Fog computing security and privacy issues, open challenges, and blockchain solution: An overview

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)
Vol. 11, No. 6, December 2021, pp. 5081~5088
ISSN: 2088-8708, DOI: 10.11591/ijece.v11i6.pp5081-5088  5081
Journal homepage: http://ijece.iaescore.com
Fog computing security and privacy issues, open challenges, and
blockchain solution: An overview
Yehia Ibrahim Alzoubi, Ahmad Al-Ahmad, Ashraf Jaradat
Management Information Systems Department, College of Business Administration,
American University of the Middle East, Kuwait
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Mar 27, 2020
Revised May 5, 2021
Accepted May 18, 2021
Due to the expansion growth of the IoT devices, Fog computing was
proposed to enhance the low latency IoT applications and meet the
distribution nature of these devices. However, Fog computing was criticized
for several privacy and security vulnerabilities. This paper aims to identify
and discuss the security challenges for Fog computing. It also discusses
blockchain technology as a complementary mechanism associated with Fog
computing to mitigate the impact of these issues. The findings of this paper
reveal that blockchain can meet the privacy and security requirements of fog
computing; however, there are several limitations of blockchain that should
be further investigated in the context of Fog computing.
Keywords:
Application
Benefit
Fog computing
IoT
Security
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.
Corresponding Author:
Ahmad Al-Ahmad
Management Information Systems Department College of Business Administration
American University of the Middle East, Kuwait
Email: ahmad.alahmad@aum.edu.kw
1. INTRODUCTION
IoT is a technology that is used in the interconnectivity of several types of physical devices with
embedded software such as PDAs, smartphones, smart vehicles, smart meters, and sensors. On the other
hand, Cloud computing is a technology that provides on-demand computing resources [1]. IoT devices
depend on the Cloud to improve flexibility, system stability, fault tolerance, cost-effective, innovative
business models, and better communications [2], [3]. Due to the expansion growth of the number of IoT
devices [4], the Cloud has to deal with a massive amount of data that include confidential and sensitive data.
Therefore, it requires security mechanisms to protect confidentiality, privacy, data integrity and to eliminate
security threats. Likewise, Cloud computing architecture when used with IoT devices may suffer from a
critical challenge related to delay-sensitive applications such as online games and emergency services which
might be ruined when unexpected delays occur. Consequently, fog computing (FC) has been proposed to
overcome these drawbacks of Cloud computing traditional drawbacks [5], [6].
FC is “an end-to-end horizontal architecture that distributes computing, storage, control, and
networking functions closer to users along the Cloud-to-thing continuum” [7]. FC can help to address several
security concerns related to Cloud and IoT generated data security. FC facilitates the on-site data storage and
analysis of time-sensitive heterogeneous data by reducing the amount of confidential data stored and
transmitted to the Cloud. Moreover, FC can help to mitigate latency issues, unavailability of location
awareness, mobility support, and bandwidth obstacles [8], [9]. Approximately, 45% of IoT-generated data
will use FC that can be installed within the close range of IoT sensors and devices for local processing and
data storage [10], [11].
Despite the above-mentioned benefits, FC compromises several issues. These issues due to the
distributed and homogeneous nature of FC, its extension of the Cloud which inherits several issues from the

 ISSN: 2088-8708
Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 11, No. 6, December 2021 : 5081 - 5088
5082
Cloud, and its proximity to IoT devices [12]. The most challenging issues that have been reported in the
literature were privacy and security issues. Fortunately, many studies have recently reported that security and
privacy issues in FC can be mitigated by adopting the blockchain (BC) technology [13]-[16]. BC has
originally used in Bitcoin; however, recently many applications have adopted BC to enhance privacy and
security online transactions [17]. Accordingly, this research is conducted to improve the general
understanding of the FC security challenges for future digital infrastructure and how BC can mitigate the
effect of these challenges. Hence, this paper aims to answer the following research questions:
RQ1 : What are the security and privacy issues that face FC?
RQ2 : How BC can mitigate the impact of FC security and privacy issues?
The main contributions of this study are: i) identify and analyze the security challenges along with
their existing solutions and respective limitations, ii) study the complementary relationship between BC and
FC by exploring BC-based solutions to cater a Fog-enabled IoT’s privacy and security concerns. The rest of
this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the background of FC. Section 3 discusses the state-of-
the-art privacy and security challenges due to the use of FC. Section 4 discusses how BC can mitigate the
open challenges of security and privacy in FC. Section 5 concludes this paper.
