Enhancing Security and Trust in Internet of Things through Meshtastic Protocol Utilising Low-Range Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Enhancing Security and Trust in IoT through Meshtastic Protocol Utilising LoRa Technology" by Fabrizio Messina, Corrado Santoro, and Federico Fausto Santoro focuses on improving security and trustworthiness in Internet of Things (IoT) environments. The authors propose an integrated approach that leverages Meshtastic, a dynamic mesh networking protocol, and LoRa, a low-power long-range communication standard, to address common IoT security threats. They introduce a reputation model specifically designed for IoT and evaluate the performance of their solution through simulations and real-world experiments. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach in enhancing IoT security and trust.

Strengths:

1) Innovative combination of Meshtastic protocol and LoRa technology.

2) Comprehensive evaluation through both simulations and real-world experiments.

3) The reputation model adds a novel layer of security and trustworthiness.

Limitations:

1) The paper could explore more diverse IoT environments and use cases.

2) Further investigation into the scalability of the proposed solution in larger IoT networks might be beneficial.

3) The long-term impact and maintenance of the reputation model in dynamic IoT environments need more exploration.

Overall, the paper presents a significant contribution to IoT security, demonstrating a practical and effective approach to enhancing trust and security in IoT networks.

Comments and Questions :

1) What were the primary metrics used to evaluate the performance of the proposed solution in simulations and experiments?

2) How did the proposed solution perform in real-world experiments compared to the simulation results?

3) What are some potential real-world applications of this integrated approach in IoT environments?

4) How might the proposed solution impact the scalability and efficiency of IoT networks?

5) How does this approach compare with other existing solutions for enhancing IoT security?

6) Are there any notable trade-offs involved in using the Meshtastic protocol and LoRa technology for IoT security?

7) there is no need to put the source code of your algorithm, but just put the algorithm of the proposed method.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

"The reputation Model" is listed twice with different capitalization section 4.2 and section 5.2, which might indicate a lack of attention to detail in editing.

The language is clear and coherent, and the paper appears to be well-structured, which is crucial for academic writing. The paper should be accessible and understandable to readers in the field, although a thorough proofreading could enhance its professionalism.

Author Response

Responses in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the research gap is not mentioned at the end of the related works section. 

I didn't get that reputation increases with time. Please elaborate and justify it (also include it in the paper). 

Please justify the poor behaviour of Node 0. 

Author Response

Responses in attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper integrated a previously developed reputation model within the Meshtastic protocol to enhance security in IoTs environment that operate using Meshtastic technology.

The proposed architecture was evaluated using simulation and real experiments and the result showed the capability of the proposed structure to identify malicious nodes.

The main objectives are clear. However, here are some comments :

·         The introductory paragraph in section 2 “Related Works” stated that the related work covers 2 different types of works. It would be better if this is reflected in the organization of the paper through introducing subsections. 2.1 and 2.2.

·         Section 5 introduces the proposed integration. Providing a graphical representation of the integrated components would make it better for the reader to understand the proposed architecture.

·         A pseudocode for node activity will also enhance the readability of the proposed integration.

·         Regarding Listing 1: Python code, it would be better if it is attached as an appendix.

·         The first paragraph on page 13 needs to be rewritten avoiding any referral to the code. Just explain the functionalities.

·         The first time you use an abbreviation in the text, present both the spelled-out version and the short form. For example: LoRaWAN. Please check for all other abbreviations in your manuscript.

 

·         Further proofreading is required. For example, “the their behaviour is analyzed over time” page 2 line 77, “As rable 2 shows”  page 16 line 589. Please proofread the whole manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Further proofreading is required. For example, “the their behaviour is analyzed over time” page 2 line 77, “As rable 2 shows”  page 16 line 589. Please proofread the whole manuscript.

Author Response

responses in attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract, after the introduction, the authors should mention the problem that needs to be addressed before the method.

2. There should also be a mention of the statistical conclusions as well as the future work in the abstract.

3. The authors should provide pseudocode instead of Python code in order to provide more information to the reader.

4. It is necessary to update the reference in the document.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

responses in attache file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf