arxiv: 2605.13159 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.CR

Recognition: 1 theorem link

Empowering IoT Security: On-Device Intrusion Detection in Resource Constrained Devices

Vasilis Ieropoulos , Eirini Anthi , Theodoros Spyridopoulos , Pete Burnap , Aftab Khan , Pietro Carnelli

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR

keywords IoT securityintrusion detectionmachine learningresource-constrained devicesdecision treeneural networkcyber threatsdenial of service

0 comments

The pith

Lightweight machine learning models detect intrusions on IoT microcontrollers with up to 99 percent accuracy.

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

The paper introduces a lightweight intrusion detection system for resource-constrained IoT devices such as microcontrollers. It applies machine learning through decision trees and neural networks to spot common cyber threats including denial of service and man-in-the-middle attacks. The methods reach 99 percent and 96 percent accuracy respectively while keeping memory use and computation low enough for on-device real-time operation. This setup supports direct monitoring and defense of data transmission in heterogeneous IoT networks without external processing.

Core claim

Our study introduces a lightweight model that utilises machine learning algorithms to achieve a notable detection accuracy of 99% using a decision tree method and 96% using a neural network in identifying cyber threats, including Denial of Service and Man-in-the-Middle attacks which make up the majority of the attacks these devices face. While the decision tree method offers higher accuracy, it requires more computational resources, whereas the neural network approach, despite a slightly lower accuracy, is more memory-efficient. Both methods enhance the real-time monitoring and defence of IoT networks, safeguarding the transmission of data.

What carries the argument

Lightweight machine learning models using decision trees and neural networks, optimized to fit within the memory and processing limits of microcontrollers for on-device threat detection.

If this is right

Real-time monitoring and defense of IoT networks becomes feasible directly on devices with limited resources.
The decision tree approach delivers higher accuracy at the cost of greater computational demands compared to the neural network.
Both techniques protect data transmission by targeting the most frequent attacks on these devices.
Memory and computation are conserved enough to allow deployment on typical microcontroller hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

On-device detection could reduce reliance on cloud services and thereby cut response latency in IoT setups.
The same optimization approach might extend to other edge hardware with similar constraints, such as sensors in industrial environments.
Energy consumption during continuous monitoring would need separate measurement to confirm suitability for battery-powered devices.

Load-bearing premise

The models can be effectively deployed and run in real-time on actual resource-constrained microcontrollers without exceeding memory or computational limits, and that the reported accuracies generalize beyond the tested scenarios to real-world threats.

What would settle it

Deploying the trained models on a typical microcontroller such as an ESP32, measuring actual memory and CPU usage during live network traffic, and checking detection rates against real DoS or MITM attempts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13159 by Aftab Khan, Eirini Anthi, Pete Burnap, Pietro Carnelli, Theodoros Spyridopoulos, Vasilis Ieropoulos.

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Bash script for running scripts randomly over a 24-hour period Considering the nature of the sensor and its consistent behaviour regardless of time (day, night, weekdays, weekends), capturing 24 hours of data is sufficient to represent all its activities. This is also consistent with practices in similar studies, which typically utilise comparable durations of data collection. Given that the data flowing … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

IoT devices particularly microcontrollers are challenged by their inherent limitations in processing capabilities, memory capacity, and energy conservation. Securing communication within IoT networks is further complicated by the heterogeneity of devices and the myriad of potential security threats. Our study introduces a lightweight model that utilises machine learning algorithms to achieve a notable detection accuracy of 99% using a decision tree method and 96% using a neural network in identifying cyber threats, including Denial of Service and Man-in-the-Middle attacks which make up the majority of the attacks these devices face. While the decision tree method offers higher accuracy, it requires more computational resources, whereas the neural network approach, despite a slightly lower accuracy, is more memory-efficient. Both methods enhance the real-time monitoring and defence of IoT networks, safeguarding the transmission of data. Additionally, our approach is tailored to conserve memory and optimise computational demands, rendering it suitable for deployment on microcontrollers with limited resources.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper reports 99% and 96% accuracy for decision-tree and neural-net intrusion detection on IoT microcontrollers but supplies no memory, latency, or power measurements on actual hardware to support the deployment claim.