2. FOG COMPUTING BACKGROUND
Figure 1 provides a holistic view of the FC-IoT architecture. In this architecture, each IoT device
can be connected to one Fog node through wired or wireless access media such as ZigBee and WiFi. Fog
nodes communicate with each other through wireless or wired media as well. Virtualization technologies
such as software-defined network and network functions virtualization are used to achieve network
virtualization and traffic engineering [6], [18]. In this architecture, three layers can be identified; IoT device layer (i.e.,
end-user’s devices such as smartphone, smartwatches, and so on), Fog layer (i.e., routers, switches, computers, and
so on), and Cloud layer (i.e., the central storage and control devices and systems) [19]-[21].
A typical BC and smart contract implementation also illustrated in Figure 1. The data sent from IoT
devices to the Fog node for data aggregation and further analysis [22]. Fog nodes enforce predefined security
policies to manage connected IoT devices and services and also play an intermediate role of interaction
between the Cloud and the public BC which enable indexing of authentication for data query [23]. The
diagram explains real-time indexing, BC enabled authentication and secure data transfer. The data transferred
is encrypted using an encryption algorithm such as AES and RSA which provides a short key establishment
time and protects against network attacks [23]. In short, BC enables an indexing authentication approach that
represents a scalable, decentralized, and protected data sharing in FC.
Figure 1. BC-fog architecture
3. SECURITY AND PRIVACY ISSUES OF FOG COMPUTING
Due to the nature of the FC of distribution, heterogeneity, closeness to IoT devices, and extension of
Cloud computing many security and privacy issues were reported in the literature. This makes FC vulnerable
to many attacks such as Man-in-the-Middle, Denial-of-Service, Rogue Fog Node, and Sybil attacks [24].
Some of these challenges have been provided some solutions as shown in Table 1.

Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708 
Fog computing security and privacy issues, open challenges, and blockchain … (Yehia Ibrahim Alzoubi)
5083
Table 1. Summary of recommended solutions for some of security and privacy issues of FC
Issue Recommendation
Access
control
Several solutions were provided in the literature such as attribute-based encryption (ABE) access control [25], fine-grained
access control [26], policy-driven management framework [27], leakage-resilient functional encryption schemes, device
management, and key management [28], [29].
Packet
Forwarding
It should be ensured that the features of the sent packet are maintained to guarantee the privacy of the packet sent
between two Fog nodes or between Fog and IoT devices. End-to-end connectivity requires the cooperation of other
nodes to enable message delivery and privacy-preserving packet forwarding should be used [28].
Virtualization A lack of security countermeasures may result in enabling VM to manipulate the services of the Fog or taking
control of the underlying operating system and hardware. Several solutions have been proposed such as
implementing isolation policies, network abstraction, VM monitoring, multi-factor authentication, installation of
detection systems at host and network, user-based permissions model, and hardening the hypervisor [25], [30], [31].
Fault
Tolerance
Attackers may take control over or disable Fog nodes or the entire structure, due to misconfigurations, out-of-date
software, weaknesses, and other faults. Therefore, participating in various policies and mechanisms as well as the
deployment of a proactive fault-tolerance method is vital [25], [32].
Data
Management
Data identification, aggregation, search, analysis, sharing, and distribution represent another issue for FC. Several
mechanisms were proposed to ensure data integrity such as Trusted Platform Module (TPM), homomorphic
encryption, one-way entrance permutation, key distribution, searchable, symmetric, and asymmetric encryption, data
encryption schema used for single keyword search, and key-aggregate encryptions [6], [28], [33].
Light-weight
Protocol
Design
Lightweight protocols should support real-time service performance by reducing the communication between the
IoT devices and Fog nodes. Various lightweight cryptographic schemes and techniques were anticipated to address
this issue including elliptic curve cryptosystem [28], has functions, masking techniques, and stream chippers for
secure end-to-end communication [6].
Malicious
Fog Node
In order to avoid this issue, it was suggested to deploy fake node detection systems and trust-based routing
mechanisms [6], creating and deleting virtual machine instances in a dynamic way complicates the process of
maintaining a blacklist of rogue nodes [34].
