Semantic Identification of IoT Devices from Behavioral Primitives
arXiv SecurityArchived Jun 12, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.12793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Accurate identification of IoT devices is important for security management and policy enforcement. Existing approaches typically learn device signatures from packets or flow records. These methods operate on low-level communication observations whose traffic patterns may vary across deployments, software versions, and user interactions. This paper studies device identification using Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) profiles. MUD profiles descr
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 11 Jun 2026]
Semantic Identification of IoT Devices from Behavioral Primitives
Samuel Witt, Hassan Habibi Gharakheili
Accurate identification of IoT devices is important for security management and policy enforcement. Existing approaches typically learn device signatures from packets or flow records. These methods operate on low-level communication observations whose traffic patterns may vary across deployments, software versions, and user interactions. This paper studies device identification using Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) profiles. MUD profiles describe device behavior using Access Control Entries (ACEs), where each ACE represents a behavioral primitive consisting of protocol, endpoint, direction, and port semantics derived from device communication policy. Our contributions are threefold. First, using 28 publicly available MUD profiles containing 1,023 ACE instances, we construct ACE-level semantic representations from compact behavioral text and analyze their geometric properties. ACE-level representations preserve device-level behavioral distinctions more effectively than whole-profile embeddings and remain effective after whitening calibration. Second, we evaluate semantic ACE matching under controlled runtime variations, including unseen ACEs, drifted hostnames, and partial runtime observation. Exact ACE matching performs well when the overlap with the canonical MUD profile remains high, but degrades sharply when the overlap becomes sparse or disappears. In contrast, semantic ACE matching preserves useful identification evidence across these conditions. Third, we evaluate the same approach on real IoT traffic traces comprising more than 800,000 observed flows. Exact overlap remains the strongest signal when stable overlap exists, while semantic ACE matching provides stronger identification evidence during the early stages of observation, frequently retains the correct device among the highest-ranked candidates, and remains effective under sparse-overlap runtime traffic.
Comments: 14 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
ACM classes: C.2.3; K.6.5; I.5.4
Cite as: arXiv:2606.12793 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2606.12793v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.12793
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Hassan Habibi Gharakheili [view email]
[v1] Thu, 11 Jun 2026 01:41:23 UTC (67 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.IR
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)