read the letter

The core contribution is a straightforward application of a decision tree and a compact neural network to detect common attacks like DoS and MitM directly on resource-limited microcontrollers. They note the accuracy-resource trade-off explicitly, which is a useful practical observation for edge security work. The numbers themselves are high enough to warrant a closer look if the evaluation holds up under scrutiny. What stands out is the focus on real constraints rather than cloud-offloaded detection, even if the techniques are established ones. The abstract frames the problem clearly and avoids overclaiming novelty beyond the on-device setting. The main weakness is the absence of any concrete hardware figures. There are no model sizes in bytes, peak RAM usage, cycle counts, or timing results collected on target MCUs such as Cortex-M devices. Without those, it is impossible to confirm whether the higher-accuracy tree actually fits and runs in real time or whether the neural net meets latency needs for packet inspection. The dataset and validation details are also missing from the provided text, so the reported accuracies cannot be assessed for overfitting or generalization. This leaves the central claim—that the models are suitable for limited-resource deployment—unsupported by evidence. The work would interest researchers building lightweight security for IoT fleets who already know the ML basics and need concrete benchmarks to build on. It is not ready for citation in its current form because the hardware side is missing. A serious editor could send it for review after requiring the missing measurements and dataset description, as the topic is relevant and the approach is honest about the trade-offs.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces lightweight machine learning models for on-device intrusion detection on resource-constrained IoT microcontrollers. It claims 99% detection accuracy using a decision tree and 96% using a neural network for identifying common threats including Denial of Service and Man-in-the-Middle attacks, while asserting that both models are optimized for limited memory and computation to support real-time monitoring and defense.

Significance. If the reported accuracies and deployment feasibility are substantiated through detailed methodology and hardware benchmarks, the work could advance practical on-device security solutions for IoT networks by providing accessible ML-based detection that operates locally without external dependencies.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of 99% and 96% detection accuracy and suitability for resource-constrained microcontrollers are presented without any details on the dataset, training process, validation methods, or error analysis, which are load-bearing for verifying whether the data supports the results.
[Evaluation] Evaluation section: No measurements of model size in bytes, peak RAM usage during inference, cycle counts, latency, or power consumption on actual target microcontroller hardware (e.g., Cortex-M class with <256 KB RAM) are reported, directly undermining the claim that the models enable real-time on-device deployment.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The description of attack types could specify the proportion or distribution of DoS and MitM attacks in the evaluation to better contextualize the accuracy figures.
[Discussion] The manuscript would benefit from explicit comparison of the two models' resource trade-offs in a table to clarify when each is preferable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of 99% and 96% detection accuracy and suitability for resource-constrained microcontrollers are presented without any details on the dataset, training process, validation methods, or error analysis, which are load-bearing for verifying whether the data supports the results.

Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a concise summary, omits these supporting details. The full manuscript contains the dataset description (standard IoT intrusion detection traffic traces containing DoS and MitM attacks), training procedures (supervised learning with scikit-learn for the decision tree and TensorFlow Lite for the neural network), validation approach (train-test split with cross-validation), and error analysis (via confusion matrices). In the revision we will expand the abstract with one or two sentences summarizing the dataset and validation method to make the claims more self-contained. revision: yes
Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: No measurements of model size in bytes, peak RAM usage during inference, cycle counts, latency, or power consumption on actual target microcontroller hardware (e.g., Cortex-M class with <256 KB RAM) are reported, directly undermining the claim that the models enable real-time on-device deployment.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current Evaluation section reports only accuracy figures and does not include hardware-specific benchmarks on target microcontrollers. To substantiate the deployment claims, the revised manuscript will add a dedicated subsection with measured values for model size (bytes), peak RAM usage, inference latency, cycle counts, and power consumption obtained by running the optimized models on a representative Cortex-M microcontroller. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical ML accuracies are independent experimental outcomes

full rationale

The paper reports measured detection accuracies (99% decision tree, 96% neural network) obtained by training and evaluating standard ML models on attack datasets. These figures are direct experimental results rather than quantities derived from the paper's own equations or prior self-citations. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the derivation chain. The central claims rest on conventional supervised-learning evaluation practices that remain falsifiable against external test sets and hardware benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities identifiable. The model likely involves standard ML hyperparameters but none are detailed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1155 out tokens · 55090 ms · 2026-05-14T18:45:02.935255+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