The security and privacy solutions of FC proposed by literature oversimplified the real ecosystem
nature of FC assuming FC as a single Cloud provider. FC compromises numerous cooperating service
providers, services, and infrastructures related to diverse trust domains [35]. Therefore, state-of-the-art
solutions are essential to encounter the security and privacy requirements for the FC. These solutions should
ease the collaboration between different components in this complex environment. Table 2 summarizes the
open questions and research challenges in this context.
Table 2. Open research challenges of security and privacy issues of FC
Issue Open Research Challenges
Authenticatio
n
Since FC offers different services to a huge number of IoT devices, authentication should be applied at different
levels during communication between Fog nodes and IoT devices [25]. In spite of the new authentication techniques that
have been proposed such as identity, Decoy, anonymous, and cooperative, single-domain, cross-domain, and handover
authentication [28], authentication represents one of the major worries in FC [4].
Detection
Systems
Although several detection systems were proposed such as signature-based and neural network-based, fuzzy logic,
lightweight countermeasure utilizing bloom filters, and distributed detection systems [23]-[25], there is a vital need
for new systems that can integrate the different detection components which are distributed in the Fog network [24].
Trust
Management
Trust, in FC, must be enabled by the Fog nodes. Moreover, Fog nodes that are delegated with data and processing
requests by the IoT devices are mandatory to create consistent communications with the Fog nodes. This two-way
challenge makes the creation of the trust a challenging task, despite several trust models that have been proposed
such as trusted execution environment (TEE), region-based trust-aware (RBTA), and trusted distributed platform
over the edge devices [25], [28].
Join/Leave
Node
There is a vital need to create an authentication structure whenever an IoT device leaves one Fog node and join
another or when a Fog node leaves the Fog layer. This structure should be of low complexity. Moreover, the system
should be able to identify the misbehaved IoT device [24], [36].
Forensics There is a big number of log records FC. This hardens the acquirement of the log data from Fog nodes [37]. Some
proposed solutions were by keeping tracking of changes in data location among regions using mobility service (MS)
and location register database (LRD) [25]. However, Fog forensics are questioned to some boundaries like the need
for international regulation and application-level logging [38]. Furthermore, more resources and computational
processing power to store trusted evidence in a distributed ecosystem with multiple trust domains [21].
Privacy
Preservation
Comparing to Cloud computing, FC is more vulnerable than Cloud computing in terms of privacy risks (i.e., data,
identity, location, and usage privacy). The vulnerability is observed due to the closeness of Fog nodes to the
customer, which allows gathering more sensitive information from them and computing the customer data is
outsourced to the Fog node, which might collect data from IoT services and relate them to the real identities of the
clients [39]. Several solutions have been suggested in the literature to preserve the privacy of data in Fog
environment like masking technique or lightweight encryption algorithms, Home-Area Network (HAN), identity
obstruction techniques, differential and homomorphic techniques, identity-based and attribute-based encryptions,
and proxy re-encryption [1], [40].
Several recommendations were provided in the literature to enhance security and privacy in the Fog
environment [14], [17], [26], [38], [41]-[49]. i) Deliver the elementary services of access control,

 ISSN: 2088-8708
5084
authentication, and authorization of all components involved in the Fog environment in order to establish
secure communication channels, ii) Monitor the status of infrastructure using situational awareness
mechanisms, iii) FC should provide privacy for both IoT devices and the service providers as these providers
are part of the FC, iv) FC must provide digital evidence management (Forensics), v) BC technology can
provide a high privacy and security for FC since it permits transparent and provable evidence, increases trust,
and enhances data sharing decisions. Recently, many authors argued that BC can overcome many of the
above privacy and security challenges. Their findings will be included in the following discussion.
4. BLOCKCHAIN SOLUTION
This section discusses how BC may help to mitigate the open research challenges of security and
privacy issues of FC. Initially, BC technology originated in 2008 from a paper by Nakamoto [50] on bitcoin.
BC is a chain of blocks that store a committed transaction by using a public ledger. It has emerged as a
disruptive force, general-purpose technology for industries to support information exchange and transactions that
require authentication and trust [51]. BC offers a decentralized shared database with transparent and immutable
transaction records. It enables peer-to-peer transfer of digital assets without any intermediaries [6].
