pp. 1397–1414

    2022

  58. [66]

    {ML-Doctor}: Holistic risk assessment of inference attacks against machine learning models,

    Y . Liu, R. Wen, X. He, A. Salem, Z. Zhang, M. Backes, E. De Cristo- faro, M. Fritz, and Y . Zhang, “{ML-Doctor}: Holistic risk assessment of inference attacks against machine learning models,” in31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22), 2022, pp. 4525–4542

    2022

  59. [67]

    Membership inference attacks against machine learning models via prediction sensitivity,

    L. Liu, Y . Wang, G. Liu, K. Peng, and C. Wang, “Membership inference attacks against machine learning models via prediction sensitivity,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2341–2347, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Enhanced membership inference attacks against machine learning models,

    J. Ye, A. Maddi, S. K. Murakonda, V . Bindschaedler, and R. Shokri, “Enhanced membership inference attacks against machine learning models,” inProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2022, pp. 3093–3106

    2022

  61. [69]

    Feature inference attack on model predictions in vertical federated learning,

    X. Luo, Y . Wu, X. Xiao, and B. C. Ooi, “Feature inference attack on model predictions in vertical federated learning,” in2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 181–192

    2021

  62. [70]

    Toler- ating adversarial attacks and Byzantine faults in distributed machine learning,

    Y . Wu, H. Chen, X. Wang, C. Liu, P. Nguyen, and Y . Yesha, “Toler- ating adversarial attacks and Byzantine faults in distributed machine learning,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 2021, pp. 3380–3389

    2021

  63. [71]

    Byzantine fault-tolerant state-machine replication from a systems perspective,

    T. Distler, “Byzantine fault-tolerant state-machine replication from a systems perspective,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Local model poisoning attacks to Byzantine-robust federated learning,

    M. Fang, X. Cao, J. Jia, and N. Z. Gong, “Local model poisoning attacks to Byzantine-robust federated learning,” inProc. USENIX Security 2020. USENIX Association, 2020, pp. 1605–1622

    2020

  65. [73]

    Challenges and approaches for mitigating Byzantine attacks in federated learning,

    J. Shi, W. Wan, S. Hu, J. Lu, and L. Y . Zhang, “Challenges and approaches for mitigating Byzantine attacks in federated learning,” in Proc. TrustCom 2022. IEEE, 2022, pp. 139–146

    2022

  66. [74]

    Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent,

    P. Blanchard, E. M. E. Mhamdi, R. Guerraoui, and J. Stainer, “Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, 2017, pp. 119–129

    2017

  67. [75]

    Privacy-preserving and Byzantine-robust federated learning,

    C. Dong, J. Weng, M. Li, J. Liu, Z. Liu, Y . Cheng, and S. Yu, “Privacy-preserving and Byzantine-robust federated learning,”IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 889–904, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Backdoor attacks and defenses in federated learning: Survey, challenges and future research directions,

    T. D. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, P. L. Nguyen, H. H. Pham, K. D. Doan, and K. Wong, “Backdoor attacks and defenses in federated learning: Survey, challenges and future research directions,”Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 127, no. Part A, p. 107166, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning,

    H. Wang, K. Sreenivasan, S. Rajput, H. Vishwakarma, S. Agarwal, J. Sohn, K. Lee, and D. S. Papailiopoulos, “Attack of the tails: Yes, you really can backdoor federated learning,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    Coordinated backdoor attacks against federated learning with model- dependent triggers,

    X. Gong, Y . Chen, H. Huang, Y . Liao, S. Wang, and Q. Wang, “Coordinated backdoor attacks against federated learning with model- dependent triggers,”IEEE Netw., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 84–90, 2022

    2022

  71. [79]

    DeepSight: Mitigating backdoor attacks in federated learning through deep model inspection,

    P. Rieger, T. D. Nguyen, M. Miettinen, and A. Sadeghi, “DeepSight: Mitigating backdoor attacks in federated learning through deep model inspection,” inProc. NDSS 2022. The Internet Society, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Hierarchical adversarial attacks against graph-neural-network-based IoT network intrusion detection system,