A critical review of intrusion detection systems in the internet of things: Techniques, deployment strategy, val- idation strategy, attacks, public datasets and challenges,

A. Khraisat and A. Alazab, “A critical review of intrusion detection systems in the internet of things: Techniques, deployment strategy, val- idation strategy, attacks, public datasets and challenges,” Cybersecurity, vol. 4, no. 1, 2021

2021
[2]

The anatomy of security microcontrollers for iot appli- cations,

M. Ahmad, “The anatomy of security microcontrollers for iot appli- cations,” Jan 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www .digikey.com/en/ articles/the-anatomy-of-security-microcontrollers-for-iot-applications

2020
[3]

[Online]

European Parliament and Council, “Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the european parliament and of the council of 27 april 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing directive 95/46/ec (general data protection regulation),” 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //eur-...

2016
[4]

Study of network ids in iot devices,

A. Rosay, E. Cheval, M. Ghanmi, F. Carlier, and P . Leroux, “Study of network ids in iot devices,” SN Computer Science , vol. 4, no. 4, 2023

2023
[5]

Esp32-s3,

e. espressif, “Esp32-s3,” Dec 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.espressif.com/en/products/socs/esp32-s3

2020
[6]

Deep learning based network intrusion detection system for resource-constrained envi- ronments,

S. Rizvi, M. Scanlon, J. McGibney, and J. Sheppard, “Deep learning based network intrusion detection system for resource-constrained envi- ronments,” in International Conference on Digital F orensics and Cyber Crime. Springer, 2022, pp. 355–367

2022
[7]

Rpids: Raspberry pi ids—a fruitful intrusion detection system for iot,

A. Sforzin, F. G. M ´armol, M. Conti, and J.-M. Bohli, “Rpids: Raspberry pi ids—a fruitful intrusion detection system for iot,” in 2016 Intl IEEE Conferences on Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced and Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing and Communications, Cloud and Big Data Computing, Internet of People, and Smart World Congress (UIC/ATC/Scal...

2016
[8]

F. B. Insights, “Smart home market size to surpass usd 338.28 billion by 2030, exhibiting a cagr of 20.1https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2023/07/17/ 2705500/0/en/Smart-Home-Market-Size-to-Surpass-USD-338-28- billion-by-2030-exhibiting-a-CAGR-of-20-1 .html

2030
[9]

Iot value set to accelerate through 2030: Where and how to capture it,

M. Chui, M. Collins, and M. Patel, “Iot value set to accelerate through 2030: Where and how to capture it,” Nov 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/ iot-value-set-to-accelerate-through-2030-where-and-how-to-capture-it

2030
[10]

(2021) A look back at the top 12 iot exploits of 2021 (part 1)

Finite State. (2021) A look back at the top 12 iot exploits of 2021 (part 1). Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Available: https: //ﬁnitestate.io/blog/top-12-iot-exploits-of-2021-p1

2021
[11]

(2021) Iot attacks skyrocket, doubling in 6 months

Threatpost. (2021) Iot attacks skyrocket, doubling in 6 months. Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Available: https://threatpost .com/iot- attacks-doubling/169224/

2021
[12]

(2021) Iot cyberattacks escalate in 2021, according to kaspersky

IoT World Today. (2021) Iot cyberattacks escalate in 2021, according to kaspersky. Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.iotworldtoday.com/security/iot-cyberattacks-escalate- in-2021-according-to-kaspersky

2021
[13]

(2021) Mitigating log4shell and other log4j-related vulnerabilities

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). (2021) Mitigating log4shell and other log4j-related vulnerabilities. Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Available: https://www .cisa.gov/news-events/ cybersecurity-advisories/aa21-356a

2021
[14]

News World Report

U.S. News World Report. (2023) India’s infosys says us unit hit by cyber security event. Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Available: https://www .usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2023-11- 03/indias-infosys-says-us-unit-hit-by-cyber-security-event

2023
[15]

(2023) India’s biggest data leak: Personal info of 81.5 crore citizens up for sale

Mashable India. (2023) India’s biggest data leak: Personal info of 81.5 crore citizens up for sale. Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Available: https://in.mashable.com/tech/62950/indias-biggest-data-leak- personal-info-of-815-crore-citizens-up-for-sale

2023
[16]