Some key characteristics, such as decentralization, persistency, anonymity, and auditability, are
associated with BC technology [52]. BC persistency feature assures the ability to measure trust and offers
producers and consumers the ability to prove their data are authentic. BC anonymity can help to prevent the
producer's and consumer's identity [24]. BC decentralization nature of synchronized online registries can
detect and prevent malicious actions [24]. Furthermore, BC compromises several core technologies, such as
digital signatures, cryptographic hash, and distributed consensus algorithms that can significantly enhance
security and privacy concerns [51].
Smart contracts in BC is an effective rules to authenticate the IoT devices which protect data privacy [51].
Furthermore, they are useful in detecting and preventing malicious actions. Providing unique guide and
symmetric key pair to each IoT device connected to the BC network is another motivation to implement BC
technology as it simplifies the utilization of security protocols [23]. BC provides secure communication
among IoT devices and enables the verification of the device’s identity and ensures verified cryptography of
the transactions [53].
Due to the above features, BC can be a useful technology to cater to the above-mentioned security
and privacy issues in FC-IoT systems. It is in an easy, efficient, trustworthy, and secured manner [54]. BC
ensures security, authentication, and integrity of transmitted data by IoT devices to be cryptographically proofed
and assigned by the authentic sender. BC provides secure tracking of IoT device transactions easier [55].
As FC possesses a distributed computing environment, BC technology can offer good grounds for
FC-enabled IoT systems to build and manage decentralized trust and security solutions [24]. BC can detect
and isolate the malfunctioning node to protect the whole system from any security breach [6]. This provides
self-healing capability to the Fog-enabled IoT systems. The security system equipped with BC-based security
satisfies most of the requirements of Fog-enabled IoT systems by enhancing independent operation between
all the connected nodes [55]. Table 3 (in appendix) summarizes how BC can enhance security and privacy in
FC based on the latest literature.
5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
IoT devices are vulnerable to different security attacks due to the lack in hardware and software
security designs. This paper discusses potential security and privacy challenges observed from Fog-enabled
IoT literatures. It also discussed BC as an emerging security and privacy solution for Fog-enabled IoT
domain. This paper, provides an overview of the open challenges of FC security and privacy issues. It also
provides an overview of how BC can mitigate most of these challenges. The BC characteristics such as
decentralization can provide a mechanism that enhance security, authentication, and integrity of data sent by
IoT devices. It also ensures anonymity of the IoT devices.
Despite the above-mentioned characteristics and benefits of BC if used in FC, not all Fog
applications are supported by all BC consensus mechanisms. For instance, proof of work (PoW) cannot be
hosted on Fog devices as it demands enormous resources such as power and computing to execute
transactions. Moreover, bitcoin BC poses response time latency in transaction validation process which make
it not the best choice for real-time applications. In addition, due to the tremendous rate of growth in the
number of IoT devices, BC in FC may face an issue in scalability. Therefore, more research is yet to be
accompanied in this era. The findings of this paper guide academics and industries to investigate new
answers to the open questions of the FC security and privacy issues.

5085
APPENDIX
Table 3. Open research challenges of security and privacy issues of FC
Domain BC Advantages
Security Reduce security threats: BC can be used to create secured virtual zones that help in mitigating the effect and
protecting the system against several threat attacks, such as cache poisoning, ARP spoofing, and denial of service
attacks [56].
Well-structured: BC is based on a clear well-defined structure that takes into consideration all security aspects such
as authentication, authorization, and data protection [57].
Enhance security: BC encrypt the data exchanged within the architecture, which in return enhances the security of the
system [58].
Enhance IoT security: BC enrich the security in the IoT devices by overcoming the limitation of the devices when
applying security policies [59].
Prevent from a single point of failure: Being decentralized made the BC architecture not having such a weak point as
a single point of failure [56].
Preservation Enhance Data integrity: BC protects efficiently the data from unintended and incomplete changes due to the solid
trust verification process for any transaction types [60].
Protect users and device identity: BC protects the identity of the IoT devices by supporting anonymous
communication methods [60]
Enhance independency: BC reduce the need to have a third-party to verify entities or processes which minimizes the
sharing of data with external bodies [58].
Enhance confidentiality: BC architecture enable the user to control his data in term of locations to save the entities to
participate in the trust verification process [61].
Enhance authentication: BC uses immune verification and validation processes that make identity theft extremely
difficult if not impossible [62].
