IoT in Transport: Revolutionizing Ticketing

IoT Security Concerns in transport and ticketing services

Like many other technologies, Internet of Things has seen an increase in terms of a range of applications. IoT has essentially found a significant space in transport sector with more attention given to ticketing services among others. Khose et al. (2017) alluded to the fact that the ticketing system is one of the observable areas in the world of transport as far as IoT services are put into consideration. The ticketing system absolutely relies on the RFID technology, which is commonly thought to be better compared to the traditional system. According to Khose et al. (2017), the intervention of the IoT abilities has seen the significant use of the smart cards and the biometrics. While the use of IoT may not be error free and may not be user friendly, it is still hassle free with passengers allowed to pay as per the distance. Research has further delved into seeking insights behind the RFID scanners ID-20, ID-1 and ID-12. The only challenge with such scanners is that they can only handle one task at time. More improvements are however pursued by developers who are yet to come up with a micro-computing device, which can have the GSM modules, the GPS and the RFID scanner as well. Constantini et al. (2017) further made an observation in terms of the increased focus on Mobility as a Service (MaaS) in the transport sector. MaaS is seen as an advanced system of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) where the private operators, citizens and even public institutions are connected through the use of internet. In this case, MaaS offers the most flexible, sustainable and alternative metropolitan transportation system. In the face of a better ITS, Constantini et al. (2017) asserted that Internet of Things has been an enabler in developing smart cities through improvement of the Intelligent Transport System. This marks an achievement, as indicated by WP29, in terms of transparency and accountability, accuracy of data that reflect the roads and traffic, control of information, personal data protection, control of information and devices (Lohokare et al. 2017). The author indicates that the combination of MaaS and IoT produces a twofold intertwined network. However, there are problems that have been encountered within the network. The latter can be vulnerable thereby affecting a single device, which can be hijacked with the threat spreading and even jeopardizing the entire city (Jittrapirom et al. 2017). The best example of security breach within the intelligent transport system is that of San Fransisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which occurred in the year 2016. In the attack, more than 2000 computers were affected. Consequences are said to have been marginal with the management forced to allow passengers to travel for free within a few days. The weakness could be exploited even more thereby attracting dangerous effects.

The case of the San Fransisco attack has raised an alarm on security issues as far as IoT applications are put into consideration. El-hajj et al. (2019) noted that attack risks and security issues can be witnessed as a result of significant limitations. Some of such attacks include the node capture, which can easily be controlled by attackers. Tapping into the node can empower an adversary to access the cryptographic keys as well as hold onto the protocol states. This means that attacks can easily redistribute the malicious nodes across the network. Another attack is the Denial of Service (DoS), which is commonly known for shutting down the entire network or system thereby impeding the authority of users. Besides, the Denial of Sleep Attack largely invades the power supply of the involved node with an ultimate goal of increasing power consumptions. Other threats noted by El-hajj et al. (2019) include the Mass Node Authentication, the Side-Channel Attack, Replay Attack, Sybil attack and the Routing Threats. The Distributed denial of Service Attack is regarded as large scale of the DoS attacks, and it is more challenging to the IoT nodes which cannot be used in large amounts while passing traffic. Based on these challenges and others, there has been increased attention given to the IoT communication protocol and improvements made on security measures, which could enhance the quality of transport services. Pai (2018) explored some of the significant IoT communication protocols, which are keenly observed while handling security matters. Some of the protocols include the Message Queue Telemetry Transport, denoted as MQTT. The latter is a client server communicating as well as messaging transport protocol. MQTT is known for running over the conversations and the TCP/IP, which paves way for two way and lossless associations. Notable features inclined to this protocol include an informed transport, which are freethinker as well as substance of payload. The second protocol is the Constraint Application Protocol (CoAP). The latter is a web transfer protocol commonly designed for most of the constrained networks, known as lossy networks, and the constrained nodes. The CoAP facilitates client-server communication across the points of application. The protocol is meant to be simple as well as carry with it a friendly interface. Another protocol is QUIC which is known to be more identical to autonomous TCP association. However, this protocol has a lessened inertness. QUIC customers are likely to incorporate session transaction data across the underlying parcel. Other protocols include the DTLS, which is commonly a security protocol that is designed to secure communicating applications and data communication. The protocol keeps running within the working space without prompting any changes within the prevailing system.

Within the transport system, concerns have been directed to whether security improvements have been developed or not. According to Maple (2017), there is more attention that has been directed towards the low are and low power aspects of Internet of Things and devices that make use of its applications. Recent developments on a strong and low budget security have pointed at the efforts of IETF 6LoWPAN Group. The latter worked on an encapsulation which carries with header compression mechanisms believed to allow the IPv6 packets to be received or to be sent over the low-rate wireless area networks. Besides, nodes such as the ones in the IEEE 802.15.4-based networks are allowed to work in two secure modes include the ACL mode and the secure mode.

References

Maple, C., 2017. Security and privacy in the internet of things. Journal of Cyber Policy, 2(2), pp.155-184.

Pai, V., 2018. Survey on IoT Security Issues and Security Protocols. International Journal of Computer Applications, 975, p.8887.

El-hajj, M., Fadlallah, A., Chamoun, M. and Serhrouchni, A., 2019. A survey of internet of things (IoT) Authentication schemes. Sensors, 19(5), p.1141.

Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A.M., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso González, M.J. and Narayan, J., 2017. Mobility as a service: A critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes, and key challenges.

Khose, R., Salunkhe, V., Mahangade, S., Angane, N. and Gupta, P., 2017. Smart Transport System Using Radio Frequency Identification Technology. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 8(9).

Lohokare, J., Dani, R., Sontakke, S. and Adhao, R., 2017, February. Scalable tracking system for public buses using IoT technologies. In 2017 International Conference on Emerging Trends & Innovation in ICT (ICEI) (pp. 104-109). IEEE.

Costantini, F., Eleonora, A., Floridea Di, C. and Balint, F., 2017. IoT, Intelligent Transport Systems And Maas (Mobility As A Service). Research Department of Udine.