(2023) How the personal data of 815 million indians got breached — explained

The Hindu. (2023) How the personal data of 815 million indians got breached — explained. Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Available: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/how-the-personal-data- of-815-million-indians-got-breached-explained/article67505760 .ece

2023
[17]

(2023) Icmr data leak reveals personal info of 81.5 cr indians, claims report; cbi likely to probe the breach

The Economic Times. (2023) Icmr data leak reveals personal info of 81.5 cr indians, claims report; cbi likely to probe the breach. Accessed: 2023-12-05. [Online]. Available: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/icmr-data-leak- reveals-personal-info-of-81-5-cr-indians-claims-report-cbi-likely-to- probe-the-breach/videoshow/104865182 .cms

work page arXiv 2023
[18]

Using microcontrollers in the internet of things (iot) applications,

U. Utmel, “Using microcontrollers in the internet of things (iot) applications,” Jun 2023. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www .utmel.com/blog/categories/microcontrollers/using- microcontrollers-in-the-internet-of-things-iot-applications

2023
[19]

The osi model: Overview on the seven layers of computer networks,

S. Kumar, S. Dalal, and V . Dixit, “The osi model: Overview on the seven layers of computer networks,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology Research , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 461– 466, 2014

2014
[20]

Cisco, Oct 2014

C. Cisco, Oct 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //newsroom.cisco.com/c/r/newsroom/en/us/a/y2014/m10/the-internet- of-things-world-forum-unites-industry-leaders-in-chicago-to- accelerate-the-adoption-of-iot-business-models .html

2014
[21]

Using the esp32 micro- controller for data processing,

M. Babiuch, P . Folt `ynek, and P . Smutn `y, “Using the esp32 micro- controller for data processing,” in 2019 20th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

2019
[22]

Schwartz, Internet of Things with ESP8266

M. Schwartz, Internet of Things with ESP8266 . Packt Publishing Ltd, 2016

2016
[23]

How cyber adversaries attack each of the osi layers 1-7,

b. io, “How cyber adversaries attack each of the osi layers 1-7,” Feb
[24]

Available: https://www .byos.io/blog/types-of-cyber- attacks-osi

[Online]. Available: https://www .byos.io/blog/types-of-cyber- attacks-osi
[25]

Kumar, Sep 2023

P . Kumar, Sep 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www .pynetlabs.com/ various-kinds-of-osi-layer-attacks/

2023
[26]

Common security attacks in the osi layer model,

P . Rawat, “Common security attacks in the osi layer model,” Jan
[27]

Available: https://www .infosectrain.com/blog/common- security-attacks-in-the-osi-layer-model/ xiv

[Online]. Available: https://www .infosectrain.com/blog/common- security-attacks-in-the-osi-layer-model/ xiv
[28]

The comparison of cybersecurity datasets,

A. Alshaibi, M. Al-Ani, A. Al-Azzawi, A. Konev, and A. Shelupanov, “The comparison of cybersecurity datasets,” Data, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 22, 2022

2022
[29]

Design of cognitive fog computing for intrusion detection in internet of things,

S. Prabavathy, K. Sundarakantham, and S. M. Shalinie, “Design of cognitive fog computing for intrusion detection in internet of things,” Journal of Communications and Networks , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 291–298, 2018

2018
[30]

Intrusion detection system for internet of things based on a machine learning approach,

C. Liang, B. Shanmugam, S. Azam, M. Jonkman, F. De Boer, and G. Narayansamy, “Intrusion detection system for internet of things based on a machine learning approach,” in 2019 International Conference on Vision Towards Emerging Trends in Communication and Networking (ViTECoN). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

2019
[31]

Secur- ing fog-to-things environment using intrusion detection system based on ensemble learning,

P . Illy, G. Kaddoum, C. M. Moreira, K. Kaur, and S. Garg, “Secur- ing fog-to-things environment using intrusion detection system based on ensemble learning,” in 2019 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–7

2019
[32]

A system for denial-of-service attack detection based on multivariate correlation analysis,

Z. Tan, A. Jamdagni, X. He, P . Nanda, and R. P . Liu, “A system for denial-of-service attack detection based on multivariate correlation analysis,” IEEE transactions on parallel and distributed systems , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 447–456, 2013

2013
[33]

A novel dynamic android malware detection system with ensemble learning,

P . Feng, J. Ma, C. Sun, X. Xu, and Y . Ma, “A novel dynamic android malware detection system with ensemble learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 30 996–31 011, 2018