Performance Enhance performance: BC uses Software-Defined Networks (SDN), which may enhance certain functions in the
applied architecture, such as authentication and logging [59].
Reduce delay: Distribution of processes in the BC will reduce the delay in delivering the required response from the
system [63].
Reduce Overhead: Distribution of processes in the BC will reduce the overhead that were on a single machine [64].
Scalability Scalability: BC doesn’t have any restriction on the type of devices nor the process scenario. For instance, BC can be
implemented using any IoT device, any Fog node structure, and any decentralized process [63].
Flexibility Improve Flexibility: BC has different implementation models that go beyond the classical implementation. This will
help BC in meeting various needs and requirements. For instance, security requirements can be fulfilled by using
centralized and decentralized components in the architecture, for example, the use of a centralized ledger, instead of a
centralized ledger, while using a distributed trust can help to solve satisfies certain security requests [53].
Efficiency Enhance geographical data use: BC uses the geographical data to prove and verify the process and devices while
keeping the geographical data protected [64].
Support concurrency: BC enables multiple processes to be executed at the same time, which in return will enhance
the efficiency, power usage and reduce the resources needed [65].
Energy
saving
Save energy: BC enhances the power usage efficiency as it distributes the tasks and reduces the overhead on the IoT
devices [59].
Auditability Enhance auditability: BC processes are transparent and logged in all the participants of the architecture [6].
REFERENCES
[1] P. Prakash, K. Darshaun, P. Yaazhlene, M. V. Ganesh, and B. Vasudha, "Fog Computing: Issues, Challenges and
Future Directions," International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 7, no. 6,
pp. 3669-3673, 2017, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v7i6.pp3669-3673.
[2] A. Yassine, S. Singh, M. S. Hossain, and G. Muhammad, "IoT big data analytics for smart homes with fog and
cloud computing," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 91, pp. 563-573, 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.future.2018.08.040.
[3] R. Iqbal, T. A. Butt, M. Afzaal, and K. Salah, "Trust management in social Internet of vehicles: Factors, challenges,
blockchain, and fog solutions," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 15, no. 1, 2018,
doi: 10.1177/1550147719825820.
[4] Y. I. Alzoubi, A. Al-Ahmad, A. Jaradat, and V. H. Osmanaj, "Fog Computing Architecture, Benefits, Security, and
Privacy, for the Internet of Thing Applications: An Overview," Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information
Technology, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 436-451, 2021, doi: 10.1002/spy2.145.
[5] Z. Ashi, M. Al-Fawa'reh, and M. Al-Fayoumi, "Fog Computing: Security Challenges and Countermeasures,"
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 175, no. 15, pp. 30-36, 2020, doi: 10.5120/ijca2020920648.
[6] N. Tariq et al., "The security of big data in fog-enabled IoT applications including blockchain: A survey," Sensors,
vol. 19, no. 8, 2019, Art. no. 1788, doi: 10.3390/s19081788.
[7] M. Chiang, S. Ha, I. Chih-Lin, F. Risso, and T. Zhang, "Clarifying fog computing and networking: 10 questions and
answers," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 18-20, 2017, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2017.7901470.
[8] C. Rupa, R. Patan, F. Al-Turjman, and L. Mostarda, "Enhancing the Access Privacy of IDaaS System Using SAML
Protocol in Fog Computing," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 168793-168801, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3022957.
[9] P. Hu, H. Ning, T. Qiu, H. Song, Y. Wang, and X. Yao, "Security and privacy preservation scheme of face
identification and resolution framework using fog computing in internet of things," IEEE Internet of Things
Journal, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1143-1155, 2017, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2017.2659783.

 ISSN: 2088-8708
5086
[10] X. Shen, L. Zhu, C. Xu, K. Sharif, and R. Lu, "A privacy-preserving data aggregation scheme for dynamic groups
in fog computing," Information Sciences, vol. 514, pp. 118-130, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.12.007.
[11] R. Neware and U. Shrawankar, "Fog Computing Architecture, Applications and Security Issues," International
Journal of Fog Computing (IJFC), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 75-105, 2020, doi: 10.20944/preprints201903.0145.v1.
[12] Z. Chen, H. Cui, E. Wu, Y. Li, and Y. Xi, "Secure Distributed Data Management for Fog Computing in Large-
Scale IoT Application: A Blockchain-Based Solution," IEEE International Conference on Communications
Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICCWorkshops49005.2020.9145381.
