This document analyzes the energy efficiency of lightweight security protocols for machine-to-machine (M2M) and internet of things (IoT) environments. It discusses resource-constrained IoT device protocols like CoAP, MQTT, and XMPP. It also examines security protocols like PANA, LDAP, HIP-DEX, CB-ABE, and XACML. Simulation results are presented comparing the energy efficiency and performance of these protocols. The conclusion discusses plans to simulate protocols over delay tolerant networks and develop underwater variants of CoAP and MQTT with security.

1. An Energy Efficiency Analysis of Lightweight
Security Protocols for M2M/IoT
Khamdamboy Urunov, a Ph.D. student.
Special Communication Research Center.,
Graduate School of Financial Information
Security, Kookmin University
Seoul, South Korea
1

2. Contents
I. Introduction
II. Resource constrained environment protocols in M2M/IoT
2.1 The IoT resource constrained device protocol stack
2.2 M2M/IoT Application protocol
2.3 Pros and Cons of constrained application. Energy efficiency constrained protocols
III. Energy efficiency of Lightweight secure protocols for M2M/IoT
3.1. Security Lightweight protocols for M2M/IoT
3.2. Security Lightweight protocols capabilities
3.3. Output of an energy efficiency in IoT and future simulation result
IV. Conclusion
V. Reference
2

3. Introduction
The Internet of Things (IoT) consists of two different type environments:
 resource-constrained
 resource-rich devices
This paper covered energy consumption and an efficiency for the IoT security protocols and
other aspects.
Our goal analysis of constrained lightweight protocols
 CoAP
 MQTT
 AMQT
 XMPP
The security facilities are adjusting the whole process of network protocols
 PANA
 HIP-DEX
 CB-ABE
 XACML
3

4. II. RESOURCE CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT PROTOCOLS IN
M2M/IOT
4
The heterogeneous network interconnection is established via the internet and the
security requirements should be consistent with the existing Internet environment.
The main reason in analysis process has getting various
 low memory availability
 power
 low bandwidth requirement
 high packet loss combined
Our goal analysis of constrained lightweight protocols
 CoAP (The Constrained Application Protocol)
 MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry Transport)
 AMQT (Advanced Message Queueing Protocol)
 XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol)

5. 2.1. The IoT resource constrained device protocol stack
5
IoT architecture layer protocols should make provision interoperability system
network
Fig.1 Architecture constrained IoT protocols
The Electronic Product Code (EPC)
 a unique identification number
 an RFID tag
 is used basically in the supply chain management to identify items
Z-Wave:
 a low-power wireless communication protocol for Home Automation Networks
(HAN)
 has been used widely in the remote control applications in smart homes
 small-size commercial domains
 30 meters point-to-point communication

6. 2.2. M2M/IoT Application protocol
6Fig.2 CoAP protocol functionality
Application Layer Protocols:
 CoAP
 AMQP
 XMPP
 MQTT
 and REST HTTP
 CoAP (The Constrained Application Protocol)

7. 7Fig.3 MQTT application protocol functionality
The MQTT protocol represents an ideal messaging protocol for the IoT and M2M
communications.
2.2. M2M/IoT Application protocol (cont...)
 MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry
Transport)
 to provide routing for small
 cheap
 low power
 low memory devices in vulnerable
 low bandwidth networks

8. 2.3. Pros and Cons of constrained application. Energy
efficiency constrained protocols
8
 CoAP is more efficient than HTTP less that MQTT protocol
 the most important point is the network real-time communication
 messaging protocol XMPP has been verifying applicability to real-time communications on the
web
 MQTT delivers messages with a lower delay than CoAP when the packet loss rate is low
 the packet loss rate is high, CoAP outperforms MQTT
 the case of small size messages and a loss rate of 25%,
 CoAP outperforms MQTT in generating less extra traffic
Fig.4 IoT protocol layer solution
Pros and Cons solution:

9. III. ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF LIGHTWEIGHT SECURE
PROTOCOLS FOR M2M/IOT
9
 Distributed Capability-based Access Control (DCap-BAC) approach, in order
to establish the notions of a secure and privacy-preserving M2M-enabled IoT.
 DCap-BAC token it can make use of CoAP-DTLS exchange attaching the
credential for a secure and protected M2M communication.
 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), is an Internet protocol that
email and other programs use to look up information from a server. It is essentially
a distributed database.
 IoT bootstrapping protocols consists of such kind of Host Identity Protocol
Diet Exchange (HIP-DEX) security protocol.

10. 3.1. Security Lightweight protocols for
M2M/IoT
10
The main authentication and authorization for communication distinguish two
smart objects, given the global scale of the IoT, it is like that smart objects often
operate as groups of entities (interaction or collaborating for a common purpose).
Security bootstrapping process usually consists of a set of procedures in which a
node is installed and commissioned within a network.
Fig.5 Operational Security protocols for M2M/IoT

11. 3.2. Security Lightweight protocols capabilities
11
 PANA - Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access represent lighter option to
transfer EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol), which is an important feature.
 Distributed Capability-based Access Control (DCap-BAC) in order to establish the notions
of a secure and privacy-preserving M2M-enabled IoT.
 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) is an Internet protocol that email and other
programs use to look up information from a server.
 XACML as standard access control technology after the smart object consumer obtains the
required DCap-BAC token it can make use of CoAP-DTLS exchange attaching the credential for a
secure and protected M2M communication.
 Cipher text - Policy Attribute-Based Encryption (CB-ABE) has been recently proposed as a
highly flexible cryptographic scheme, with provides the ability to define groups and subgroups of
smart objects according to a different combination of identity attributes.

12. 3.3. Output of an energy efficiency in IoT and future
simulation result
12
 DCap-BAC has already been proven as an efficient and flexible access control
approach for IoT environments
 it does not support privacy-preserving features.
 PANA is the only protocol that is able to operate between several IP hops and to
interact with AAA infrastructures for network access control
Table.1- Security protocols definition and energy
efficiency

13. CONCLUSIO
N
13
 already analysis CoAP, MQTT, XMPP – TLS/DTLS and PANA, LDAP, XIP-
DEX security protocols
 possible energy efficiency and security reliability are incoming more society life
 QualNet or Matlab simulator facility is not support M2M protocols, but near the
future it will simulate and useability
 the CoAP protocol the data exchanging process delay and loss data while will
simulate and implement DTN (Delay Tolerant Network) Bundle Layer mechanism
 In our future plan make a CoAP and MQTT protocol for Underwater (it’s called
u-CoAP u-MQTT)
 Future plan make a security communication underwater u-CoAP, u-MQTT
protocols

14. Q&A
Thank you!
hamdamboy.urunov@gmail.com
14