    X. Zhou, W. Liang, W. Li, K. Yan, S. Shimizu, and K. I. Wang, “Hierarchical adversarial attacks against graph-neural-network-based IoT network intrusion detection system,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 9310–9319, 2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    Adversarial attack on graph structured data,

    H. Dai, H. Li, T. Tian, X. Huang, L. Wang, J. Zhu, and L. Song, “Adversarial attack on graph structured data,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 1115–1124

    2018

  74. [82]

    FLCert: Provably secure federated learning against poisoning attacks,

    X. Cao, Z. Zhang, J. Jia, and N. Z. Gong, “FLCert: Provably secure federated learning against poisoning attacks,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Foren- sics Secur., vol. 17, pp. 3691–3705, 2022

    2022

  75. [83]

    Exploring repre- sentational similarity analysis to protect federated learning from data poisoning,

    G. Chen, K. Li, A. M. Abdelmoniem, and L. You, “Exploring repre- sentational similarity analysis to protect federated learning from data poisoning,” inProc. WWW 2024. ACM, 2024, pp. 525–528

    2024

  76. [84]

    APFed: Anti-poisoning attacks in privacy-preserving heterogeneous federated learning,

    X. Chen, H. Yu, X. Jia, and X. Yu, “APFed: Anti-poisoning attacks in privacy-preserving heterogeneous federated learning,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 18, pp. 5749–5761, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Detecting poisoning attacks on federated learning using gradient-weighted class activation mapping,

    J. Zheng, K. Li, X. Yuan, W. Ni, and E. Tovar, “Detecting poisoning attacks on federated learning using gradient-weighted class activation mapping,” inProc. WWW 2024. ACM, 2024, pp. 714–717

    2024

  78. [86]

    ShieldFL: Mitigating model poisoning attacks in privacy-preserving federated learning,

    Z. Ma, J. Ma, Y . Miao, Y . Li, and R. H. Deng, “ShieldFL: Mitigating model poisoning attacks in privacy-preserving federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 17, pp. 1639–1654, 2022

    2022

  79. [87]

    FLDetector: Defending fed- erated learning against model poisoning attacks via detecting malicious clients,

    Z. Zhang, X. Cao, J. Jia, and N. Z. Gong, “FLDetector: Defending fed- erated learning against model poisoning attacks via detecting malicious clients,” inProc. SIGKDD 2022. ACM, 2022, pp. 2545–2555

    2022

  80. [88]

    Perception poisoning attacks in federated learning,

    K. H. Chow and L. Liu, “Perception poisoning attacks in federated learning,” inProc. TPS-ISA 2021. IEEE, 2021, pp. 146–155

    2021

  81. [89]

    Membership inference attack and defense for wireless signal classifiers with deep learning,

    Y . Shi and Y . E. Sagduyu, “Membership inference attack and defense for wireless signal classifiers with deep learning,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 4032–4043, 2022

    2022

  82. [90]

    Manipulating the Byzantine: Op- timizing model poisoning attacks and defenses for federated learning,

    V . Shejwalkar and A. Houmansadr, “Manipulating the Byzantine: Op- timizing model poisoning attacks and defenses for federated learning,” inProc. NDSS 2021. The Internet Society, 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    FLAME: taming back- doors in federated learning,

    T. D. Nguyen, P. Rieger, H. Chen, H. Yalame, H. M ¨ollering, H. Fereidooni, S. Marchal, M. Miettinen, A. Mirhoseini, S. Zeitouni, F. Koushanfar, A. Sadeghi, and T. Schneider, “FLAME: taming back- doors in federated learning,” inProc. USENIX Security 2022. USENIX Association, 2...

    2022

  84. [92]

    CRFL: certifiably robust federated learning against backdoor attacks,

    C. Xie, M. Chen, P. Chen, and B. Li, “CRFL: certifiably robust federated learning against backdoor attacks,” inProc. ICML 2021, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 139. PMLR, 2021, pp. 11 372–11 382. 20

    2021

  85. [93]

    FLTrust: Byzantine-robust federated learning via trust bootstrapping,

    X. Cao, M. Fang, J. Liu, and N. Z. Gong, “FLTrust: Byzantine-robust federated learning via trust bootstrapping,” inProc. NDSS 2021. The Internet Society, 2021

    2021

  86. [94]