[13] H. Elazhary, "Internet of Things (IoT), mobile cloud, cloudlet, mobile IoT, IoT cloud, fog, mobile edge, and edge
emerging computing paradigms: Disambiguation and research directions," Journal of network and computer
applications, vol. 128, pp. 105-140, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2018.10.021.
[14] S. Nadeem, M. Rizwan, F. Ahmad, and J. Manzoor, "Securing cognitive radio vehicular ad hoc network with fog
node based distributed blockchain cloud architecture," International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and
Applications, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 288-295, 2019, doi: 10.14569/IJACSA.2019.0100138.
[15] A. S. Al-Ahmad, S. A. Aljunid, and N. K. Ismail, "Mobile cloud computing applications penetration testing model
design," International Journal of Information and Computer Security, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 210-226, 2020,
doi: 10.1504/IJICS.2020.108849.
[16] A. S. Al-Ahmad and H. Kahtan, "Cloud Computing Review: Features And Issues," 2018 International Conference
on Smart Computing and Electronic Enterprise (ICSCEE), 2018, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ICSCEE.2018.8538387.
[17] B. K. Mohanta, D. Jena, S. S. Panda, and S. Sobhanayak, "Blockchain technology: A survey on applications and
security privacy challenges," Internet of Things, vol. 8, 2019, Art. no. 100107, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2019.100107.
[18] P. Habibi, M. Farhoudi, S. Kazemian, S. Khorsandi, and A. Leon-Garcia, "Fog Computing: A Comprehensive
Architectural Survey," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 69105-69133, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983253.
[19] C. Mouradian, D. Naboulsi, S. Yangui, R. H. Glitho, M. J. Morrow, and P. A. Polakos, "A comprehensive survey
on fog computing: State-of-the-art and research challenges," IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 416-464, 2017, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2017.2771153.
[20] F. Haouari, R. Faraj, and J. M. AlJa'am, "Fog Computing Potentials, Applications, and Challenges," 2018 International
Conference on Computer and Applications (ICCA), 2018, pp. 399-406, doi: 10.1109/COMAPP.2018.8460182.
[21] Y. I. Alzoubi, V. H. Osmanaj, A. Jaradat, and A. Al-Ahmad, "Fog computing security andprivacy for the Internet of
Thing applications: State-of-the-art," Security and Privacy, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1-26, 2020, Art. no. e145,
doi: 10.1002/spy2.145.
[22] A. A.-N. Patwary, A. Fu, S. K. Battula, R. K. Naha, S. Garg, and A. Mahanti, "FogAuthChain: A secure location-
based authentication scheme in fog computing environments using Blockchain," Computer Communications,
vol. 162, pp. 212-224, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.08.021.
[23] P. Singh, A. Nayyar, A. Kaur, and U. Ghosh, "Blockchain and Fog Based Architecture for Internet of Everything in
Smart Cities," Future Internet, vol. 12, no 4, 2020, Art. no. 61, doi: /10.3390/fi12040061.
[24] N. S. Khan and M. A. Chishti, "Security Challenges in Fog and IoT, Blockchain Technology and Cell Tree
Solutions: A Review," Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 515-542, 2020,
DOI:10.12694/scpe.v21i3.1782
[25] R. Roman et al., "A survey and analysis of security threats and challenges," Future Generation Computer Systems,
vol. 78, pp. 680-698, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2016.11.009.
[26] A. Muthanna et al., "Secure and reliable IoT networks using fog computing with software-defined networking and
blockchain," Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019, Art. no. 15, doi: /10.3390/jsan8010015.
[27] R. Guo, C. Zhuang, H. Shi, Y. Zhang, and D. Zheng, "A lightweight verifiable outsourced decryption of attribute-
based encryption scheme for blockchain-enabled wireless body area network in fog computing," International
Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 16, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1550147720906796.
[28] J. Ni, K. Zhang, X. Lin, and X. S. Shen, "Securing fog computing for internet of things applications: Challenges
and solutions," IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 601-628, 2017,
doi: 10.1109/COMST.2017.2762345.
[29] A. Yousefpour et al., "All one needs to know about fog computing and related edge computing paradigms: A
complete survey," Journal of Systems Architecture, vol. 98, pp. 289-330, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.02.009.