2018
[34]

A machine learning-based lightweight intrusion detection system for the internet of things

S. Fenanir, F. Semchedine, and A. Baadache, “A machine learning-based lightweight intrusion detection system for the internet of things.” Rev. d’Intelligence Artif. , vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 203–211, 2019

2019
[35]

Leveraging lstm networks for attack detection in fog-to-things communications,

A. Diro and N. Chilamkurti, “Leveraging lstm networks for attack detection in fog-to-things communications,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 124–130, 2018

2018
[36]

Machine learning based intrusion detection systems for iot applications,

A. V erma and V . Ranga, “Machine learning based intrusion detection systems for iot applications,” Wireless Personal Communications , vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 2287–2310, 2020

2020
[37]

Building an intrusion detection system using a ﬁlter-based feature selection algorithm,

M. A. Ambusaidi, X. He, P . Nanda, and Z. Tan, “Building an intrusion detection system using a ﬁlter-based feature selection algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Computers , vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 2986–2998, 2016

2016
[38]

Deep learning approach for cyberattack detection,

Y . Zhou, M. Han, L. Liu, J. S. He, and Y . Wang, “Deep learning approach for cyberattack detection,” IEEE INFOCOM 2018 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) , Apr 2018

2018
[39]

An ensemble intrusion detection technique based on proposed statistical ﬂow features for protecting network trafﬁc of internet of things,

N. Moustafa, B. Turnbull, and K.-K. R. Choo, “An ensemble intrusion detection technique based on proposed statistical ﬂow features for protecting network trafﬁc of internet of things,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4815–4830, 2019

2019
[40]

Internet of threats: Iot botnets drive surge in network attacks,

D. McMillen, “Internet of threats: Iot botnets drive surge in network attacks,” Apr 2021. [Online]. Available: https://securityintelligence .com/ posts/internet-of-threats-iot-Botnets-network-attacks/

2021
[41]

Exploiting the trust between boundaries: Discovering memory corruptions in printers via driver- assisted testing,

X. He, E. Bauman, F. Li, L. Y u, L. Li, B. Liu, A. Piao, K. W. Hamlen, W. Huo, and W. Zou, “Exploiting the trust between boundaries: Discovering memory corruptions in printers via driver- assisted testing,” in The 21st ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems , ser. LCTES ’20. New Y ork, NY , USA: Association f...

work page doi:10.1145/3372799.3394363 2020
[42]

Being hacked: Understanding victims’ experiences of IoT hacking,

A. Rostami, M. Vigren, S. Raza, and B. Brown, “Being hacked: Understanding victims’ experiences of IoT hacking,” in Eighteenth Sym- posium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2022) . Boston, MA: USENIX Association, Aug. 2022, pp. 613–631. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2022/presentation/rostami

2022
[43]

An evaluation of ai-based network intrusion detection in resource-constrained environ- ments,

S. Rizvi, M. Scanlon, J. McGibney, and J. Sheppard, “An evaluation of ai-based network intrusion detection in resource-constrained environ- ments,” in 2023 IEEE 14th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) , 2023, pp. 0275–0282

2023
[44]

A transfer learning approach for securing resource-constrained iot devices,

S. Yılmaz, E. Aydogan, and S. Sen, “A transfer learning approach for securing resource-constrained iot devices,” IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , vol. 16, pp. 4405–4418, 2021

2021
[45]

Uids: Unikernel- based intrusion detection system for the internet of things,

V . Cozzolino, N. Schwellnus, J. Ott, and A. Y . Ding, “Uids: Unikernel- based intrusion detection system for the internet of things,” in DISS 2020-Workshop on Decentralized IoT Systems and Security , 2020

2020
[46]

Ensemble based intrusion detection system for iot device,

P . Ananthi, T. Ramya, and R. Janani, “Ensemble based intrusion detection system for iot device,” in 2023 International Conference on Sustainable Computing and Smart Systems (ICSCSS) , 2023, pp. 1073– 1078

2023
[47]

A lightweight anomaly detection technique for low-resource iot devices: A game-theoretic methodology,

H. Sedjelmaci, S. M. Senouci, and M. Al-Bahri, “A lightweight anomaly detection technique for low-resource iot devices: A game-theoretic methodology,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Communi- cations (ICC) , 2016, pp. 1–6