    SupRTE: Suppressing backdoor injection in federated learning via robust trust evaluation,

    W. Huang, G. Li, X. Yi, J. Li, C. Zhao, and Y . Yin, “SupRTE: Suppressing backdoor injection in federated learning via robust trust evaluation,”IEEE Intell. Syst., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 66–77, 2024

    2024

  87. [95]

    Adv-Bot: Realistic adversarial botnet attacks against net- work intrusion detection systems,

    I. Debicha, B. Cochez, T. Kenaza, T. Debatty, J.-M. Dricot, and W. Mees, “Adv-Bot: Realistic adversarial botnet attacks against net- work intrusion detection systems,”Computers & Security, vol. 129, p. 103176, 2023

    2023

  88. [96]

    ARGANIDS: a novel network intrusion detection system based on adversarially reg- ularized graph autoencoder,

    A. Venturi, M. Ferrari, M. Marchetti, and M. Colajanni, “ARGANIDS: a novel network intrusion detection system based on adversarially reg- ularized graph autoencoder,” inProceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, 2023, pp. 1540–1548

    2023

  89. [97]

    Online laboratory access control with zero trust approach: Twingate use case,

    E. Tuyishime, F. Radu, P. Cotfas, D. T. Cotfas, T. Balan, and A. Rek- eraho, “Online laboratory access control with zero trust approach: Twingate use case,” inProc. ECAI 2024. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  90. [98]

    Verify and trust: A multidimensional survey of zero-trust security in the age of IoT,

    M. A. Azad, S. Abdullah, J. Arshad, H. S. Lallie, and Y . Ahmed, “Verify and trust: A multidimensional survey of zero-trust security in the age of IoT,”Internet Things, vol. 27, p. 101227, 2024

    2024

  91. [99]

    Kumar, G

    N. Kumar, G. S. Kasbekar, and D. Manjunath, “Application of data collected by endpoint detection and response systems for implementa- tion of a network security system based on zero trust principles and the eigentrust algorithm,”ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, vo...

    2023

  92. [100]

    Trust aware continuous authorization for zero trust in consumer Internet of Things,

    T. Dimitrakos, T. Dilshener, A. Kravtsov, A. La Marra, F. Martinelli, A. Rizos, A. Rosetti, and A. Saracino, “Trust aware continuous authorization for zero trust in consumer Internet of Things,” in2020 IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Comput...

    2020

  93. [101]

    Emerging technologies driving zero trust maturity across industries,

    H. Joshi, “Emerging technologies driving zero trust maturity across industries,”IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 2024

    2024

  94. [102]

    Securing smart UA V delivery systems using zero trust principle-driven blockchain architecture,

    C. Dong, S. Pal, Q. An, A. Yao, F. Jiang, Z. Xu, J. Li, M. Lu, Y . Song, S. Chenet al., “Securing smart UA V delivery systems using zero trust principle-driven blockchain architecture,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain). IEEE, 2023, pp. 315–322

    2023

  95. [103]

    Privacy- preserving federated learning framework based on chained secure multiparty computing,

    Y . Li, Y . Zhou, A. Jolfaei, D. Yu, G. Xu, and X. Zheng, “Privacy- preserving federated learning framework based on chained secure multiparty computing,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 6178–6186, 2021

    2021

  96. [104]

    Securing AI inference in the cloud: Is CPU-GPU confidential com- puting ready?

    A. Mohan, M. Ye, H. Franke, M. Srivatsa, Z. Liu, and N. M. Gonzalez, “Securing AI inference in the cloud: Is CPU-GPU confidential com- puting ready?” in2024 IEEE 17th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). IEEE, 2024, pp. 164–175

    2024

  97. [105]

    A zero trust-based network security protection scheme for new power monitoring system,

    F. Zhang, Q. Wu, J. Deng, M. Hao, L. Chen, S. Chen, and H. Wu, “A zero trust-based network security protection scheme for new power monitoring system,” in2024 Boao New Power System International Forum-Power System and New Energy Technology Innovation Forum (NPSIF). IEEE, 2024,...