[30] B. Z. Abbasi and M. A. Shah, "Fog computing: Security issues, solutions and robust practices," 2017 23rd
International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC), 2017, pp. 1-6,
doi: 10.23919/IConAC.2017.8082079.
[31] S. Khan, S. Parkinson, and Y. Qin, "Fog computing security: a review of current applications and security
solutions," Journal of Cloud Computing, vol. 6, 2017, Art. no. 90, doi: 10.1186/s13677-017-0090-3.
[32] R. K. Naha et al., "Fog Computing: Survey of trends, architectures, requirements, and research directions," IEEE
access, vol. 6, pp. 47980-48009, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2866491.
[33] Y. Guan, J. Shao, G. Wei, and M. Xie, "Data security and privacy in fog computing," IEEE Network, vol. 32,
pp. 106-111, 2018, doi: 10.1109/MNET.2018.1700250.
[34] H. Tian, F. Nan, C.-C. Chang, Y. Huang, J. Lu, and Y. Du, "Privacy-preserving public auditing for secure data
storage in fog-to-cloud computing," Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 127, pp. 59-69, 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2018.12.004.
[35] M. Mukherjee, M. A. Ferrag, L. Maglaras, A. Derhab, and M. Aazam, "Security and privacy issues and solutions
for fog," Fog and Fogonomics: Challenges and Practices of Fog Computing, Communication, Networking,
Strategy, and Economics, pp. 353-374, 2020.

5087
[36] A. K. Alhwaitat, S. Manaseer, and M. Alsyyed, "A survey of digital forensic methods under advanced persistent
threat in fog computing environment," Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, vol. 97, no. 18,
pp. 4934-4954, 2019.
[37] Y. Wang, T. Uehara, and R. Sasaki, "Fog computing: Issues and challenges in security and forensics," 2015 IEEE 39th
Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2015, pp. 53-59, doi: 10.1109/COMPSAC.2015.173.
[38] M. Mukherjee et al., "Security and privacy in fog computing: Challenges," IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 19293-19304,
2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2749422.
[39] N. Abubaker, L. Dervishi, and E. Ayday, "Privacy-preserving fog computing paradigm," 2017 IEEE Conference on
Communications and Network Security (CNS), 2017, pp. 502-509, doi: 10.1109/CNS.2017.8228709.
[40] S. Yi, Z. Qin, and Q. Li, "Security and privacy issues of fog computing: A survey," International conference on
wireless algorithms, systems, and applications, 2015, pp. 685-695, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21837-3_67.
[41] R. Rios, R. Roman, J. A. Onieva, and J. Lopez, "From SMOG to Fog: a security perspective," 2017 Second International
Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), 2017, pp. 56-61, doi: 10.1109/FMEC.2017.7946408.
[42] S. Tuli, R. Mahmud, S. Tuli, and R. Buyya, "Fogbus: A blockchain-based lightweight framework for edge and fog
computing," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 154, pp. 22-36, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.04.050.
[43] S.-H. Jang, J. Guejong, J. Jeong, and B. Sangmin, "Fog computing architecture based blockchain for industrial
IoT," International Conference on Computational Science, vol. 11538, 2019, pp. 593-606.
[44] H. L. Cech, M. Großmann, and U. R. Krieger, "A fog computing architecture to share sensor data by means of
blockchain functionality," 2019 IEEE International Conference on Fog Computing (ICFC), 2019, pp. 31-40,
doi: 10.1109/ICFC.2019.00013.
[45] K. Lei, M. Du, J. Huang, and T. Jin, "Groupchain: Towards a Scalable Public Blockchain in Fog Computing of IoT
Services Computing," IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 252-262, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/TSC.2019.2949801.
[46] X. Huang, D. Ye, R. Yu, and L. Shu, "Securing parked vehicle assisted fog computing with blockchain and optimal
smart contract design," IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 426-441, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/JAS.2020.1003039.
[47] N. Islam, Y. Faheem, I. U. Din, M. Talha, M. Guizani, and M. Khalil, "A blockchain-based fog computing
framework for activity recognition as an application to e-Healthcare services," Future Generation Computer
Systems, vol. 100, pp. 569-578, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2019.05.059.
[48] J. Yang, Z. Lu, and J. Wu, "Smart-toy-edge-computing-oriented data exchange based on blockchain," Journal of
Systems Architecture, vol. 87, pp. 36-48, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2018.05.001.