2016
[48]

A guide for selecting the right microcontroller for your iot project,

P . Viorel and C. Mahler, “A guide for selecting the right microcontroller for your iot project,” Jun 2023. [Online]. Avail- able: https://iiot-world .com/industrial-iot/connected-industry/a-guide- for-selecting-the-right-microcontroller-for-your-iot-project/

2023
[49]

Get started,

e. espressif, “Get started,” Sep 2023. [Online]. Avail- able: https://docs .espressif.com/projects/esp-idf/en/latest/esp32s2/get- started/index.html

2023
[50]

Libraries and frameworks,

——, “Libraries and frameworks,” Jan 2023. [Online]. Available: https://docs .espressif.com/projects/esp-idf/en/latest/esp32s2/ libraries-and-frameworks/index.html

2023
[51]

Get started,

——, “Get started,” Nov 2023. [Online]. Avail- able: https://docs .espressif.com/projects/esp-idf/en/latest/esp32s3/get- started/index.html

2023
[52]

Comparison table for esp8266/esp32/esp32-s2/esp32- s3/esp32-c3/esp32-c6,

F. Riccardi, “Comparison table for esp8266/esp32/esp32-s2/esp32- s3/esp32-c3/esp32-c6,” Apr 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //gist.github.com/fabianoriccardi/cbb474c94a8659209e61e3194b20eb61

2021
[53]

Risc-v vs arm: A comprehensive com- parison of processor architectures,

S. Sharma, “Risc-v vs arm: A comprehensive com- parison of processor architectures,” Aug 2023. [On- line]. Available: https://www .wevolver.com/article/risc-v-vs-arm-a- comprehensive-comparison-of-processor-architectures

2023
[54]

Computer engineering education experiences with risc-v architecturesmdash;from computer architecture to microcontrollers,

P . Jamieson, H. Le, N. Martin, T. McGrew, Y . Qian, E. Schonauer, A. Ehret, and M. A. Kinsy, “Computer engineering education experiences with risc-v architecturesmdash;from computer architecture to microcontrollers,” Journal of Low Power Electronics and Applications , vol. 12, no. 3, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9268/12/3/45

2022
[55]

Performance evaluation of various risc processor systems: A case study on arm, mips and risc-v,

Y . Liu, K. Y e, and C.-Z. Xu, “Performance evaluation of various risc processor systems: A case study on arm, mips and risc-v,” in Cloud Computing – CLOUD 2021 , K. Y e and L.-J. Zhang, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 61–74

2021
[56]

A survey on iot architectures, protocols, applications, security, privacy, real-world implementation and future trends,

S. Kraijak and P . Tuwanut, “A survey on iot architectures, protocols, applications, security, privacy, real-world implementation and future trends,” in 11th international conference on wireless communications, networking and mobile computing (WiCOM 2015) . IET, 2015, pp. 1–6

2015
[57]

Iot based smart home testbed using mqtt communication protocol,

F. Y ALC ¸ INKA Y A, H. A YD˙ ILEK, M. Y . ERTEN, and N. ˙ INANC ¸ , “Iot based smart home testbed using mqtt communication protocol,” Inter- national Journal of Engineering Research and Development , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 317–324, 2020

2020
[58]

Make it and break it: An iot smart home testbed case study,

M. M. Y amin, B. Katt, E. Torseth, V . Gkioulos, and S. J. Kowalski, “Make it and break it: An iot smart home testbed case study,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Computer Science and Intelligent Control , ser. ISCSIC ’18. New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3284...

work page doi:10.1145/3284557.3284743 2018
[59]

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, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www .mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/9/2533

2020
[60]

Im- plementing machine learning on edge devices with limited working memory,

A. Harish, S. Jhawar, B. S. Anisha, and P . Ramakanth Kumar, “Im- plementing machine learning on edge devices with limited working memory,” in Inventive Communication and Computational Technologies, G. Ranganathan, J. Chen, and ´A. Rocha, Eds. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2020, pp. 1255–1261

2020
[61]

Arduino - portmanipulation,

T. A. Team, “Arduino - portmanipulation,” Nov 2023. [Online]. Available: https://docs.arduino.cc/hacking/software/PortManipulation

2023