    2024

  98. [106]

    A novel zero-trust network access control scheme based on the security profile of devices and users,

    P. Garc ´ıa-Teodoro, J. Camacho, G. Maci ´a-Fern´andez, J. A. G ´omez- Hern´andez, and V . J. L´opez-Mar´ın, “A novel zero-trust network access control scheme based on the security profile of devices and users,” Comput. Networks, vol. 212, p. 109068, 2022

    2022

  99. [107]

    Zero-trust based dynamic access control for cloud computing,

    R. Wang, C. Li, K. Zhang, and B. Tu, “Zero-trust based dynamic access control for cloud computing,”Cybersecurity, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 12, 2025

    2025

  100. [108]

    ZTA-IoT: a novel architecture for zero-trust in IoT systems and an ensuing usage control model,

    S. Ameer, L. Praharaj, R. Sandhu, S. Bhatt, and M. Gupta, “ZTA-IoT: a novel architecture for zero-trust in IoT systems and an ensuing usage control model,”ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1–36, 2024

    2024

  101. [109]

    Zero trust (ZT) concepts for federal government architectures,

    K. D. Uttecht, “Zero trust (ZT) concepts for federal government architectures,”Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), Lexington, Massachusetts, 2020

    2020

  102. [110]

    Zero trust security models in cloud infrastructure-adoption of zero-trust principles for enhanced security,

    S. Chinamanagonda, “Zero trust security models in cloud infrastructure-adoption of zero-trust principles for enhanced security,” Academia Nexus Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, 2022

    2022

  103. [111]

    Advancing zero trust network authentication: Innovations in privacy-preserving authentication mechanisms,

    T. Adhikari, “Advancing zero trust network authentication: Innovations in privacy-preserving authentication mechanisms,”Comput. Sci. Eng, vol. 1, pp. 1–22, 2024

    2024

  104. [112]

    Design and verification of the ARM confidential compute architecture,

    X. Li, X. Li, C. Dall, R. Gu, J. Nieh, Y . Sait, and G. Stockwell, “Design and verification of the ARM confidential compute architecture,” in16th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 22), 2022, pp. 465–484

    2022

  105. [113]

    Artificial intelligence- based zero trust security approach for consumer industry,

    S. M. Nagarajan, G. G. Devarajan, M. S. Thangakrishnan, T. V . Ramana, A. K. Bashir, and A. A. AlZubi, “Artificial intelligence- based zero trust security approach for consumer industry,”IEEE Trans. Consumer Electron., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 5411–5418, 2024

    2024

  106. [114]

    Ensuring zero trust IoT data privacy: Differential privacy in blockchain using federated learning,

    A. Hussain, W. Akbar, T. Hussain, A. K. Bashir, M. M. A. Dabel, F. Ali, and B. Yang, “Ensuring zero trust IoT data privacy: Differential privacy in blockchain using federated learning,”IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  107. [115]

    Robust zero trust architecture: Joint blockchain based federated learning and anomaly detection based framework,

    S. R. Pokhrel, L. Yang, S. Rajasegarar, and G. Li, “Robust zero trust architecture: Joint blockchain based federated learning and anomaly detection based framework,” inProc. SIGCOMM 2024, 2024, pp. 7– 12

    2024

  108. [116]

    AI- powered malware detection with differential privacy for zero trust security in Internet of Things networks,

    F. Nawshin, D. Unal, M. Hammoudeh, and P. N. Suganthan, “AI- powered malware detection with differential privacy for zero trust security in Internet of Things networks,”Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 161, p. 103523, 2024

    2024

  109. [117]

    Proxy smart contracts for zero trust architecture implementation in decentralised oracle networks based applications,

    A. Gupta, R. Gupta, D. Jadav, S. Tanwar, N. Kumar, and M. Shabaz, “Proxy smart contracts for zero trust architecture implementation in decentralised oracle networks based applications,”Comput. Commun., vol. 206, pp. 10–21, 2023

    2023

  110. [118]

    Distributed ledger technologies in supply chain security management: A comprehensive survey,

    M. Asante, G. Epiphaniou, C. Maple, H. Al-Khateeb, M. Bottarelli, and K. Z. Ghafoor, “Distributed ledger technologies in supply chain security management: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 713–739, 2021

    2021

  111. [119]