[49] A. Bonadio, F. Chiti, R. Fantacci, and V. Vespri, "An integrated framework for blockchain inspired fog
communications and computing in internet of vehicles," Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized
Computing, vol. 11, pp. 755-762, 2020.
[50] S. Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system," 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.
[51] O. Ali, A. Jaradat, AtikKulaki, and A. Abuhalimeh, "A comparative study: Blockchain technology utilization
benefits, challenges and functionalities," IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 12730-12749, 2021, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3050241.
[52] H. Baniata and A. Kertesz, "A Survey on Blockchain-Fog Integration Approaches," IEEE Access, vol. 8,
pp. 102657-102668, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2999213.
[53] Q. Wang, X. Zhu, Y. Ni, L. Gu, and H. Zhu, "Blockchain for the IoT and industrial IoT: A review," Internet of
Things, vol. 10, 2020, Art. no. 100081, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2019.100081.
[54] M. A. Ferrag, M. Derdour, M. Mukherjee, A. Derhab, L. Maglaras, and H. Janicke, "Blockchain technologies for
the internet of things: Research issues and challenges," IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 6, no. 2,
pp. 2188-2204, 2018, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2018.2882794.
[55] T. Alam, "Design a blockchain-based middleware layer in the Internet of Things Architecture," JOIV: International
Journal on Informatics Visualization, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 28-31, 2020, doi: 10.30630/joiv.4.1.334.
[56] J. Sengupta, S. Ruj, and S. D. Bit, "A Comprehensive survey on attacks, security issues and blockchain solutions
for IoT and IIoT," Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 149, 2020, Art. no. 102481,
doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2019.102481.
[57] S. El Kafhali, C. Chahir, M. Hanini, and K. Salah, "Architecture to manage Internet of Things data using
blockchain and fog computing," Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Big Data and Internet of
Things, 2019, pp. 1-8, Art. no. 32, doi: 10.1145/3372938.3372970.
[58] Y. Ma, Y. Sun, Y. Lei, N. Qin, and J. Lu, "A survey of blockchain technology on security, privacy, and trust in
crowdsourcing services," World Wide Web, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 393-419, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11280-019-00735-4.
[59] S. Misra, P. K. Deb, N. Pathak, and A. Mukherjee, "Blockchain-Enabled SDN for Securing Fog-Based Resource-
Constrained IoT," IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2020,
pp. 490-495, doi: 10.1109/INFOCOMWKSHPS50562.2020.9162706.
[60] M. A. Uddin, A. Stranieri, I. Gondal, and V. Balasubramanian, "Blockchain leveraged decentralized IoT eHealth
framework," Internet of Things, vol. 9, 2020, Art. no. 100159, doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2020.100159.
[61] Q. Kong, L. Su, and M. Ma, "Achieving Privacy-Preserving and Verifiable Data Sharing in Vehicular Fog With
Blockchain," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2020, pp. 1-10,
doi: 10.1109/TITS.2020.2983466.
[62] O. Mounnan, A. El Mouatasim, O. Manad, T. Hidar, A. Abou El Kalam, and N. Idboufker, "Privacy-Aware and
Authentication based on Blockchain with Fault Tolerance for IoT enabled Fog Computing," Fifth International

 ISSN: 2088-8708
5088
Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), 2020, pp. 347-352,
doi: 10.1109/FMEC49853.2020.9144845.
[63] L. Yang, M. Li, H. Zhang, H. Ji, M. Xiao, and X. Li, "Distributed Resource Management for Blockchain in Fog-
enabled IoT Networks," IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2330-2341, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3028071.
[64] N. C. Luong, Y. Jiao, P. Wang, D. Niyato, D. I. Kim, and Z. Han, "A Machine-Learning-Based Auction for
Resource Trading in Fog Computing," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 82-88, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.1900136.
[65] M. Savi et al., "A blockchain-based brokerage platform for fog computing resource federation," 23rd Conference
on Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops (ICIN), 2020, pp. 147-149,
doi: 10.1109/ICIN48450.2020.9059337.

Fog computing security and privacy issues, open challenges, and blockchain solution: An overview

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Fog computing security and privacy issues, open challenges, and blockchain solution: An overview (20)

More from IJECEIAES (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Fog computing security and privacy issues, open challenges, and blockchain solution: An overview