    Dissecting zero trust: research landscape and its implementation in IoT,

    C. Liu, R. Tan, Y . Wu, Y . Feng, Z. Jin, F. Zhang, Y . Liu, and Q. Liu, “Dissecting zero trust: research landscape and its implementation in IoT,”Cybersecur., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 20, 2024

    2024

  112. [120]

    Establishing trust in the beyond-5G core network using trusted execution environments,

    M. V omvas, N. Ludant, and G. Noubir, “Establishing trust in the beyond-5G core network using trusted execution environments,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12177, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    SOTERIA: Preserving privacy in distributed machine learning,

    C. Brito, P. Ferreira, B. Portela, R. Oliveira, and J. a. Paulo, “SOTERIA: Preserving privacy in distributed machine learning,” inProceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, ser. SAC ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. ...

    2023

  114. [122]

    SCC5G: A PQC-based architecture for highly secure critical communication over cellular network in zero-trust environment,

    M. Gharib and F. Afghah, “SCC5G: A PQC-based architecture for highly secure critical communication over cellular network in zero-trust environment,” in2023 57th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers. IEEE, 2023, pp. 11–18

    2023

  115. [123]

    Performance analysis of zero-trust multi-cloud,

    S. Rodigari, D. O’Shea, P. McCarthy, M. McCarry, and S. McSweeney, “Performance analysis of zero-trust multi-cloud,” in2021 IEEE 14th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). IEEE, 2021, pp. 730–732

    2021

  116. [124]

    Encrypted data processing,

    J. Tseng, G. Bilardi, K. Ekanadham, M. Kumar, J. Moreira, and P. C. Pattnaik, “Encrypted data processing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09821, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Anomaly detection in imbalanced encrypted traffic with few packet metadata-based feature extraction

    M.-G. Kim and H. Kim, “Anomaly detection in imbalanced encrypted traffic with few packet metadata-based feature extraction.”CMES- Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, vol. 141, no. 1, 2024

    2024

  118. [126]

    Federated zero trust architecture using artificial intelligence,

    M. Hussain, S. Pal, Z. Jadidi, E. Foo, and S. S. Kanhere, “Federated zero trust architecture using artificial intelligence,”IEEE Wirel. Com- mun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 30–35, 2024

    2024

  119. [127]

    Zero-trust architecture (zta): Designing an ai-powered cloud security framework for llms’ black box problems,

    B. Dash, “Zero-trust architecture (zta): Designing an ai-powered cloud security framework for llms’ black box problems,”Available at SSRN 4726625, 2024

    2024

  120. [128]

    Industrial wireless internet zero trust model: Zero trust meets dynamic federated learning with blockchain,

    H. Xie, Y . Wang, Y . Ding, C. Yang, H. Liang, and B. Qin, “Industrial wireless internet zero trust model: Zero trust meets dynamic federated learning with blockchain,”IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 22–29, 2024

    2024

  121. [129]

    Zero trust consumer IoT with robust federated learning over main-side blockchain,

    H. Zhu, X. Xue, M. Xu, and B.-G. Kim, “Zero trust consumer IoT with robust federated learning over main-side blockchain,”IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  122. [130]

    Secure access service edge convergence: Recent progress and open issues,

    S. Aiello and B. P. Rimal, “Secure access service edge convergence: Recent progress and open issues,”IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 8–16, 2023

    2023

  123. [131]

    Intelligent zero trust architecture for 5G/6G networks: Principles, challenges, and the role of machine learning in the context of O-RAN,

    K. Ramezanpour and J. Jagannath, “Intelligent zero trust architecture for 5G/6G networks: Principles, challenges, and the role of machine learning in the context of O-RAN,”Comput. Networks, vol. 217, p. 109358, 2022

    2022

  124. [132]

    Blockchain-based federated learning for securing Internet of Things: A comprehensive survey,

    W. Issa, N. Moustafa, B. Turnbull, N. Sohrabi, and Z. Tari, “Blockchain-based federated learning for securing Internet of Things: A comprehensive survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 9, Jan

  125. [133]

    OBSERVE: blockchain-based zero trust security protocol for connected and autonomous vehicles (CA Vs) data using simple machine learning,

    B. Sullivan and J. A. Khan, “OBSERVE: blockchain-based zero trust security protocol for connected and autonomous vehicles (CA Vs) data using simple machine learning,” inProc. ICNC 2024. IEEE, 2024, pp. 554–559

    2024

  126. [134]

    Secure reviewing & data sharing in scientific collaboration: Leveraging blockchain and zero trust architec- ture,

    S. Pooja and C. Chandrakala, “Secure reviewing & data sharing in scientific collaboration: Leveraging blockchain and zero trust architec- ture,”IEEE Access, 2024. 21

    2024

  127. [135]

    Emerging technologies for cyber- security in healthcare: Evaluating risks and implementing standards,

    S. Jain, P. Ashok, and S. Prabhu, “Emerging technologies for cyber- security in healthcare: Evaluating risks and implementing standards,” in2024 International Conference on Cybernation and Computation (CYBERCOM). IEEE, 2024, pp. 725–731

    2024

  128. [136]

    Privacy-preserving and secure industrial big data analytics: A survey and the research framework,

    L. Liu, J. Li, J. Lv, J. Wang, S. Zhao, and Q. Lu, “Privacy-preserving and secure industrial big data analytics: A survey and the research framework,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 18 976– 18 999, 2024

    2024

  129. [137]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning,

    P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahanet al., “Advances and open problems in federated learning,”Foundations and trends® in machine learning, vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 1–210, 2021

    2021

  130. [138]

    A zero trust architecture for health information systems,

    O. C. Edo, D. Ang, P. Billakota, and J. C. Ho, “A zero trust architecture for health information systems,”Health and Technology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 189–199, 2024

    2024

  131. [139]

    Trustworthy federated learning: privacy, security, and beyond,

    C. Chen, J. Liu, H. Tan, X. Li, K. I.-K. Wang, P. Li, K. Sakurai, and D. Dou, “Trustworthy federated learning: privacy, security, and beyond,”Knowledge and Information Systems, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 2321– 2356, 2025

    2025

  132. [140]

    Quantum-powered extended visibility for zero trust-based ransomware detection in smart grids,

    M. Al-Hawawreh, O. Shindi, Z. Baig, M. Alazab, A. Anwar, and R. Doss, “Quantum-powered extended visibility for zero trust-based ransomware detection in smart grids,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  133. [141]

    Survey on blockchain for Internet of Things,

    X. Wang, X. Zha, W. Ni, R. P. Liu, Y . J. Guo, X. Niu, and K. Zheng, “Survey on blockchain for Internet of Things,”Computer Communica- tions, vol. 136, pp. 10–29, 2019

    2019

  134. [142]

    Blockchained federated learning for Internet of Things: A comprehensive survey,

    Y . Jiang, B. Ma, X. Wanget al., “Blockchained federated learning for Internet of Things: A comprehensive survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 10, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3659099

    2024 doi

  135. [143]

    EdgeChain: An edge-IoT framework and prototype based on blockchain and smart contracts,

    J. Pan, J. Wang, A. Hester, I. AlQerm, Y . Liu, and Y . Zhao, “EdgeChain: An edge-IoT framework and prototype based on blockchain and smart contracts,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4719–4732, 2019

    2019

  136. [144]

    Zero-trust hierarchical management in IoT,

    M. Samaniego and R. Deters, “Zero-trust hierarchical management in IoT,” inIEEE ICIOT 2018. IEEE Computer Society, 2018, pp. 88–95

    2018

  137. [145]

    Sok: Hardware-supported trusted execution environments,

    M. Schneider, R. J. Masti, S. Shinde, S. Capkun, and R. Perez, “Sok: Hardware-supported trusted execution environments,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12742, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Data encryption and secure communication protocols,

    R. Hazra, P. Chatterjee, Y . Singh, G. Podder, and T. Das, “Data encryption and secure communication protocols,” inStrategies for E-Commerce Data Security: Cloud, Blockchain, AI, and Machine Learning. IGI Global, 2024, pp. 546–570

    2024

  139. [147]

    Flexible zero trust architec- ture for the cybersecurity of industrial IoT infrastructures,

    C. Zanasi, S. Russo, and M. Colajanni, “Flexible zero trust architec- ture for the cybersecurity of industrial IoT infrastructures,”Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 156, p. 103414, 2024

    2024

  140. [148]

    A review of lightweight security and privacy for resource-constrained IoT devices,

    S. Kumar, D. Kumar, R. Dangi, G. Choudhary, N. Dragoni, and I. You, “A review of lightweight security and privacy for resource-constrained IoT devices,”Computers, Materials and Continua, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 31–63, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...

    2024

  141. [149]

    Post-quantum cryptography for Internet of Things: a survey on performance and optimization,

    T. Liu, G. Ramachandran, and R. Jurdak, “Post-quantum cryptography for Internet of Things: a survey on performance and optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17538, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  142. [150]

    A novel QoS-based IoT network security approach with lightweight lattice-based quantum attribute- based encryption,

    A. Ramakrishna, K. K. Singamaneni, G. J. Reddy, K. R. Madhavi, and T. Venkatakrishnamoorthy, “A novel QoS-based IoT network security approach with lightweight lattice-based quantum attribute- based encryption,”Tsinghua Science and Technology, 2024

    2024

  143. [151]

    Atypical dynamic trust learning in individuals with high autistic traits in a multi-round trust game with multiple trustworthiness cues,

    X. Zhao, W. Li, A. Xu, X. Li, and W. Shi, “Atypical dynamic trust learning in individuals with high autistic traits in a multi-round trust game with multiple trustworthiness cues,”Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, vol. 118, p. 102481, 2024

    2024

  144. [152]

    A methodology for real-time data sustainability in smart city: Towards inferencing and analytics for big-data,

    K. R. Malik, Y . Sam, M. Hussain, and A. Abuarqoub, “A methodology for real-time data sustainability in smart city: Towards inferencing and analytics for big-data,”Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 39, pp. 548–556, 2018

    2018

  145. [153]

    Security, privacy and trust in internet of things: The road ahead,

    S. Sicari, A. Rizzardi, L. A. Grieco, and A. Coen-Porisini, “Security, privacy and trust in internet of things: The road ahead,”Computer networks, vol. 76, pp. 146–164, 2015

    2015

  146. [154]

    Zero trust: Deep learning and NLP for HTTP anomaly detection in IDS,

    M. T. A. Nguyen, V . Tong, S. B. Souihi, and S. Souihi, “Zero trust: Deep learning and NLP for HTTP anomaly detection in IDS,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2025

    2025

  147. [155]

    Privacy threats and countermeasures in federated learning for Internet of Things: A systematic review,

    A. ElZemity and B. Arief, “Privacy threats and countermeasures in federated learning for Internet of Things: A systematic review,” in2024 IEEE International Conferences on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing & Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physica...

    2024

  148. [156]

    A bandwidth control scheme for reducing the negative impact of bottlenecks in IoT environments: simulation and performance evaluation,

    O. Said, “A bandwidth control scheme for reducing the negative impact of bottlenecks in IoT environments: simulation and performance evaluation,”Internet of Things, vol. 21, p. 100682, 2023

    2023

  149. [157]

    Memory bandwidth contention: Communication vs computation tradeoffs in supercomputers with mul- ticore architectures,

    J. Langguth, X. Cai, and M. Sourouri, “Memory bandwidth contention: Communication vs computation tradeoffs in supercomputers with mul- ticore architectures,” in2018 IEEE 24th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 497–506

    2018

  150. [158]

    Zero trust networks: Evolution and application from concept to practice,

    Y . Ren, Z. Wang, P. K. Sharma, F. Alqahtani, A. Tolba, and J. Wang, “Zero trust networks: Evolution and application from concept to practice,”Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 82, no. 2, 2025

    2025

  151. [159]

    Blending shared responsibility and zero trust to secure the industrial Internet of Things,

    K. G. Crowther, “Blending shared responsibility and zero trust to secure the industrial Internet of Things,”IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 96–102, 2024

    2024

  152. [160]

    Making it possible for the auditing of AI: A systematic review of AI audits and AI auditability,

    Y . Li and S. Goel, “Making it possible for the auditing of AI: A systematic review of AI audits and AI auditability,”Information Systems Frontiers, pp. 1–31, 2024

    2024

  153. [2023]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3560816

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3560816

    doi

  154. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16368

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16368

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.